Is banning “gay marriage” discrimination?

Homosexual "marriage" advocates lie; anyone is free to marry someone of the opposite gender.

Is banning “gay marriage” discrimination? No. Under the legal system prior to the legalization of such unions, anyone was free to marry someone of the opposite gender, no matter your gender, race, religion, economic status, or sexual orientation. You are free to marry someone of the opposite gender, and the law is applied equally to all people, so banning “gay marriage” is not discrimination.

As far as homosexuals being allowed to do what they desire, why not let anyone from a cookie thief to a child molester do what they want, homosexuals included? We ban certain things because in a society, culture matters — if we live in a culture of sexual perversion, we will get the consequences of that culture.

If the gays want to win their argument, they are going to have to re-tool their propaganda machine — the current line is too obvious a lie.


Filed under Uncategorized

5 responses to “Is banning “gay marriage” discrimination?

  1. Getting married has taken all the fun out of being with my partner. I use to protest for equal rights but now that I’ve got them, they can take them back. I’d rather be free to prowl.

  2. My penis is so small that it is subjective whether I am a boy or a girl. There goes your argument.

  3. Elias Tolkien

    In reply to Veritas Aequitas:

    Laws prohibiting mixed-race marriages are illegal because it makes distinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry. Race is not a biological fact but a man-defined construct. Thus, for a state to make laws against miscegenation, it must make arbitrary (and thus subjective) statements about what constitutes a separate race. It would be impossible to apply the law equally.

    The law does not need to define what is a male or female, it is a biological fact based on genetics and reproductive organs. Thus the application of a law requiring anyone to marry someone of the opposite gender is not subjective, but objective, and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is not violated.

    Furthermore, the state has the right to regulate marriage because it is fundamental to the very existence and survival of humankind. The courts have consistently used these words when claiming a right to regulate marriage. For marriage to be essential for the survival of humankind, reproduction and marriage must be related. And these things being related, the state has the right to regulate certain aspects of marriage. For example, you cannot marry a sibling, parent, child, or close cousin. There is no logic in this law if marriage and reproduction are not related.

    • Veritas Aequitas

      in reply to elias tolkien:

      i’ve been pregnant 8 times and never married. i am proof marriage isn’t needed to get pregnant. and i am proof that a womans rite to choose is a good thing, no kids to drag me down.

  4. Veritas Aequitas

    Take your argument and apply it to anti-miscegenation. If there is a law that someone must marry someone of their own race and no other, then any man is free to only marry someone of his own race. But states cannot legally make these laws.