Left Outraged by Roberts' Analogy

I still want a lawyer to ask the court if marriage can be defined by any other sex practice. Like foot worship or BDSM.

Because when you remove actual sex from a homosexual couple’s ‘to do’ list, you are left with ‘close friends’.

Think about that everyone,

Very well and simply said.

Roberts’ argument is arguing in favor of the concept of language...I have been beating that drum for quite some time - nice to see it finally made its way into the discussion on this issue. You can’t have a marriage without a husband and wife - and by definition, a husband is a man, and a wife is a woman. There’s no getting around that. Arguing that two people of the same sex have a right to “marriage” is an assault on the concept of language. This would only be the start of setting aside definitions of words to twist meanings to suit a particular purpose - witness the school system up in Massachusetts now trying to implement policies which disregard gender altogether and that people aren’t born a certain gender and can choose what they want to be (ironic concept for those who argue homosexuals are “born that way”...but I digress).

Marriage existed before there were any statutes passed by the states to govern them, and there were no “same sex marriages” then either because that does not and cannot fit the definition of the word. And of course, when these statutes were put into place (likely due to the fact there would be disputes over where property goes in the event a spouse dies, when there is divorce, etc. that required court intervention to settle and therefore there needed to a framework to deal with it), marriage was not defined as a husband and wife in the laws - why? Because that would be completely redundant - you don’t have to spell out the definition of words in statutes to have meaning. The word means what it means. “Marriage equality” is nonsense. Language is language.

If language does not prevail in this case, it is only the beginning of a cascade in many other issues and there could be no clear framework for anything if we can simply disregard what words mean to get what we want in any instance.

Thanks LJ.

I think most people are intentionally led off course by all the propaganda. All they have to do, as with all things, is reduce it to the core. and the core is that a specific sex practice is all homosexuality “IS” by definition.

Take away the sex and you have close/good/whatever friends.

THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE QUANTIFIABLE between a celibate ‘homosexual” couple and two men watching a football game or doing any other thing two men or two women do together.

NONE. And I defy any GLBTwhatever fan to refute that factually. People can “Feel” anyway they want. Homosexuality requires homo-sex. Take away the sex act and what’s left?

Game, set, match.

I still want a lawyer to ask the court if marriage can be defined by any other sex practice. Like foot worship or BDSM. Because when you remove actual sex from a homosexual couple’s ‘to do’ list, you are left with ‘close friends’. Think about that everyone

Exactly right - whereas a marriage between husband and wife is much more than sex...and even with the sex, they can have sexual intercourse, which no same sex couple can engage in, and by no natural means can they conceive children, and cannot provide children with a mother and father. It can never be "equal" - because those attributes can never exist in their relationship.

Here’s another one to consider.

What is the sole/single/only difference that separates a High School gym shower and a gay bath house? Both are filled with hot, sweaty and very naked dudes.

The sex. that’s it. It’s all about the sex act. Nothing else.

RUSH: I hate to say it -- I mean, I really hate to say it -- but he's dead-on right...I think he is too - and gets to the heart of the case - gays in many places have all or most of the legal perogatives of marriage in "civil unions" - inheritance, hospital visiting rights and so forth - yet they continue to fight for "same-sex marriage" - they're not as they claim concerned about the "rights" involved, but in having that particular title "marriage" - the fact that they continue to battle for it shows they recognize it as a special classification which because of their own arrogance and intolerance they insist on being part of - let "marriage" remain for the tradional man-woman relationship and give gays every legal "right" normally subsumed under that title, and the gay movement would still be outraged.....

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.