Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Candidate Compares Gay Marriage To Bestiality
The Indy Channel ^ | August 16, 2006 | AP

Posted on 08/16/2006 9:50:04 AM PDT by Abathar

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-129 last
To: Idaho Whacko
If you want to change the way things are, you have to prove your point.

I have mentioned my point repeatedly. Marriage provides protections to the couple and to any children this couple may have. Homosexuals are a couple and more and more are starting to have children. They deserve the same protections as a heterosexual couple. Granting them marriage is the only way to do this.

You argue that homosexuals are somehow inferior to heterosexuals. I have seen this thinking many times. It used to be that minorities were viewed in the same way. Perhaps you will never agree, but I have met many decent, hard-working gays and lesbians. Many of them started out dating other members of the opposite sex, but unfortunately, they find members of their own sex attractive and are not interested in members of the opposite sex. Is this a disease? I know many people around here think so, but I do not. True, they deviate from the norm, but does that make them bad people? Does that make them less worthy?

And as for cheapening marriage, how do you tell your virgin 13 year old daughter to save it for marriage if she snorts at the word because marriage now means whatever you want it to mean?

Marriage already means different things to different people. Some have no respect for the idea and cheat repeatedly. Some save themselves for marriage. Don't go blaming others for your lack of parenting. My parents raised me with certain ideals that I hold myself to. I will raise my children with these same ideals. But I do not enforce my ideals upon others. My culture is mine, I do not enforce it upon others, and I do not see why the government has to get involved.

I recall a story very recently about a man rolling a pig head into a mosque. Everybody was ranting that the government should not get involved with religion in terms of granting special protections for the Muslims. I tend to agree. However, when it comes to marriage, I hear all sorts of talk about tradition and religion.

121 posted on 08/17/2006 1:10:08 PM PDT by psychoknk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: psychoknk

You have met MANY ...gays? Most people rarely associate with them, simple laws of averages.

So I guess you tend to hang out with them, got a bit of a limp wrist yourself, and this is all about validating you as well. Thanks for clueing us in.


122 posted on 08/17/2006 1:27:57 PM PDT by Idaho Whacko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Abathar

Well, since the Bible verses condemning homosexuality are bracketed on either side with verses re bestiality and incest, it's hard not to see the logic.


123 posted on 08/17/2006 1:29:20 PM PDT by MayflowerMadam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Idaho Whacko

So you've reduced yourself from trying to make a point to attacking me, eh? I guess I win by default.


124 posted on 08/17/2006 1:59:50 PM PDT by psychoknk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: psychoknk

I'm not attacking you, just accepting that your arguments really don't even mean much to you, you will say anything for validation. So how can we argue or discuss, if you don't come at it honestly?


125 posted on 08/17/2006 2:42:52 PM PDT by Idaho Whacko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Idaho Whacko
I'm not attacking you, just accepting that your arguments really don't even mean much to you, you will say anything for validation. So how can we argue or discuss, if you don't come at it honestly?

I am honest. I am guessing that you are attacking my "I have met many decent, hard-working gays and lesbians" comment. This is true, although I suppose there is no way to prove it online. I have worked with a few homosexuals, and they tended to do well and I have not had any problems with their work or working with them. I also have a lesbian friend, through which I have met many homosexuals. Also, in college there were a number of gays I met through class and in my dorms. I can't say that I met any delinquents, and while I did find the effeminate nature of many male homosexuals annoying, I was not bothered by them. It seemed that some of them (male and female) cared very deeply for their partners, and I saw no reason to prohibit their marriage. I think these people are just that, people. They have a different sexual preference, and a few have told me that they wish they were straight. However, they just do not get aroused by the opposite sex, and find themselves happier with a partner of the same sex. Not my gig, and I don't agree with most of them politically (homosexuals tend to be liberal; hence pro-gun-control and anti-Israel), but I still believe that they should have the right to get married as heterosexuals would.

126 posted on 08/17/2006 4:32:04 PM PDT by psychoknk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: psychoknk

What % are gay in America? About 3%. What % want to get married? Let me throw out a number, a guess. 20% I pick a low number, because most men are horndogs (or would like to be if not constrained by societal pressure, religious morality etc), most gay men are VERY promiscuous. The average gay man, according to surveys, have had hundreds of lovers. Not marriage material. So maybe 20% of 3% of the population would be in a gay/lesbian marriage, that is .6%

What % would be likely to be involved in a 5th amendment situation? Let's say 20%. Obviously, any of these numbers can be argued. so 20% of .6% =.12%

So for the benefit of about .12% of the population, you would discard millenia of tradition, tradition that a solid majority of people want to see untouched.

For .12% you would go against the religious beliefs of the majority of the country. You would contribute to the weakening of the foundations of an institution that is CRITICAL to children, and to the mainenence of a society that is not totally dependent on the govt (face it, without families, welfare becomes "daddy").

This is why I question your motives, there is no logic to counter this. I cannot explain it any better, and I find it hard that someone would need this much of a breakdown to get it.


127 posted on 08/18/2006 6:19:08 AM PDT by Idaho Whacko
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Idaho Whacko
I am asking you to spell it out because I do not want to put arguments in your mouth. Here is my point:

First of all, it doesn't matter how many members of the population are receiving unequal treatment. If something is unfair and it affects a portion of the population, that must be changed.

Secondly, allowing gays to get married does not destroy marriage. Just because it is a tradition does not mean it should not be touched. As I have said repeatedly, I will say again, appeals to tradition are logical fallacies. Just because something was done in the past for years does not make it right. There used to be laws on the books saying homosexuality was illegal, and would sentence people to death. Those laws were not just. In addition, I "would go against the religious beliefs of the majority of the country" because as it states in the first amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." Laws are not to be based off of religion.

Now, here is where I can understand your point. I am opposed to homosexuals getting married in Synagogues and Churches and if I was religious, I would not join a congregation that specifically goes against its religious text. If it is so offensive to for gays to call what they have marriage, which has religious connotations, then the government should not be giving out marriages. Call what you get from the government a civil union, because that is what it is, and give it out to everyone. That way, everyone is assured of receiving equal treatment, and should a new law or new court ruling come out relating to civil unions, everyone gets affected by it in the same way.

Next, what I am pushing does not contribute to the breakdown of family. Families are not going to start dissolving because all of a sudden homosexuals can get married. In addition, homosexuals will have biological children regardless of whether or not they can get married. The only thing, like someone said, gays will try to adopt children. However, I will oppose them there because the psychological effects on children have not yet been studied. But just because I oppose them on that issue, does not mean that they should receive different treatment from heterosexual couples.

128 posted on 08/18/2006 9:46:03 AM PDT by psychoknk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: JCEccles
The exceptions do not disprove the rule.

By the rules of logic, a single exception disproves a rule.

129 posted on 08/22/2006 6:03:27 AM PDT by steve-b ("Creation Science" is to the religous right what "Global Warming" is to the socialist left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120121-129 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson