Sunday, November 16, 2008

Homosexual marriage is not a civil right issue

Ladyblog said: "When and why did the gay rights activists and their defenders decide that it was logical, valid, wise, effective, or constitutionally defensible to compare the social and civil ambitions of the gay community to the past sufferings and civil rights battles of the black man in America?"

"How do selected instances of social ostracism, job discrimination, and the restrictions of our marriage laws rise to the level of mass ethnic subjugation? When were the gays or their ancestors forcibly removed from their ancestral homes, enslaved, beaten, starved, sold, and then – once freed – discriminated against and segregated?"

"I do not see how the social difficulties of the gay man or woman come close to matching the history of slavery and racial discrimination. Gay men and women have never lived with anything like the “No Coloreds Allowed” lunch counters and water fountains, or segregated schools and communities of America’s past."

Maine Bishop Richard Malone wrote to all Maine Catholics this week: "To redefine marriage to include same-sex couples is to strip marriage of an essential component, namely the ability and obligation to procreate," the bishop said in the letter, read in all Maine diocese on Sunday. "To strip marriage of this essential component is to render marriage meaningless and open it up to endless revision and redefinition."

"If people believe the gay marriage cause has legitimacy, then by all means they should argue their case – but let’s agree that we can and should discuss rights issues without erroneously comparing the suffering of one group to the suffering of another."

Good words.


Anonymous said...

In related news, the woman who had a change to a man and then delivered a baby announced in an interview with Barbara Walters that she is pregnant again. Ok,pardon me but she is still a woman. Biologically, her being pregnant again proves the point that she is not a man but a woman pretending to be a man. My kids pretend to be all sorts of things. It isnt a news story and shouldn't be.


Anonymous said...

"namely the ability and obligation to procreate". I didn't know there was an obligation to procreate. As a married woman with no children, I bristle at this suggestion. Do I need to explain myself to anyone .. does it matter if one or both of us is infertile or doesn't want kids for reasons we don't care to elaborate on? Or can we just marry and let that decision be between the two of us. What about older people who marry past menopause? Hmmm.

No, the discrimination of gays is much more insidious because you cannot tell just by looking who his gay and who isn't. Once outed, we can legally discriminate (or boot from the armed services).

I'm not sure how I feel about gay marriage to be honest. But I do know how I feel about discrimination. And I do know that never once have I considered procreation a responsibility of mine. If marriage is to be defined as such, perhaps one could deny the quickie Vegas marriages that are perfectly legal but seldom last. Intersting subject to say the least.

Elizabeth Prata said...

the bible says "be fruitful and multiply" that's where the obligation comes from.

Not everybody can have everything they want, being denies a social nicety does not necessarily mean discrimination. It is a serious business for less than 1% of the population to attempt to redefine a cultural and social standard that has been commonly understood for thousands of years.

Christie said...

"When were the gays or their ancestors forcibly removed from their ancestral homes, enslaved, beaten, starved, sold, and then – once freed – discriminated against and segregated?"

I don't think this is the best approach to argue that the two are not the same. It's purely emotional. If both groups suffered, it doesn't get us anywhere to look at who suffered more. Of course, the answer to the question posed is never, but let us not forget the treatment of homosexuals during Hitler's reign. Homosexuals and Jews were removed from their homes, beaten, starved, shoved into concentration camps, and gassed.

In the late 1980s our own government was indifferent about the appearance of AIDS because it was considered a gay disease. 20+ folks die of Legionnaire's Disease (1976) and our government is all over it, throwing money and resources at the problem. By 1982, there are over 600 people infected with AIDS and nearly half of them have died, but our government doesn't increase the budget or put any real effort toward solving the problem. It's disgusting.

I gotta say, though, that man who kept his female reproductive parts... --insert shaking head here--
It burns me up, after having gone through labor, that the story gets written up as if it is a man with male parts having a baby. Now that, my friends, would be a story.

Anonymous said...

One of the arguments the homosexual lobby pushes forth is that they need this change because their rights to visit loved ones who are sick, property, etc. This can all be corrected with existing legal documents- contracts, etc.

They are looking to smooth a wrinkle in a handkerchief with a steam roller.

Elizabeth Prata said...

Civil Unions take care of that, and many companies offer health care and other benefits to same sex partners. The benefits they seek and claim they are denied are in fact widely available, but the homosexual agenda is to push for a total redefinition of marriage to the contrary of what 99.9% of the rest of the population and against 30 states that have already voted NO.

Anonymous said...

A U.S. woman falls in love with a woman from another country. So, they want to live together and marry in the United States. If they were heterosexual, a K-Visa (marital visa) would be issued and they would have 90 days to marry. Then the woman from the other country would be allowed to stay in the United States and they could live together. BUT, if they aren't allowed to legally marry, the K-Visa will expire after 90 days, and they will be separated by force. Clearly this is a violation of the civil rights of the U.S. woman who wants to marry the woman from another country as she is being denied the same right that would be extended to a U.S. man who wanted to marry a woman from another country.

"Civil unions" do not carry the same legal definition or benefits as marriage and the above scenario is but one example. We either need to redefine legal marriage and civil unions to extend ALL of the legal benefits of marriage to civil unions OR allow men and women to legally marry the individual they fall in love with regardless of the sex of that individual (let's not forget about hermaphrodites - I guess they can't legally marry ANYONE). It's really semantics however you go about it; this is but one example of why homosexuals want to marry legally; so they can have the possibility of having ALL the rights extended to other citizens. How can it not be a violation of one's civil rights if one citizen is allowed to marry a foreign citizen, but another citizen is denied that right because "civil unions" do not carry the legal weight of "marriages?"

Fortunately if you are gay you CAN be legally married in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and other states have laws legalizing and recognizing gay marriages working their ways through state legislatures now. I'm sure in the next 5-12 years we will have either a federal law on the books or a Supreme Court decision clearing the way for homosexual citizens to enjoy all the rights their heterosexual citizens enjoy.

Anonymous said...

"Foreign same-sex partners of United States citizens are currently not recognized by the INS and accordingly cannot be sponsored for a K Visa or for Permanent Resident status. Many families based on a same-sex relationship are accordingly forced to live outside the U.S."

Forcing gay U.S. citizens to live outside the United States or live without their spouse while straight couples are allowed to live in the United States is clearly a violation of their Constitutional and civil rights. Not sure it gets much clearer than this. And imagine if there are children involved. Forcing those children to be uprooted, leave their school and friends behind so they can be with both of their parents is terrible and heartbreaking.

Christie said...

It comes from Wikipedia so I can't verify or confirm its legitimacy but it states the following:

"Due to the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), same-sex couples in marriages, civil unions, or domestic partnerships in the U.S. do not have the 1,138 rights that a married couple has under federal law."

Until we ensure on the federal level that civil unions will be recognized and granted the same rights as those who are currently able to marry, we cannot use civil unions as an acceptable substitute. Although, really, I can't for the life of me figure out how two gay people marrying affects your own marriage. I couldn't care less. Hey, if two people find love and want to commit to being together, let 'em. Who am I to stand in their way or tell them it's wrong? I'm not religious but I got married, not because the event had anything to do with God but because it had everything to do with following a tradition of millions of couples before us. It was about making a public commitment to each other. And, yeah, the tax benefits are nice. I fail to see why someone outside of the marriage gets to decide for that couple if the marriage should take place. It should be the couple's decision.

Oh, and the sheep example is utter nonsense.