[goldstategop]

Dennis Prager shows how the moral equivalence argument made between opposition to same sex marriage and interracial marriage is fatuous. To put it simply, there are more differences between men and women than there are between people of different races. There was never a moral argument for opposing marriage between blacks and whites or asians and whites. There is a moral argument against people of the same sex marrying. So there's a world of difference between the two prohibitions - one was never valid and the other is rooted in the very foundational text common to both Jewish and Christian faith - the Bible.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[DuncanWaring]

The fundamental issue is that there is no “Right to Marry”.

Marriage has classically always been an obligation taken on by couples prior to engaging in activity that might reasonably be expected to produce children.

Homosexual activities can reasonably be expected NOT to produce children.

Therefore there’s no obligation for homosexuals to marry, and certainly no “right”.

[supercat]

In 99.44% of all human societies throughout history, marriages involve, and have always involved, exactly one male. Usually they involved exactly one female too, though some societies allowed for more than one. The notion that a marriage contains exactly one male has transcended all boundaries of time, race, geography, religion, and culture. If marriages involving zero males, or marriages involving two males (especially with no females!) could contribute to societal stability, such marriages would exist in some enduring societies somewhere. They don't.

When a practice is shared by 99.44% of all human societies, there's almost always a good reason for it. Any claim that such a practice isn't necessary should be met with extreme skepticism.

[Secret Agent Man]

A better analogy is opposing same-sex marriage vs opposing human-animal marriages.

[television is just wrong]

I had a very old man sitting at a neighborhood starbucks comment about my dog. He said too bad we are so concerned about pedigree dogs, but not pedigree people.

I was stunned.

[GATOR NAVY]

Prager bump.

[Slicksadick]

bookmark

[L.N. Smithee]

Comparing the prohibition of same-sex marriage to prohibiting interracial marriage is ultimately a way of declaring the moral superiority of proponents of same-sex marriage to proponents of keeping marriage defined as man-woman. And it is a way of avoiding hard issues such as whether we really want all children to grow up thinking it doesn't matter if they marry a boy or a girl and whether we really want to abolish forever the ideal of husband-wife based family.

Bingo! Prager does it again!

The Gay-stapo is -- for the time being -- focusing on adults who have been together for decades, pushing white-haired male and female homosexual couples to the front of the line to be wed. The dirty little secret is that the In re Marriage Cases decision has laid down the groundwork for taxpayer-funded undermining of the fact that there is a ninety-plus percent chance that your offspring has normal sexual desire (that is to say, of course, opposite sex).

When the time comes for your children to learn about puberty and reproduction in a California school (since parents long ago yielded rights to sex education of their own family to their local union government educators), another lesson will be required: "Kids, you might be gay already but don't know it yet because you haven't tried it. And whoever says there's something wrong with it...well, they're the type of person that thought there was something wrong with interracial couples too."

In addition, the notion that there is something inherently normal about being born a child of a mother and father HAS to be jettisoned to protect the feelings of the kids who were the result of -- shall we say, less traditional methods of reproduction.

Scare tactics? Hardly. Anyone who remembers the Massachusetts "Fistgate" scandal of the late nineties and the legal kitchen sink Gay-stapo attorneys successfully used to suppress evidence of the outrage from public ears knows I am not overstating the case.

[Caipirabob]

Dennis Prager shows how the moral equivalence argument made between opposition to same sex marriage and interracial marriage is fatuous.

Thank you, Mr. Prager...you know, I got so angry at the thought that someone would even suggest such an argument... If there are democrats that really feel this way, for the continuance of their very lives, they need to keep their mouths shut.

I honestly don't know the depth of my reaction if someone suggest, to my face, that my marriage to someone who isn't Caucasian is equivalent to homosexual marriage. If there were ever "fighting words" those would qualify.