The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

My use of the example of "possession of marijuana" was to illustrate that arguments can be made on both sides as to the issue of the "fairness" of the law.

Ban on gay foster parents sparks battle

By John Moritz

Star-Telegram Austin Bureau


AUSTIN -- Forces on both sides of the gay rights issue vowed Wednesday to wage a fierce battle over whether the state should reject potential foster parents on the basis of their sexual orientation.

And both sides insisted that they were acting in the best interest of the children.

"The truth is that a parent's sexual orientation has no negative consequence on the children that are raised in those homes," said Randall Ellis, head of the Lesbian/Gay Rights Lobby of Texas. "Those children are not adversely affected."

But Cathie Adams, president of the conservative Texas Eagle Forum, said foster children should not be placed in the care of gay and bi-sexual foster parents.

"We should not be exposing these children to an immoral, unhealthy lifestyle," Adams said. "These children in foster care have already been traumatized enough."

Ticomaya wrote:

My use of the example of "possession of marijuana" was to illustrate that arguments can be made on both sides as to the issue of the "fairness" of the law.

Your analogy is misplaced. We are not discussing laws that prohibit all citizens from possessing an illegal substance; we are discussing laws that bestow special rights upon certain classes of persons (generally, heterosexuals) based on the gender of their intended spouses.

As the laws in most states currently stand, only persons who intend to marry persons of the opposite sex are allowed to obtain a marriage license.

It would be more appropriate, for the sake of comparison, if the law with respect to marijuana possession provided the following:

Only those persons who intend to marry persons of the opposite sex are allowed to possess marijuana.

Wouldn't this type of law be a denial of equal protection under the law?

Hmmm . . . yes . . . James I was homosexual

Setanta wrote:

Hmmm . . . yes . . . James I was homosexual

I thought you were telling James that you were a homosexual.

He was just giving another archaic reason to despise religionists who are alive today. Similiar to how some blacks hate white americans because of slavery several centuiries ago.

Soon, a new day will come when homosexuals don't manufacture transgressions against them. No one will say, 'religionists make me sick to my stomach, I despise them & have contempt for them, & they are next to murderious' just to secure a "special" consideration by the law.

In the meantime, we'll have to deal with this insanity by voting against SSM until they realize noone else but them is fooled by their concoction.

Quote:

He was just giving another archaic reason to despise religionists who are alive today. Similiar to how some blacks hate white americans because of slavery several centuiries ago.

Interracial marriage was illegal in California up until the 1970s.
"Whites only" doorway signs were still to be found in the 60s, or maybe later. If I recall correctly, a black was lynched in Alabama in 1952 or near to that date. So you might want to update your mental files re archaic reasons for white society to feel appropriately like shitheels.

Quote:

Soon, a new day will come when homosexuals don't manufacture transgressions against them. No one will say, 'religionists make me sick to my stomach, I despise them & have contempt for them, & they are next to murderious' just to secure a "special" consideration by the law.

I move that heterosexuals be allowed only the status of civil union too.

Quote:

In the meantime, we'll have to deal with this insanity by voting against SSM until they realize noone else but them is fooled by their concoction.

I'm afraid that you are on the wrong side of the trajectory here. Well, I guess I'm not 'afraid'. More correctly, I'm quite pleased you are.

Similiar to how some blacks hate white americans because of slavery several centuiries ago.

Interracial marriage was illegal in California up until the 1970s.
"Whites only" doorway signs were still to be found in the 60s, or maybe later. If I recall correctly, a black was lynched in Alabama in 1952 or near to that date.

Was racism a result of religious teachings?

In June 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court [388 U.S. 1, 3] of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."