For the latest rational-defying, fact-free screed against gay marriage, check out this article from Ken Klukowski. It seems Iowa has joined Massachusetts and Connecticut in recognizing that disallowing gays to marry is a violation of the equal protection clause. The ruling came from a court with a mix of Republican and Democratic nominees, but that hasn't stopped the baseless, shrill, and often blatantly false screams from the social conservatives:
Klukowski said: "In a democratic republic, the people should rule through their elected legislators and executives. Judges decide cases of law, not of policy or morality."
Judges should rule on whether a law is violating someone's constitutional rights, which is what they did here, no more, no less. That the ruling may have policy or morality implications is trivial - practically any ruling will.
Kirk said:"...it affects children. Also you should care because it is wrong for judges to make law. Do you honistly think these judges have more wisdom the the last 6000 years of human history?"
How does it effect children? No one ever explains this. And 6,000 years ago polygamy was the norm, as it has been from most of the world for most of the time since then. Do the people saying this ever read any books, perhaps dare I say it, the Bible?
Mother of 4 said: "Reality will remain reality and marriage -- the permanent emotional, legal, and spiritual bond between a man and a woman by which two are made one upon which is built nothing less than civilization and the future -- will remain marriage, unequaled and inimitable. "
Marriage is permanent now? I guess the planet on which this mother lives doesn't have the extraordinarily high divorce rate that we have here on Earth. And how is a civilization built upon heterosexual marriage going to fall apart if homosexual marriage is allowed?
Cambermeister said: "...your [heterosexual] commitment is now slightly more diluted in the minds of America's children...It was always about the children. The gay community won't make up there own word for marriage because they WANT to confuse small children."
How are heterosexual commitments diluted? All the ones I know of seem as strong as ever? How does this confuse children? Why would gays want children confused?
Dan asks: "Why would a man want to marry another man? Sex? They do that anyway(sick). Kids? Impossible!
Marriage benefits?"
Yeah Dan, safe sex and marriage benefits, the same as any heterosexual couple who can't have kids. Oh, and you do know lots of homosexuals have children, right? And that your heterosexual sex is sick to many of them, right? Hello? Does reality penetrate your skull at all?
Cambermeister again: "In less than a generation, a tiny minority that practices an evolutionarily incomprehencible [sic]behavior first asked the majority to not persecute them. Then asked us to not descriminate [sic] against them. Then asked us to accept them. Now they are Demanding [sic] that we Celebrate [sic]them."
Oh this is rich: people who deny evolutionary science now attempt to co opt it for their purposes. Can you spell "hypocrite"? It's also blatantly untrue, since homosexuality appears all over nature. Indeed, for some species, it's the norm. Further, no one is asking anyone to celebrate homosexuality. They simply want to live their lives married to the people they are attracted to the same as the rest of us heteros. Really, it's not complicated.
Renny said: "Hetersexuality and homosexuality are merely behavioral practices of individuals. That some heterosexuals sometimes have homosexual liaisons and vice versa proves neither *class* is mutually defining or exclusive."
Sexuality is about orientation, not behavior. A homosexual man having a heterosexual sex act is like a vegetarian eating a piece of meat. It doesn't change who they are. Further, there is nothing about the protected classes our civil right apply to that requires them to be permanent, mutually defining, or exclusive. After all, religion is none of these things.
Retired Geek said: "The Marriage act NEVER had anything to do with sexual preferences but rather the protection of children - which Homosexuals cannot have by definition."
I'm sure the thousands of homosexuals with children would be shocked to hear that. And if people incapable of procreating (with each other) are to be forbidden from marrying, why doesn't this apply to sterile heterosexuals?
More from Retired Geek:"Animals are incapable of using facts, logic and reason to make choices i.e. sex perversion."
Many scientists have tested chimpanzees, dolphins, octopi, and many other animals who have demonstrated complex reasoning abilities. One more Christian myth bites the dust via data.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Even from a merely practical point of view of 'the children', it is beneficial for homosexual couples to foster children.
I have several friends who were brought up by a single parent. As is typical of the majority (even of 'liberals'), they oppose homosexual couples raising children. However, when I asked one of them if he would have been worse off if he had had two mothers instead of one mother, he reconsidered. He knows just how hard it was for his mother. He also knows that he suffered for it.
Daniel,
Yes, isn't it interesting that those so frantically opposed to gay marriage, and who so support everyone having children, and who think all children should have a committed two-parent household, completely ignore the (dare I say "evolutionary") benefit of having ready-to-parent gay couples to take all the orphans and other unwanted children.
Post a Comment