Posted on 07/13/2004 6:50:48 AM PDT by Area Freeper
Post this rant over at DU. You'll get all the accolades you can handle.
There is plenty of discussion and disagreement here, and not just the token variety. But if you expect to come onto a self-proclaimed conservative website and start bashing everything about conservatives and the website itself, while being a cheerleader for solidly leftist ideas, you don't belong here.
In your leftist mind, you obviously think you have a moral right, you're probably misguided enough to think you have a Constitutional right, to post anything you want to here and that it would be fascist of Free Republic to ban you.
Let me tell you, you're wrong. This isn't the public bus, it's a private website. Your presense here is tolerated by the good grace of the owner. You have no more "right" to be here than you have the right to plop down a sleeping bag on my living room floor and call it your house.
I admire your bravery at wading into hostile territory, but it's not your place to tell us how things should be on Free Republic.
That's certainly true. The question is, do homosexuals have the right to force others to approve of, accept and "celebrate" such relationships.
The libertarian answer is to get government out of the marriage business. Were that entirely done, I'd have no problem with homosexuals "marrying" or whatever they wanted to call it.
Of course, the libertarian solution also allows me to disapprove, not accept and condemn such relationships. I would also have the right to discriminate against those who shove unpleasant personal characteristics in my face - or even if I just didn't like them personally. Bar owners would be equally within their rights to put up "No Fags" or "No Breeders" signs.
But in the current situation, until we achieve a more libertarian society, allowing a fraction of 2% of the population to redefine a social institution of several thousand years standing is just plain silly.
BTW, any logic that justifies changing marriage to include two same sex partners is just as good when applied to multiple partners and non-human partners.
Read the Canadian court decision on this subject. The convolutions they go through to justify two same sex partners are clearly straining at gnats while swallowing camels. Pop out the two same sex partners and pop in a boy and his dog, my brother & three sisters, me and my pet rock - whatever - and it reads just as well.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.