Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 86027

I consider it unconstitutional to give EXTRA rights to one group of people over another.

What do I mean by this?

Heterosexuals all abide by the laws that determine who can marry whom.

Homosexuals have the same freedoms and rights as heterosexuals. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex that is legally able to marry and consents.

But that isn’t enough for the homosexuals.

They want that AND they want the ability to marry people of the same sex.

So I suppose this now means that two brothers or two sisters can marry one another? Certainly the homosexuals won’t deny these “same-sex lovers” the right to marry, will they? And how about a mother and daughter or mother and son or father and daughter and father and son? Certainly the homosexuals won’t deny these “other-oriented romances” the same right to marry, will they?

You see, homosexuals, either the people determine what is morally and legally acceptable, or they do not. If they do not, then there are no rules. If they do, then WE who are in an atomic-sized majority (as proved overwhelmingly in the far-left state of California) can set those rules.

What they don’t understand is that they are forcing America to pass an amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage along traditional, Judeo-Christian terms.

Ghost of Philip Marlowe , Free Republic 67 Comments [2/13/2012 4:13:31 AM]
Fundie Index: 91
Submitted By: Rabbit of Caerbannog
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
Aspergus

Let me break it down for you:

Heterosexuals may marry the person of their choice, but homosexuals may not. That imposes a special disability upon them, while holding heterosexuals up further on the hierarchy. And unlike incest, the government has no legitimate interest in forbidding same-sex marriage (the "responsible procreation" argument has been debunked, by the way).

Any questions?

2/13/2012 4:22:38 AM



And when laws are passed, heterosexuals will be allowed to marry someone of the same sex too.

2/13/2012 4:31:30 AM

Wehpudicabok

It isn't extra rights. When same-sex marriage is legal, all people, regardless of their orientation, will have the option to marry anyone else regardless of their respective genders.

You seem to think that gay marriage will only be available to gays, and that this would be a special right. If this were the case, the government would have to check to make sure you're gay before you get a gay marriage, right? How and why would the government undertake this ridiculous measure? Just look up how it works in the many states and countries that already have same-sex marriage (the proper term, as it is also intended for bisexuals and those of other orientations entirely).

And the incest red herring is pure bullshit.

2/13/2012 4:34:58 AM



Let them damned uppity niggers marry white women, next thing you know they'll be wanting queers to marry!

2/13/2012 5:29:33 AM

John

"I consider it unconstitutional to give EXTRA rights to one group of people over another.

What do I mean by this?

Negroes all abide by the laws that determine who can marry whom.

Negroes have the same freedoms and rights as Whites. They can marry anyone of the same race that is legally able to marry and consents.

But that isn’t enough for the negroes.

They want that AND they want the ability to marry our white wimmin!"

Ghost's grandpa, circa 1954

2/13/2012 5:30:53 AM

Berny

As usual, the retarded right misses the point completely.
There are no "extra" rights for anyone. You too will have the right to marry someone of the same sex as you. I know you don't want to and that should give you a clue. Gays don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex the same way you don't want to marry someone of the same sex.
The rest of your argument is simply stupid. The same rules regarding marriage for heterosexuals would hold for same sex unions. That means no closely related siblings, no underage individuals (and no animals and no dead people).
As for the majority setting the rules, the reason you have a Constitution in the first place is to prevent the abuse of minorities by the majority.
Honestly, is it that hard to understand?

2/13/2012 6:02:26 AM

Arctic Knight

1) Allowing gays to marry does not give them any "extra" rights. It will not prevent you from marrying someone of the opposite sex, but it will allow you to marry someone of the same sex. You will have the exact same rights as everyone else, including gays.

2) Not allowing gays to marry violates the Equal Protection Claus of the 14th Amendment. As it is right now, my wife has the right to marry a man, but based solely on my gender, I do not have that same right. Not allowing same sex marriage is sexual discrimination.

2/13/2012 6:04:25 AM

Mister Spak

I consider it unconstitutional to give EXTRA rights to one group of people over another.

What do I mean by this?

Heterosexuals all abide by the laws that determine who can marry whom.

Homosexuals have the same freedoms and rights as heterosexuals. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex that is legally able to marry and consents.

But that isn’t enough for the homosexuals.

They want that AND they want the ability to marry people of the same sex.

And when same sex marriage is legal you will have the same rights as gays to marry someone of the same sex, so what are you bitching about?

Also you could move to Iran where you will have the same right to practice Islam as everyone else. You won't be allowed to have the special right to be a christian.

2/13/2012 6:15:42 AM

tmarcl

As I've said in the past, the ideal solution is to get government out of marriage all together. Keep it a strictly religious concept defined by the church, temple, mosque, whatever. If your religion says only one man one woman, so be it.

For the legal side (tax breaks, etc), I propose a new concept: Domestic Partnership. It's defined as a partnership entered into by two adults of legal age (more might deprive the government of too much tax income) for as long as they like. It can be two roommates, two relatives, two people of opposite gender, the same gender, whatever. The point being that this way, a couple can get the legal benefits that come along with marriage without having to worry about the spiritual side. Also, those who want to be married can be married according to their religious views without worrying about the legal ramifications (such as polygamists).

This way, religious folks get what they want (the ability to define marriage according to their beliefs) and gays get what they want (the legal benefits associated with marriage). I think it's a win-win.

2/13/2012 6:21:59 AM

Beltaine

"I consider it unconstitutional to give EXTRA rights to one group of people over another."

If the law is changed, you'll have the right to marry someone of the same sex as well. Therefore, there are no special righs being given.

2/13/2012 6:46:13 AM

The_L

I despise the phony buzzword "Judeo-Christian." It has never had a non-jingoist definition in its 60-odd years of existence.

2/13/2012 6:48:54 AM

Swede

The thing about marriage is that you don't want to marry just anyone who consents, but someone you feel very deeply about, someone you love and are attracted to, physically, emotionally and sexually, and who feels the same way about you.
The right to marry such a person does not exist for homosexual people.

Democracy has rules in place to stop the majority from tyrannizing the minority.

Marriage does not need any redefining. It is still a legal bond between two non-related consenting adults, who intend to spend their lives together.

2/13/2012 6:57:11 AM

Raised by Horses

So predictable, we don't even have to bother typing up replies anymore.


2/13/2012 7:14:04 AM

Doubting Thomas

I consider it unconstitutional to give EXTRA rights to one group of people over another.

No, you consider it unconstitutional to give EQUAL rights to one group of people.

They want that AND they want the ability to marry people of the same sex.

If gay marriage is legalized, then you also have the right to marry someone of the same sex as well as someone of the opposite sex. It's not giving extra rights to them, it's giving everyone the right to marry who they want.

What they don’t understand is that they are forcing America to pass an amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage along traditional, Judeo-Christian terms.

No, you feel it necessary to force everyone to live under your narrow Christian worldview. And you know as well as I do that such an amendment wouldn't pass.

2/13/2012 7:14:11 AM

dionysus

Homosexuals have the same freedoms and rights as heterosexuals.

Oh this is going to be rich.

They can marry anyone of the opposite sex that is legally able to marry and consents.

Oh aren't you fucking clever little thing. Next you'll be saying "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" to round out your very creative and original repertoire.

They want that AND they want the ability to marry people of the same sex.

You jealous? I'm sure we can find a nice gay man for you to marry. But seriously, no, they JUST want to be able to marry someone of the same sex. That's what being gay means. You're thinking of bisexuals. And even then, if they got the right to do both so would you.

So I suppose this now means that two brothers or two sisters can marry one another?

Yes. Just like marijuana and cocaine being illegal means that you aren't allowed to take antibiotics.

You see, homosexuals, either the people determine what is morally and legally acceptable, or they do not. If they do not, then there are no rules. If they do, then WE who are in an atomic-sized majority (as proved overwhelmingly in the far-left state of California) can set those rules.

So you want a tyranny of the majority then. Okay. Be prepared to eat those words when the latino (overwhelmingly Catholic) population becomes the majority. If they discriminate against you then you'll have no sympathy from me. And if atheism one day becomes the majority does that mean that you'll shut up and do what we say? Highly doubt it.

What they don’t understand is that they are forcing America to pass an amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage along traditional, Judeo-Christian terms.

That sounds like the typical bully's comment "you made me hit you". Of course, you're just a typical bully so it fits.

2/13/2012 7:15:35 AM

JSS

Yes, yes, this has all been addressed before. Poeple like you just refuse to listen.

Gays could care less about the right to marry opposite-sex. They're not attracted to the opposite sex.

Incestual marriage is pointless as marriage establishes kinship. Since brothers, fathers and mothers are already kin, no 'marriage' is needed.

You state morals are determined by a majority population. You really are delusional aren't you? Ever hear of tyranny of the majority? I suppose all those Germans of the majority who wanted to murder Jews were morally correct in doing so.

Oh, and perhaps maybe you should do some research and learn that marriage isn't exactly Judeo-Christian copyrighted.

2/13/2012 7:42:14 AM

Brendan Rizzo

I just love this. I positively love this. Never has the homophobic persecution complex been more eminent. Because gay marriage is currently defined as illegal, Phil here can claim that heterosexuals aren't campaigning to change any laws. Fifty years ago, the Ghost of Philip Marlowe's Grandfather would have said that white people abide by the laws that determine who can use which facilities, and such. I for one cannot wait for the time when history textbooks cover this decade. The backpedaling from conservatives will be epic.

2/13/2012 7:44:10 AM

WWBFD

An argument that's no more convincing from Ghost of Philip Marlowe than it was from Orson Scott Card.

At least Mr. Card probably thought it up all by his clever little self.

2/13/2012 7:59:17 AM

= POPE =

But you see, we've already found the bottom of that slippery slope. Anyone who marries you is free to marry pond scum. Why shouldn't people up-slope have the same rights?

"either the people determine what is morally and legally acceptable, or they do not. If they do not, then there are no rules."

So you're saying morality is a human decision, not written in stone by God? Good start. Now wrestle with "Moral Relativism" for a while and move on to an understand of how our judicial system protects us from the tyranny of the majority. That's one of the rules.

2/13/2012 8:00:39 AM

Reynardine

What's the matter, Phil? You want to marry a man and you feel like you can't because you're straight?

2/13/2012 8:02:56 AM

checkmate

they are forcing America to pass an amendment to the US Constitution defining marriage along traditional, Judeo-Christian terms.

Oh, please, please, please try that! Yes!!

That way everybody will be able to see what fucking idiots you are. That would be the absolute laughing stock of the century.

Yes! Go for it. Have fun.

2/13/2012 8:03:43 AM

1

By your logic, I presume it's presently legal for a brother and sister to marry?

2/13/2012 8:44:52 AM

farpadokly

Is anyone out there advocating for incest rights? Didn't think so. Then why bring it up?
I dunno much about California, but I really wonder how "far left" it is. I'm betting it's more like just vaguely liberal. Not the same thing, my friend.
Oh, and democracy isn't just majority rule. The rights of minorities have to be protected as well.

2/13/2012 8:51:58 AM

Thinking Allowed

What these kind of people don't realize is that voting against them marrying members of the opposite sex is limiting their rights.

As far as determining what is morally right, the fundies are pushing their morals on the rest of the world, not those in favor or same-sex marriage.

2/13/2012 9:13:35 AM

WWWWolf

Oh, people don't want extra rights. This is not a question of sexuality. If same-sex marriage is legal, then heterosexual people are perfectly allowed to marry people of same sex too!

...because, hey, it makes just as much sense as the current laws which allow gay people to marry people of opposite sex. Which you seem to think is the sensible solution.

2/13/2012 9:20:43 AM
1 2 3