Keep your disgusting religion out of my private life. If I want to get married at City Hall, it isn’t anyone’s god-damn business! Get a life, bible thumping bigots. I hate you for voting away my right to get married! I want to see you disgusting religious corporations financially destroyed as a result of the millions of anti-gay dollars that you’ve raised, and continue to raise. Got to hell!

Flag for moderation

You forgot New Hampshire, Gay Marriage is legal in 5 US States and DC in March. Separation of Church and State trumps any religious argument someone may have.

Flag for moderation

This argument fails on one simple fact: Atheists are allowed to get married. Also, which religion holds the rights to marriage then if it was a religious issue? Buddhism? Christianity? Islam? Marriage existed before these religions were even in diapers. It is not a religious institution.

Flag for moderation

Im all for the Legal Contract, My dude and I almost celebrating our 23 anniversary from our We are boyfriends speech.
Now is time for it to become legal with marriage, we pay taxes and my green card is expiring so we need that contract so I don’t get deported.

I was Catholic (now nothing) he is Jewish.
all our parents love us and yes after marriage we are adopting.

Gays are made by straight people does not matter what religion you are born under.

Flag for moderation

It is impossible to separate religion from politics because it is impossible to separate religion from the people voting. I agree with the article in that we all have our own philosophies and worldviews. However, I do think marriage is more than just a religious issue. That said, I don’t think religious people should automatically have their opinions invalidated simply because they have a religious worldview. If it is a political issue than everyone under the government should be able to express their view on the matter, religious or not. The current prop 8 trial is completely antithetical to democracy because it gives one man the right to overturn the votes of millions simply because they cast their vote in accordance with their religious beliefs. That’s how the overturning of prop 8 would be a violation of the first amendment.

Flag for moderation

For clarification’s sake, I am not suggesting that only an organized religion should be able to define marriage. I am saying that each philosophy, religion, or lack thereof should define it as it sees fit. What I am against is a central power defining it, and the tax subsidizing of marriage.

Flag for moderation

You better update your map. Same-sex Marriage has been legal since January 1 in New Hampshire.

Flag for moderation

If you think marriage is a religious institution then try getting a divorce from your house of worship. YOu can’t because it is a state contract no matter who signs the or perform the ceremony. Clergy always say “by the powers vested in me by the state of” We are one of the few countries in the world that actually allow clergy to solemnize marriages. In most countries in the world you must get legally married by a government official and then have your religious ceremony afterwards and that what it is a ceremony. Stop mixing religion with government.

Flag for moderation

Sorry! I have to disagree.

Churches (and other bodies) can “marry” whoever they want now. This is true in both states that do and don’t recognize marriages by people of the same gender. The only argument is whether the government can refuses to acknowledge marriages of same-sex partners.

I was married (only in the Christian religious sense) to my husband at a United Church of Christ church back in 2000. It is only my government that refuses to acknowledge the situation.

Tax subsidizing of marriage? Does the government really do that? Sometimes but that is not always the case. My husband and I would pay more in taxes if we weren’t barred from marriage. Considering the whole package of rights and responsibilities that come with state-recognized marriage, this is a fair trade.

Flag for moderation

If same sex marriage is in fact a religious question, why are we even discussing it? Any number of churches support same sex marriage and are happy to perform them. Surely no one expects on religion to “trump” another, so, same sex couples need only to go to any church or synagogue that will marry them and that’s that. Hopefully Mr. Nannini doesn’t support the civil laws refusing any religious to it’s religious practices.

Flag for moderation

You’re missing the point, MickeyC. Mr Nannini isn’t suggesting we enact laws that refuse any religion the right to marry. He’s suggesting that government simply be silent on the topic. Why should the government be involved in defining marriage or deciding who’s considered married?

Flag for moderation

I’m an atheist and couldn’t care less what any religion thinks about the topic. What I do care about is that in all the millions of years of human history there has never been homosexual “marriage”, much less a “civil right” to such a grotesque thing. Suddenly, somewhere in the past 10 years homosexuals invent the idea, start calling it a civil right, then strive mightily to impose the concept on the rest of the country by judicial fiat, over the people’s objections. Democracy? Nope. When you impose something on the society in which I live, it does affect me, and I am opposed.

Flag for moderation

“You forgot New Hampshire, Gay Marriage is legal in 5 US States and DC in March. Separation of Church and State trumps any religious argument someone may have.”

Dear ThomasAlex, gay marriage opponents ignore facts. The map above is physical proof!

Flag for moderation

What right does any religion have to determine the relationships of others. A pox on the religious who have brought this in to our political system. Here in Australia there are people who can determine where the separation of church state http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJgKiCxpFMY and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5HlG2RoqSA

What right does a government have to set religious boundaries on the relationship between 2 adult people.

Whether I agree or disagree is not the point – the point is that I support and defend your right to self determination.
What has that to do with being an Atheist or a theist? Some people are confused by that and their own emotions. I support human beings first and foremost – their religious or non religious beliefs have nothing to do with it.

Flag for moderation

Oh, please. Stop the “woe is me” pseudo-humanist melodrama. Nobody is determining the relationships of others; homosexual relationships exist. What right do homosexuals have to force everyone else to validate their relationships by calling them marriage? None. The agenda is now and always has been forcing acceptance of the lifestyle on the culture.

Flag for moderation

Franklin I beg to differ with you read this

http://www.jinxiboo.com/blog/2009/5/3/when-same-sex-marriage-was-a-christian-rite.html

John Boswell wrote a book on same sex unions as well

http://www.librarything.com/work/30538

Marriage has always evolved it used to be about property and dowry marriage were arranged and some countries still is. It was not always about love

Flag for moderation

Michael, with all due respect, your post is irrelevant to my point. There is no “civil right” to force the majority of any democratic society to validate the relationships of homosexuals against that majority’s wishes and better judgement. This is simply a matter of “I want, I want, I want” on the part of homosexuals, without regard to any other factor.

Flag for moderation

Franklin where in the constitution does it say that I has a homosexual do not have the same rights as every other citizen. I pay my taxes as everyone else does. Why should my husband of 31 yrs and out kids not have the same rights and protections as every straight families . Where does the majority have the right to decide about a minorities rights. We would not have integration, women would not have the right to vote.
‘Democracy is not the law of the majority but the protection of the minority. — Albert Camus’‘

Flag for moderation

Franklin, where in the constitution does it say that homosexual marriage is a right? You DO have the same right to marriage as every other citizen. Your choice not to marry a woman is your own (if indeed you are a male as your posts lead me to believe). And what about your kids’ rights to be raised by a mother and a father? You are denying their rights. Look, I don’t mean to impugn you as a human being. I respect your right to choose your own lifestyle. But all choices have consequences, and it is less than realistic to demand that rights be invented to accommodate you. Why are your desires more important than the other 90-95% of the population?

Flag for moderation

*Michael
excuse me, these nicknames are a pain sometimes.

Flag for moderation

Motherless and fatherless children are not what society needs. Society should not legitimize the deviancy of homosexuality.

Flag for moderation

There is no momogamy in gay relationships. There is no such thing. Gay sex and relationships are sterile snf do no offer society anything good.
http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPnews.asp?ID=32260

Flag for moderation

and do not offer society anything good.

Flag for moderation

franklin my lifestyle was not a choice I was born this way. why would anyone choose a lifestyle subject to criticism bigoty and gay bashing. God made me this way my kids are just as normal with two dads as any other kids raised by a mother and a father

Flag for moderation

Well, Michael it’s difficult for us to find common ground. I find the “I was born this way” rationale to be a convenient excuse to justify almost any bad behavior. That is why society limits some behaviors. If you’re asking my opinion as to why someone would choose that lifestyle, I would offer that deviant sexual behavior just might be enough of a ‘rush’ to overcome societal taboos and boundaries in some people. Further, that the very breaking of those boundaries and engaging in the taboo probably adds to the psychological/sexual ‘high’ to form a pleasurable, drugged-like state that even societal disapproval can’t overcome. I will not offer an opinion on the normality of your kids. I hope you’re correct, but my opinion remains unchanged as to the necessity of both mothers and fathers in raising children.

Flag for moderation

Franklin, you are such a liar. You can’t be an atheist since no REAL atheist, such as myself, would spew such religious nonsense and dogma.

“Your choice not to marry a woman is your own…And what about your kids’ rights to be raised by a mother and a father? You are denying their rights.”

Flag for moderation

As an atheist, I support and use reason and science and they both tell everyone that sexual orientation is something that is natural and can’t be changed and therefore no one should be discriminated against because of it. Especially by those who rely on faith and religion as an excuse for such discrimination.

Flag for moderation

Nevertheless, Anthony I am an atheist. Your assertion that science and reason dictate that homosexuality is “natural” (I take it you mean genetically determined) is simply false. The studies do not support that at all. There is no homosexual gene. It’s a waste of time to debate someone who wants to compare authenticity of atheism. It seems apparent that you have an axe to grind, and your choice of words is somewhat childish. Having already spent several hours discussing the homosexuality topic, I will bid you good night.

Flag for moderation

Franklin, I never stated genetic. I can show you many studies which focus on hormones, not DNA. Race isn’t genetic either, but it is natural, but I doubt someone such as yourself would take the time to study that. Also, you apparently must be an atheist in name only and not in practice since atheists support the U.S. Constitution which protects individual rights such as the right to marry. Your lies, bigotry, and idiocy are the only things that are childish here Franklin. Goodnight!

Flag for moderation

Apparently you religious zealots don’t realize the knife cuts both ways…

The Real Threat to Religious Liberty
February 5, 2010 at 9:34 am

By guest poster Rev. Lindi Ramsden, Executive Director
Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry, CA

American is not Iran. Our civil law is not supposed to track religious law. – Eric Isaacson

Wednesday, a group of faith-based organizations (listed below) submitted an amicus brief in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case. The brief, written by our wonderful attorney, Eric Isaacson, cites the sobering reality of religiously based homophobia and makes the case that Proposition 8 was used to place anti-gay religious doctrine into our shared civil law – posing a real threat to religious liberty.

I and other clergy represented by faiths on this brief were among those who joyously married same-sex couples when it finally became legal to do so – couples that had waited for decades. We were stunned to hear those supporting Proposition 8 claim that legal marriage for same-sex couples threatened their religious freedom. Now that was a twist of logic!

As explained in the brief:

Allowing same-sex couples the right to marry threatens religious liberty of Catholics no more than does allowing civilly divorced citizens to marry in contravention of Catholic doctrine.

Allowing same-sex couples to marry no more threatens the religious liberty of those who oppose such unions in their churches and synagogues than permitting interfaith marriage threatens religious liberty of synagogues and rabbis who interpret their scripture and tradition to prohibit such unions….

The real threat to religious liberty comes from enforcing as law religious doctrines of society’s most powerful sects, to outlaw marriages that others both recognize and sanctify.

Back in 1948, when the ban on interracial marriage was challenged in California (Perez v. Sharp) the CA Supreme Court decided that the law which outlawed the marriage between these two Catholics of different races should be struck down because the couple’s right to marry “is protected by the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom.”

Surely, Unitarian Universalists, members of the United Church of Christ and the Metropolitan Community Churches, Reform Jews, Reconstructionist Jews, and others whose faith traditions bless marital unions without regard to the contracting parties’ race or sex, are entitled to the same religious liberty as the Catholics. Proposition 8 deprives them of that liberty.

The interfaith amicus brief was signed by the Unitarian Universalist Legislative Ministry, CA and the UULM Action Network, CA; CA Faith for Equality; CA Council of Churches and Church IMPACT; Progressive Jewish Alliance; General Synod of the United Church of Christ and both its Southern & Northern CA Nevada Conferences; Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations; Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches; and the Pacific Association of Reform Rabbis.

Flag for moderation

Dennis, I’ve read that brief after following the Prop8 trial and I agree with it entirely.

Like I was trying to tell Franklin (who is clearly a homophobe and an idiot) that as a person of no faith, I must always turn to and support the U.S. Constitution since it protects my beliefs, or lack thereof, but also my rights as an individual to equal protection under the law which the faithful, or supporters of the faithful (such as Franklin), may wish to deny me. My right to marry the person of my choice and be treated equally is protected under the 14th amendment and denying me that right threatens the rights of others as well such as my family and loved ones. I was born gay as scientific studies can show, and whether a person likes me for it or not, that doesn’t mean the Constitution doesn’t protect me.

Flag for moderation

As a pentecostal minister, I’m am sick of both sides! The Bible teaches that we disapprove of sin not the person and that God alone is the judge and not pastor bob or congressmen john, it is not my job to tell anyone ow to live unless they freely come and ask me. Secondly as a black man I’m offended when this is called a civil rights issue, though I agree the gay community has been abused by evil hate filled people you can hide what you are, colored people of any race can not, there face, name, and dress are inescapable, this is not a civil rights issue. Living in a free country you should have the same legal rights I agree, but don’t demonize every Christian as I’m sure there are uneducated and evil gays just like there are evil Christians it’s called being human

Flag for moderation

Franklin one question when did you consciously decide to be straight? I guess you remember the date and time since sexuality is a lifestyle choice according to you.

Flag for moderation

Atheist or not, anyone with a college education and a brain knows there are no logical arguments against gay marriage. None whatsoever. Which is why everyone from the american psychological association to the american medical association to the american anthropological association support gay marriage. Which is why the vast majority of legal scholars support gay marriage.

If these uneducated homophobes and right-wing nutjobs would spend a little more time in school and less time sticking their noses into other people’s personal lives (which don’t affect them one bit), maybe they’ll earn some respect from those of us who are educated and civilized.

This “Franklin” sheep is about as “atheist” as Sarah Palin is smart. Either that or a very dumb atheist.

Flag for moderation

Travis, you make three mistakes in implying that this isn’t a civil rights issue. First, the ability to hide something doesn’t mean it isn’t a characteristic that can be used to discriminate. Your faith, for example, you can hide but I can’t tell you that you can’t marry someone who is Jewish or Muslim or of another Christian denomination because of it. That violates your civil rights. Second, banning marriage equality is ALSO gender discrimination since the ability to marry someone based on their sex is being encoded into law. That is a civil rights issue. Lastly, the Supreme Court has already ruled in Loving V. Virginia that the right to marry the person of my choice is a fundamental right protected the U.S. Constitution. So your offense to this being, in fact, a civil rights issue is baseless.

Flag for moderation

Marriage has nothing to do with religion: justices of the peace perform secular marriages, and marriage existed long before christian mythology was invented…

Same-sex marriage in no way infringes on freedom of belief (theist or atheist): heterosexual religionists can still enter into marriage whether or not homosexuals can enter into marriage…

Government should not subsidize marriage in any way: not for heterosexuals and not for homosexuals…

If christians think that civil unions are sufficient for same-sex individuals, then the true test of fairness is to reverse roles: allow christians to have only civil unions and non-christians (heterosexual or homosexual) to have marriages…

Majority vote is important in a democracy, but protection of minority rights is even more important… The anti-equality proponents would have us believe that slavery should still be permitted if a majority votes in favor, and that women should not have the right to vote if a majority agree (both of these historical wrongs were endorsed by the Founding Fathers)…

The solution is simple… Eliminate all government subsidies for marriage of any kind… Provide local justices of the peace who will perform marriages for all couples (heterosexual or same-sex)… Allow churches to decide for themselves whether or not to perform same-sex marriages…

Under no circumstances should the mythology of any religion – christian, pagan, jewish, animist, muslim, wiccan, hindu, or any other – be forced upon individuals who exercise their rights according their belief systems…

Peace and Equality.

Flag for moderation

Anthony, what you said sounds good and well, but it is still a sort of play on words, the problem is that you have two sides that will never agree and that is fine, but what gets me is both sides justify their plight against hate or discr. with the very same thing, you have Christians that don’t have a problem saying f….t and gay people who say every Christian dumb and bigoted. If you ask me I could care less if gays are allowed to be married as long as i don’t have someone telling me what I have to do or what I choose to believe is wrong. we all have are opinions and beliefs and i don’t want a gay, straight, government, or anybody telling me how to worship or who i do or don’t marry, as long as that don’t happen to each is own, but I’m sick of the the “fight” that has to be blown up to such extremes

Flag for moderation

I happen to have a college degree, Jonathan and I can think of two or three very logical arguments against gay marriage off the top of my head. The first being that mammals (humans included) are not designed for male-male or female-female mating. The second that offspring of humans grow up much better adjusted socially when raised by a loving father-mother pair (tend not to commit crimes, etc.). Third that anal intercourse between human males is directly correlated with the spread of HIV. But then you’re simply spouting the sheep pro-homosexual propaganda that was brainwashed into you, so I don’t expect you to respond to logic.

Flag for moderation

And Franklin outs himself as an ignorant bigot, way to go!

Flag for moderation

@ Franklin

Your not very educated if you didn’t know that more than half the mammals in the animal kingdom, including ourselves have homosexuals. So P of the population have grown up better than the other P because he have a mother and father? Actually heterosexual drug use is the first cause of the spread of HIV. You have your own agenda, so you strew the facts to support your beliefs.

Flag for moderation

P*

Flag for moderation

fifty percent

Flag for moderation

It’s interesting that you use the same propaganda tactics that have been used by the pro-homosexual crowd for the past 30 years or so, thomasAlex. Labeling anyone who disagrees with you as a bigot, a homophobe, ignorant, etc. It doesn’t matter to you that I’m neither ignorant nor a bigot (nor do I fear homosexuals), it just matters that I don’t agree with you, right? The next common tactic is for all the pro-homosexual activists in the vicinity to gang up and try to overwhelm anyone who doesn’t agree and silence them through sheer volume of attacks. Reason and logic don’t matter; just volume.

Flag for moderation

50% of all mammals, really. That’s interesting since no such study exists to prove that claim. There does exist one collection of essays on behavioral observations that tries (rather unsuccessfully) to claim that the observations indicate some form of homosexuality in a few species of monkey if I recall; but it’s completely subjective and put together by someone with an obvious agenda. Hardly scientific proof.

Flag for moderation

But travis is right, neither side is going to convince the other in this. In fact all any of it does is drive the wedges deeper and force the two sides further apart. What will the pro-homosexual side have if it does succeed in imposing homosexual marriage on people who don’t want it to be part of society? People who suddenly respect them, or people who dislike them even more for their tactics and for giving the finger to democracy? They’ll have a word, marriage, that they can throw in the faces of people who already don’t much care for the propaganda the spew. Have fun with that.

Flag for moderation

So what is your argument: That marriage is a religious institution, that its only a simple civil contract, that marriage shouldn’t be in the governments domain? You are all over the place. If, as your title suggest, marriage is a religious issue, then your not making your case. Its one thing to suggest that religion is purely a religious institution (which you haven’t been able to support with your arguments)that gays aren’t party to, and quite another to say that government should be out of the marriage business all together (so that in your words the religion or organizations whether christian or atheist can choose for themselves how to define marriage). It’s marriage in the end, where starlight christian or gay atheist, regardless of whether the government overseas it as a contract or no, and as long as the government does it should not discriminate against same sex couples.

Flag for moderation

Franklin,

May you be born gay in the next life. In Uganda.

Scott

Flag for moderation

But you’re not a hater, right Scott?

Flag for moderation

I don’t hate you Franklin, if that’s what you’re implying. But by your own admission:

“neither side is going to convince the other in this. In fact all any of it does is drive the wedges deeper and force the two sides further apart.”

So I’m digging deep, and wishing you to be gay in a next life. I know it’s a long shot, but if it works maybe it’ll convince you. The Uganda part was just for effect.

Scott

Flag for moderation

…If ya can’t dazzle ‘em with brilliance, baffle ‘em with Bull***t, eh bud? Gotcha. I don’t hate you either, but I do wish you’d stop thinking about the issue like a ballgame where winning is the only thing. Maybe open your mind to the possibility that redefining one of the basic building blocks of society could have unintended destructive social consequences in the long run, instead of just spouting off? The baffle ‘em with Bull***t part was just for effect too.

peace,
Franklin

Flag for moderation

Franklin, have you paid any attention at all to the Prop 8 federal trial? You have nearly verbatim repeated the testimony of the “expert witnesses” presented by the defending side. Maybe you should go back and read the trial transcripts. They are a HOOT! I especially love when Bois and Olsen deftly dismantle the defense’s arguments by showing their “experts” to be nothing more than opinionated mouthpieces for the religious right who are unable to support their arguments with facts. You claim to be educated and I believe you because I lack faith in our educational system and would not at all be surprised to find that you’re a byproduct. As for whether homosexuality is an immutable (look it up) trait or not, the California Supreme Court says it is and they based their decision, once again, on FACTS. That is, experts who have done actual scientific research using blind studies, appropriate controls, and peer review. The “experts” presented by the defense in the Prop 8 all cite the same kind of drivel you have regurgitated here then were completely annihilated by the Bois/Olsen team.

Make you a deal Franklin, I promise not to force you to get gay married when same sex marriage becomes legal. Does that soothe your homophobic fears? ;)

Flag for moderation

Franklin: You claim you are an atheist; however, I truly doubt that assertion. Most atheists believe in a non-secular state. You claim that you don’t care about religion, but you then assert that from your atheist perspective that the argument about gay marriage is not about religion. You then go on to state, as a rather suspect matter of fact, that in the millions of years of human existence that marriage is about one man and one woman. This is simply not true. Marriage has had many many permutations. Your claims as to marriage protocols a million years ago are just not verifiable. In the last say 300 years most marriages, say about 80%, have involved multiple partners world wide. Where do you get your facts? Just because you say it does not make it true. If you are an atheist, perhaps you should do a bit of research about how other atheists perceive the separation of church and state and what effect that has upon public policy. Just because you don’t believe in theism…. that is what makes an atheist in its most root definition – that does not give you the right to defend your position from that point any more than a theist can defend theirs. Do a bit more research and post some actual facts and then we can talk. For example where do you get your millions of years evidence from with respect to what marriage has meant to all of those civilizations. Are you a scholar? What are your credentials? I simply don’t find evidence to support your wild claims.

Flag for moderation

You mention in your article that the government should not be subsidising marriage, gay marriage specifically, with tax benefits and the like because of the 10th amendment and the seperation of church and State. Yet hetersexual marriage is afforded exactly those benefits you state should not be extended to same sex couples thereby making your 10th amendment and seperation arguments moot. This then becomes an equality issue and a 14th amendment issue, not a religious issue. You are ok with marriage as a government subsidised and endorsed institution, but only on your terms and not in terms of equality. When government issues marriage licenses it becomes a matter of civil equality. If marriages were only performed under the constructs of religious institutions and did not recieve more than 1100 tax benefits I would agree with your stand that it is a religious issue. As it is now, marriage is a civil ceremony that should be extended to all citizens within the parameters of the U.S. Constitution. But you see, folks that believe as you do also were in agreement with miscegenation and slavery. You don’t care much for anyone with religious beliefs that don’t match your own.

Chuck in Chicago

Flag for moderation

I am an atheist legally married to another atheist. At no point was any church involved with our marriage. It’s a legal contract. Not allowing others to enter into the same contract is discrimination plain and simple.

Anyone who thinks marraige is a religious institution, I challenge you this: get married without filing any papers with the government. See how valid it is. When your priest/pastor/rabbi/whatever performs a wedding ceremony, he fills out papers then walks then down to the courthouse … not to god.

Flag for moderation

To those of you using the Bible as a weapon against homosexuality, you are wrong. Homosexuality is not a sin. The Bible is constantly being taken out of context to support anti-gay views. Any educated Christian would know that. Scholars who have studied the Bible in context of the times and in relation to other passages have shown those passages (Leviticus, Corinthians, Romans, etc) have nothing to do with homosexuality. These passages often cherry-picked while ignoring the rest of the Bible. The sins theses passages are referring to are idolatry, Greek temple sex worship, prostitution, pederasty with teen boys, and rape, not homosexuality or two loving consenting adults.

http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/romans_inter.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com/

Thats why Jesus never mentions it as well. There is nothing immoral, wrong, or sinful about being gay. Jesus, however, clearly states he HATES hypocrites. If you preach goodness, then promote hate and twist the words of the Bible, you are a hypocrite, and will be judged and sent to hell. Homosexuals will not go to hell, hypocrites will.

This is very similar to the religious bigots of the past, where they took Bible passages to condone slavery, keep women down, and used Bible passages to claim blacks as curses who should be enslaved by the white man. People used God to claim that blacks marrying whites was unnatural, and not of God’s will.

Flag for moderation

For those of you claiming homosexuality is a “lifestyle”, that is a false and ignorant statement. Homosexuality is not a choice. Just like you don’t choose the color of your skin, you cannot choose whom you are sexually attracted to. If you can, sorry, but you are not heterosexual, you are bi-sexual. Virtually all major psychological and medical experts agree that sexual orientation is NOT a choice. Most gay people will tell you its not a choice. Common sense will tell you its not a choice. While science is relatively new to studying homosexuality, studies tend to indicate that its biological.

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men’s Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/

There is overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a choice. Sexual orientation is generally a biological trait that is determined pre-natally, although there is no one certain thing that explains all of the cases. “Nurture” may have some effect, but for the most part it is biological.

And it should also be noted that:
“It is worth noting that many medical and scientific organisations do believe it is impossible to change a person’s sexual orientation and this is displayed in a statement by American Academy of Pediatrics, American Counseling Association, American Association of School Administrators, American Federation of Teachers, American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American School Health Association, Interfaith Alliance Foundation, National Association of School Psychologists, National Association of Social Workers, and National Education Association.”

Flag for moderation

For those of you saying marriage is a religious institution, that is false based on a few facts. Atheists can still get married. Marriage has existed long before Christianity was even in diapers. Also, marriage has been changed many times in the past. The old natural definition of marriage was a black man and black woman, white man and white woman, etc. Shall we go back to those times? There is no logical reason to deny marriage that i can’t refute easily.

Flag for moderation

Sure, marriage is a religious concern but it’s a government contract. Ministers cannot “marry” anyone. They can only preside over a ceremony. When I spoke at EMU last Spring it was to highlight that the Freedom to Marry is the Civil Rights issue of our generation, and with courageous people like the Julian Bond, from the NAACP standing up for equality, it will come, and even Obama and Bush will come around in time, as have Cheney and Clinton. Your post is important, especially during this Valentines season, but just as Valentines Day is rooted in a religious history, it doesn’t make it religious. Marriage is a government contract is no more a religious than Valentines Day.

Flag for moderation

It’s all about to be settled soon anyway. Once they lift “don’t ask don’t tell” they will have effectively legalized gay marriage throughout the country. Try telling a soldier he can’t marry another soldier. I’m all for it.

Flag for moderation

Rene and Daryl said, ‘Gays are made by straight people’ and suddenly the light goes on – Bing!

When the straight people made the gays, did they make then gay people equal to themselves, or lower, and less worthy?

Does anybody have the legal right to set aside someone else’s child as lower or less worthy of anything? Anything at all?

Flag for moderation

Benjamin Jones, I understand completely what he is saying. My point is, if the government stays out of it, then there’s nothing left to discuss because a number of churches perform same sex marriages. Of course, my question is, how does Social Security, income tax, survivor benefits, military etc. etc. fit if marriage is simply a religious act?

Flag for moderation

“Franklin

50% of all mammals, really. That’s interesting since no such study exists to prove that claim.”

Actually Franklin, a number of scientific books have been written about the subject.

Flag for moderation

“Jon Miranda

Motherless and fatherless children are not what society needs. Society should not legitimize the deviancy of homosexuality.”

Jon many gay couples have children and adopt children providing them with two parents. Calling homosexuality a “deviancy” is based on ignorance and poor education.

Flag for moderation

Ridiculous. Marriage is a civil contract. If you’re not religious, and you’re not married in a church, why should religions be poking their nose into your private life?

Gay couples adopt at a far higher rate than straight couples, so if you’re actually suggesting that “motherless and fatherless children are not what society needs,” you would, logically, support anything that would place children in loving homes.

Doctors and psychiatristsd realized that homosexuality wasn’t deviant 40 years ago. Time for the bigots to catch up.

Flag for moderation

As many have said before me, marriage can be treated solely as a legal contract. Legalizing gay marriage does not in any way infringe upon freedom of religion because it would not force churches to perform or condone same-sex marriages. It would merely give gay people access to the many legal benefits that come with marriage, such as Social Security Survivor benefits and inheritance rights. This is about giving gay Americans equal rights and equal protection under the law (which, I believe, is guaranteed in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). NOT allowing gay marriage is the civil rights violation.

Flag for moderation

What I do care about is that in all the millions of years of human history there has never been homosexual “marriage”

yes there has, do your research or don’t post at all

Flag for moderation

Precisely correct… the problem is the government’s meddling with religious affairs. Marriage in the USA needs to be either entirely secular or entirely religious… right now the policies are not maintainable. It’s a mess.

Flag for moderation

Marriage is not a right guaranteed by anyone or any document.

Flag for moderation

Sorry John, but in 1867 it was declared by our U.S. Supreme Court in a 9-0 decision, “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man, fundamental to our very existence and survival’.”

The case was called, oddly enough, Loving vs Virginia.

Know the facts, dude.

Flag for moderation

Wow, it is really interesting to see Christian-abhorring Atheists verbally “duking it out” with eachother by employing the same methodology of argumentation that SOME misguided Christians do with differing doctrinal assertons. If you take note,2 posters from the former group are invoking the name of science and reason as if it were their dogmatic determining religious force and somehow…they still get differing answers as to why homosexuality even exists.

Beyond this, they are incorporating intellectual put-downs in attempts to patronize and “lessen the value” of the other person. What a perfectly hypocritical and wonderfully bigoted alternative to Christianity you atheists seem to have! (Note: Those Christians you see who act in the same manner are not truly utilizing Christian love and values. Unfortunately, secular society seems to have stigmatized ALL of Christianity based on those setting a bad example, yet I am not condemning them either because (first, I can’t do that) and second, christians are still human and succeptible to fault, error and weakness, it’s just irritating that televangelists and self-righteous, hateful people who invoke the name of Christianity are the ones who seem to be defining the whole, thus giving a backward picture of Christian faith.

P.S.

By the way people, Scientific “fact” and human reason are not these reliably stalwart and static “pillars of absolution” incidentally. The earth was flat by scientific fact once upon a time..theories and updated knowledge keep altering the human’s capability to define their physical environment PERFECTLY and into perpetuity. There are different famous scientists whom have their own respective followers and adherents, so if there were some hateful, bigoted or even demagogue scientics or atheists who recieved alot of radio/tv airplay (i.e. Richard Dawkins, Seth Macfarlane) how would you like it if they encapsulated almost all of the public’s opinion of what Science represented and embodied? Nope, not cool or fair, right? Last thing, no I am not “Anti-science,” but like religion or Christianity in particular, if taken out of context and when it is eminating from the mouths of those who perversify it to bring about hate and bigotry, then it can be just as evil. Who misses “The Angry Beavers” from Nickelodeon by the way? I loved that cartoon….sadness. And yes, about 90% of you missed the point of Mr. Nannini’s article, reacting with the same spite and intolerance you are accusing him of…dang, ended that sentence with a preposition.

Flag for moderation

Many people are missing the point of the article and have gotten into a discussion of whether or not homosexuality is ok or not (an argument that will never be settled…obviously). The point of Mr. Nannini’s article is that the government having a role in marriage is an over-stepping of their bounds. I agree that marriage is a religious institution. And for clarification, atheists are included in this. Our religion is what drives us, motivates us and the source from which we get our morality. So for an atheist, your “religion” is atheism. Now to Mr. Nannini’s point, why does the government feel they have the right to tell anyone who can or can not get married? If you’re straight, fine…find someone who is willing to marry you and get married. If you’re gay, fine…find someone who is willing to marry you and get married. I am not the judge of what’s right and what’s wrong. And neither is Washington, DC. The government works for us, not the other way around. They are not our police, they are our protection. And the Constitution is the leash by which we control them. Just because they have taken a role in marriage, making it a “legal” contract, doesn’t mean its right. They do a lot of things that they shouldn’t.

Now, let me say this. I am a Christian and I do not support homosexuality. But I am absolutely not a bigot or a hater. To those who are on the other side of the argument, please understand that there are Christians out there who love and respect everyone, regardless of race, gender, orientation, etc. I also believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But you know what, these things that I believe dictate only how I live MY life. It’s what I believe. And I have the right to believe it. But I would be wrong to try to impose my beliefs on other people. Everyone else has the same rights as I do, to believe in what they feel is right. Unfortunately, there are those that do hate others…on both sides of the fence. And they give the rest of us a bad name. Its ok to disagree, its not ok to hate, disrespect or treat any other human being without dignity and kindness.

Flag for moderation

I would just like to make a few points about the article and comments posted thus far.

1. There is no free exercise issue here. A law only infringes on one’s right to free exercise under the 1st Amendment if it is discriminatory on the basis of religion. A facially neutral law of generally applicability that has an incidental effect on religion is not unconstitutional (see Employment Division v. Smith). Therefore, I am having a hard time seeing where government validation of marriage presents a free exercise issue. Furthermore, chuchs will not be “forced” to marry gay couples if doing so goes against their faith. The Catholic Church is not “forced” to marry straight couples who are not Catholic etc.

2. While marriage is for the states to regulate under the 10th Amendment, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act oversteps those bounds. By defining marriage between a man and a woman, the DOMA tells individual states what type of marital union they are required to recognize. If marriage should be a purely religious institution as you suggest, then your argument implies the federal DOMA (which I believe is unconstitutional in violation of the Due Process Clause) should be repealed. I find it hard to believe that those who believe same sex marriage is deplorable would want the DOMA to be repealed because it would lessen the strength of their positions.

3. While there is an equal protection argument inherent in the same sex marriage debate, unfortunately sexual orientation does not get heightened scrutiny from the Supreme Court the way that racial classifications (receiving strict scrutiny) and gender classifications (intermediate scrutiny) do. However, under the liberty provided us by the Due Process Clause, civil marriage has long been considered a fundamental right implicit in the right of privacy. What meaning does that right have if a person is not allowed to marry (enter into a civil, monogamous relationship) with the partner or spouse of their choice? The right to marry is a civil right. However, marriage is more than a set of rights (or pure contract as you suggest) it is a statement to the community that two people are so committed to each other that they vow to spend the rest of their lives together. It is not necessarily strictly religious or governmental. However, when speaking strictly of civil marriage, it is a governmental institution. Without a marriage certificate/license, heterosexual couples would not have the rights and benefits that stem from becoming legally married. Marriage is also a religious institution for those who choose it to be…marriages are not required to be performed by a minister/pastor/priest in a church, only that they be valid in the eyes of the state for the purpose of receiving benefits. Those who wish to engage in a religious ceremony are free to do so. As for the argument made above that monogamy is not a reality in same sex relationships, I beg to differ. When looking at the totality of the circumstances surrounding long term heterosexual and homosexual relationships, I fail to see the statistics that one is more faithful than the other.

4. I would like to see statistics that children raised by gay couples are less well adjusted than children raised by heterosexual couples. What is in the best interests of the child is a concern with any relationship. Gay couples adopt or have children for the same reasons heterosexual couples do…to love and cherish those children and give them a good home to grow up in. If one is going to make the argument that children raised by gay parents are not well adjusted, I believe you need to look at children raised by heterosexual couples that have the same issues. Regardless of whether the parents are gay or straight, a good home is a good home. There are plenty of straight parents out there who fail to live up to that standard. Parents in general may not live up to what we deem to be fit parents, it is not limited to same sex couples.

Flag for moderation

BellybuttonHorticulturalist: The problem is, science is based on fact, religion is based on faith. You want your religion to be based on fact? Then do two things:

1) Prove that God exists
2) Prove that it’s the Christian God

Sure science can be wrong at times, but have you proven my scientific links wrong? Didn’t think so. You can’t fake biological brain differences and stimuli done by tests. That’s why religious people like yourself get made fun of. You always make “assumptions” and illogical conclusions that are rarely based on facts. You always claim that something is wrong, without actually proving it wrong. You think homosexuality is not biological? Prove me wrong then:

http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/03/differential-brain-activation.pdf
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/sex/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html
Gay, Straight Men’s Brain Responses Differ
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,155990,00.html
http://www.livescience.com/health/060224_gay_genes.html
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w27453600k586276/
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/06/16/172/

Also, we don’t even need scientific evidence for that.

I shall ask you this. Are you male? (If not, reverse the questions to the other gender) If so, Are you sexually attracted to other men? Would you be able to enjoy sex with a man? Do you get sexual urges with a man? Do men turn you on sexually and emotionally? Could you be happy with a man sexually for the rest of your life? Does male/male porn or male sexual situations turn you on and arouse you?

Go ahead and answer those questions and get back to me. I’m sure i won’t be hearing from you again =)

Flag for moderation

Nater: The argument whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong is very easy and simple. It’s simply not wrong. I have yet to see a reason why it’s wrong that i cannot easily refute. It’s just like someone having blue eyes, or being left-handed. It simply exists in mother nature and humanity. It’s a natural part of life. In several more decades, we’ll most likely be looking back at homophobic people the same way we looked back at racists. There is no logical argument against homosexuality.

Once again, marriage is not a religious institution. It existed long before Christianity was in diapers. And if it is, which religion holds the rights? Buddhists? Muslims? Christianity? Catholics? Sorry to burst your bubble, but Christianity is not the only religion out there, and it is no more valid than any other religion. Also, if it really was a religious institution, why are atheists allowed to get married? A religious person can never answer that question. And even if it were a religious institution, unless you twist the words of the Bible, homosexuality is not a sin. I suggest you read these links to learn about homosexuality and the Bible:

http://www.soulfoodministry.org/docs/English/NotASin.htm
http://www.jesus21.com/content/sex/bible_homosexuality_print.html
http://www.christchapel.com/romans_inter.html
http://www.stjohnsmcc.org/new/BibleAbuse/BiblicalReferences.php
http://www.gaychristian101.com/

Also, your religious argument doesn’t work. It’s proven that bigots are using that as an excuse, as shown in Maine. The gay marriage law specifically stated that churches did not have to perform gay marriage, yet the religious people still forced their noses where it doesn’t belong and forced their beliefs on others. The only people stepping out of bounds is you religious people. You don’t own marriage. You don’t own government. As far as more and more people are concerned nowadays, your mythology has no factual basis or evidence. Like i said, you want your ideas to be claimed as fact? Prove that God exists, and that it’s the Christian God.

You also wrote: “Now, let me say this. I am a Christian and I do not support homosexuality. But I am absolutely not a bigot or a hater.”

-Let me change those words slightly. “Now let me say this. I an a Christian and i do not support interracial marriage. But i am absolutely not a bigot or a racist.” You start to see why its wrong denying civil rights?

You also state:
“To those who are on the other side of the argument, please understand that there are Christians out there who love and respect everyone, regardless of race, gender, orientation, etc. I also believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong.”

-The difference is, people who have sex outside of marriage can still get married to those whom they love. Gays and lesbians can’t.

Flag for moderation

One more thing to bellybutton. The difference between science and religion is that science doesn’t pretend to know, and are actively working to try and find out.

Flag for moderation

shadow_man: Oh..I get it. Homosexuality is not wrong because you say its not. Wow…great argument. Guess what, grass is not green because I have yet to hear an argument that I cannot easily refute. Seriously, stupid thinking man.

Now the difficulty in this argument is that we are arguing from a very very different basis. If both sides are arguing based on the same set of “facts” its a different argument. But the religious vs. the secular or scientific world view feature a vastly different ideology. For instance, I believe in God and that He created the world, therefore making it His. I believe in the Bible as God’s word, and the guide by which I should strive to live my life. People who believe in science believe in evolution and that my great great grandpa was monkey. There is no God or absolute set of truths or morals. It makes it a tough argument because neither of us buys into the others world view.

Likewise, your arguments about homosexuality not being condemned by the Bible are laughable. Thanks for the links though…I haven’t laughed that good in a while. Its quite amusing to hear people talk about the “mythology” of Christianity and how we believe based on faith while our opponents believe in facts. And then, get this…those same people try to lecture us on why the Bible says what they want it to say! You don’t have to be religious or believe what I believe…that is completely your choice. You make it clear where you stand so I’m assuming you don’t want to bring the Bible into this conversation. If you don’t like Christianity or religion in general, you see the Bible as invalid. So leave it out of your arguments. If you want to include it, I’ll assume you believe it has validity…well, then you’ve got a whole other set of problems.

As for the question about why atheists can get married. Atheism is a religion. Understand that I use the term “religion” quite loosely there. Our so called religion is our world view, its our guide in life. It defines us and what we believe. Atheists have that to. I think sometimes people simplify atheists as people who simply do not believe in God. But who wants to be classified as a someone whose world view is a list of things they don’t believe. Atheists believe in something. And I know it varies. Many believe in scientific reason. And you know what, believing in science is an exercise of faith as well. You yourself said that “sometimes science can be wrong…”. I suppose I would change that to often times science is wrong…or most of the time science is wrong, but whatever, its a moot point. The point is, you know that science is not 100% accurate. Therefore, believing fully in that is, by definition, an act of faith. Anyways, all to say, atheists can get married as well. Everyone can get married. When I say marriage is a religious institution (again, the term is uses loosely) it is based on what we believe. You, like so many people, are missing the entire point of this entire conversation. Its that marriage belongs to people and not the government. The government, on any level, ought not be able to define marriage as ANYTHING. One man, one woman. Two men, one woman. One man, one man. Etc.

I’m not sure if you understand that I am not against gay marriage. You took my quotes out of context in your previous post. I made it clear that when I said I believe homosexuality is wrong, that is what I believe for myself. I believe what I believe but I only apply it to myself. I’m not interested in what other people do…I don’t care. I have a hard enough time adhering to the set of standards I believe I ought to, without worrying about who someone else is marrying. So let me try to say it as clearly as I can. On a personal level, I believe homosexuality to be wrong, so I don’t partake of homosexual behavior. However, I am not for denying people the right to get married. I don’t think the government has any right to define marriage. So when I say something is “wrong”, I am saying it is wrong for me. And thats because I should only be worried about I am doing. Everything else is none of my business. I’m not God and I can’t condemn anyone’s behavior. I don’t do homosexual acts, I don’t drink alcohol, I don’t commit adultery, I try not to use bad language (thats a losing battle!), I don’t look at pornography, I don’t cheat people, I don’t steal, and I don’t act with violence. Because those things don’t align with what I feel is right for my life. But you know shadow_man, I don’t expect you to have the same list of “don’ts” that I do.

All to say, you’re completely wrong if you think people such as myself cannot hold a personal view (that extends no further than myself) and still love and respect everyone. I’ve had gay friends, straight friends, heck, I’ve had gay family members. And you know what they would tell you? That I don’t judge them, I don’t hate them, I don’t treat them any differently than anyone and everyone else. If anything, I’m there more for those people because people do not always treat them well. I think its quite ironic that people like you, shadow_man, and you’re not alone, look down on us Christians for not being open minded. We are classified as not tolerant. And yet its you who is telling me…believe this way, or you’re wrong. Believe like me, or you’re a bigot. And yet its me saying, I apply my beliefs only to myself. I don’t look down on anyone for believing differently. I don’t try to infringe on anyone’s right to live how they want to. I don’t care what people do in their own lives, its not my business. I know God loves everyone (and expects me to love everyone)…equally. I believe the government denying homosexuals the ability to marry is an attack on their freedom and an authority that they don’t have.

And yet…I’m intolerant. I’m a bigot. I’m the hater. I can’t help but smile.

Flag for moderation

Now, I have only one more thing to say on this topic before I get too bored with. I am going to shift my focus from this article to a different topic. Forget whether or not homosexuality is right or wrong. I don’t care. Thats irrelevant. What I want to say is, is homosexuality biological? Many have posted, and I am going to most address shadow_man, that homosexuality is natural. People are born that way. And of course, Christians like myself are ignorant of the “facts” and choose to believe blindly in faith and religion rather than science. Blah, blah, blah.

This is nothing new, its the same old nature vs. nurture argument. Freud was one of the first to conclude that it was parental relationships that ultimately determined sexual orientation. But as we have so clearly seen on this discussion board, the push has been to prove that homosexuality is actually an issue of nature. This is why I have to read ad nauseum that this is a civil rights issue. Because if homosexuality is by nature, then quite frankly, they are right. Women and blacks were two groups that fought the civil rights battle. And of course, they were born female and born black. However, if homosexuality is a behavior, then they have no case for this being a civil rights issue.

Lets talk about genes for a bit. shadow_man says homosexuality is like having blue eyes or being left handed. Both of those traits are genetic and can be traced quite easily simple inheritance patterns and Mendelian genetics. Of course, skin color and eye color are quite noticeable physically. Homosexuality on the other hand is only recognized by its actions (i.e. behavior). I’ll get back to this one in a bit.

There have been many studies attempting to prove that there is a so called “gay-gene.” And while all such studies have ultimately failed to prove such a gene exists, some of the studies nevertheless claim at least a correlation between homosexuality and genetics (and note, all scientists would probably agree that correlation does not equal causation). LeVay, Bailey and Pillard, and Hamer are some scientists who have done well documented studies regarding the gay gene. In LeVay’s case, he determined a correlation because of the size of the nuclei on the hypothalamus. In homosexual men, these nuclei clusters were much smaller than in heterosexual men. Of course, every brain he studied (post mortem) featured homosexual men that had died of AIDS complications. AIDS affects the testosterone levels in males. And even that was based on assumption because he failed to possess a complete medical history of the individuals and assumed, based on the AIDS, that these individuals were homosexual and these others were not.

Another study that some defenders of nature homosexuals have pointed me to are that of mono-zygotic twins. I really don’t understand why, because these studies just further make my point. But anyways, here’s some of the info. Bailey and Pillard found the highest percentage of twins being homosexual so I’ll go with that study. They found that in 52% of the cases where one identical twin was gay, so was the other. Thats a high number, but it also begs a good question. If it is genetic and natural, why isn’t the number 100%…or at least closer to it? These twins share the same identical genetic code, yet 48% of the cases reported on homosexual sibling. Furthermore, they included non twin siblings and adopted siblings in their study. Get this, the adopted siblings, where one sibling was gay, had a higher percentage of both siblings being gay than did the non twin biological siblings. Another strong evidence that homosexuality is a behavior that is based on nurture and environment.

Hamer studied the family history angle of homosexuality. And of course, he found that it was genetic and passed through the mother. Oh, but he did fail to test any heterosexual males in his entire experiment…wouldn’t that maybe be helpful? How do you not include a control group in your experiment? Wow, nice experiment there buddy. Did you maybe have an agenda? Not to pick on Hamer, but these other studies, along with many many more, are grossly flawed and the methodology leaves a lot to be desired. Bias has no place in scientific experiment if we are trying to uncover “facts” right?

Another point I would like to make is in regards to the ability of the homosexual to change their behavior. I have met and talked to two people in my life that were once homosexual and are now heterosexual. And I’m not talking experimental homosexuals for a few days. I’m talking years and years. There are many more of these cases as well. These people told me they ultimately felt that their actions were not right, and changed (again, not getting into the right vs. wrong argument) their behavior. Were they not true homosexuals? I’m sure they were just impostors. Some 30 years ago, the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from their list of mental disorders. Before, they had treated people for it like it was a sickness. R. Spitzer did a study of 200 homosexuals to see if they could indeed change their orientation. 90% of the participants claimed to be exclusively or mostly homosexual before the study, while only 13% claimed to be so after the study. Also, 33% claimed to be entirely or mostly heterosexual after the study. Again, impostors I’m sure. But listen to this, this is where I laugh. The American Psychiatric Association issued a statement following the studies such as this one by Spitzer and a similar one conducted by Rob Goetze: “…there is no published scientific evidence supporting the efficacy of reparative therapy as a treatment to change one’s sexual orientation…. The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety, and self-destructive behavior” (see American Psychiatric Association, 1999, p.1131). Now this is funny to me because on one hand they change their books and policy because homosexuality is not a behavior or disorder and thus should not change. And then they issue this statement saying not enough evidence published to support that a homosexual can change. Nice. So they deem it unethical to suggest a homosexual can change while acknowledging that not enough evidence exists to know if that is the case or not. Laughable!

Homosexuality is not new. It has been around for many many years. And we know for a scientific fact that homosexual people are unable to biologically reproduce. Without the means to reproduce, science (evolution, natural selection) seems to indicate that homosexuality would have been weeded out a long time ago. Survival of the fittest, right?

Now getting back to shadow_man and the genes discussion (I told you I would eventually make it back here). You don’t claim to necessarily believe the gay gene idea, you instead suggest brain waves…or biological brain differences I guess is how you put it. I don’t even necessarily disagree with you on that. But that proves NOTHING. You know who else has biological brain differences? Child molesters. Rapists. Serial killers. Their brain functions are often times much different than the “norm.” I’m sure many child molesters and sex offenders would also (actually I know they have) use the same “this is how I was made” argument. Now don’t misunderstand me, I’m not calling homosexuality a crime…the legality of it is irrelevant. The fact is, child molesters don’t have to molest children, despite any biological differences. If they couldn’t, we shouldn’t lock them up. After all, you can’t discriminate against someone who is only doing what their genetic make up forces them to do.

Now its also true, shadow_man, that sexual excitement and arousal affect the brain. So claiming that to be “proof” is quite poor science on your part. Years or repeated homosexual actions can affect the brain in a different way than years of heterosexual actions. That proves nothing more than the brain reflects behavior.

You put forth a question that I will answer with ease. Am I attracted to a man sexually, will I ever be, etc.? Nope. Big deal…guess what that proves? Nothing. Will I ever molest a child? Will I ever rape someone? Will I have sex with an animal? Will I ever have sex with a tree? The answer to all these questions is no. Why? Because its not in my genetic make up to want to go bang a freakin’ white pine? Umm, I’m going to go with because I choose not to partake in that behavior. I could if I wanted to. I could have sex with a guy if I chose to. I could have sex with one guy alone for the rest of my life. My arousal or excitement in such a situation is again completely irrelevant. If I am to somehow conclude that homosexuality is the result of biology and nature, I must also assume that heterosexuality is natural. Yet I can have sex with whoever and whatever I want regardless of my biology. And I know what you’re thinking…but you cannot control who you are sexually attracted to. So? Remember our little child molesters…they feel the same exact way. However, attraction makes not a child molester. Molesting does. The act. The behavior. I may have times where I am sexually attracted to someone other than my wife. Acting on such would not go over too well with her though.

This is the absolute very best you’ll ever get…and this much is still entirely in question. You have no control over who you are sexually attracted to. But sexual attraction does not force action. Some men are attracted to little girls, others to little boys. Attraction does not force action. I can be attracted to someone other than my wife. But attraction does not force action.

Do you have a choice to act upon your urges to have sex with a child? No, its a crime. Do you have the right to act upon your attraction for another man? Sure. Between consenting adults…its legal. Its your prerogative. But its also what we just said…your choice. But attraction to another man no more makes you homosexual than attraction to another woman makes me and adulterer. Or attraction to a child makes Chester a child molester. However, when those thoughts or desires take hold of our heart and brain, we often times CHOOSE to ACT.

As I sit here on this computer, I find myself with an urge to quit typing and go look at porn. It sounds hot, turns me and well, you know. No need to get more graphic. But I think its filth that I shouldn’t look at. So I’m not gonna. But I guess I have still looked at porn tonight because it was in my head an attractive (being sarcastic). It turns me on and would no doubt be sexually arousing. But I will choose not to look at it. Because my attraction does not dictate my actions.

I am officially bored with this discussion.

Flag for moderation

“By their own admission, gay activists are not simply interested in making it possible for homosexuals and lesbians to partake of conventional married life. Rather, they aim to change the essential character of marriage, removing precisely the aspects of fidelity and chastity that promote stability in the relationship and the home:
· Paula Ettelbrick, the former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has stated, “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so….Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society.”

…“The evidence is overwhelming that homosexual and lesbian “committed” relationships are not the equivalent of marriage. In addition, there is little evidence that homosexuals and lesbians truly desire to commit themselves to the kind of monogamous relationships as signified by marriage. What remains, then, is the disturbing possibility that behind the demands for “gay marriage” lurks an agenda of undermining the very nature of the institution of marriage.”

-Excerpts from a very well researched and attributed article located at http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

Flag for moderation

I realized in vetting my last post that the article I linked to is on a site that lists “defending faith, family and freedom” as its motto. That is a matter of circumstance I believe unrelated to the article itself or the research contained therein, as you will see upon reading it. I want to be very clear here that I am neither advocating nor denigrating religion in discussing this topic.

Flag for moderation

Franklin:

You are TOO funny! I’ve been reading your posts, and must say you have contradicted yourself on all levels.

You confess to being a politically moderate, educated atheist who just happens to be against same-sex marriage. Yet, every point you expressed is practically word-for-word from the “Right Wing Religious Conservative” Handbook.

Furthermore, Absolutely NONE of your points have logical or legal merit. They stem from an obvious distain you have for homosexuality, rather than being based on any government structure or law. This is an extremely evident undertone in ALL of your comments.

Finally, your last comment listed quotes (which are COMPLETELY out of context)… taken from the FAMILY RESEARCH COUCIL website (which you included the link – but failed to mention exactly who or what this organization stood for). Are you aware that the Family Research Counsel is one of the most bias, right-wing conservative groups in the United States?

Just goes to show where you get your facts.

Next time, try researching Homosexuality using REAL SOURCE…. not bias or slanted in any way. Try these:

The American Psychiatric Association: http://www.psych.org/Departments/EDU/Library/APAOfficialDocumentsandRelated/PositionStatements/197310.aspx

The American Psychological Association:
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx

Follow the Money (who funded the campaigns for these measures):
http://www.followthemoney.org/database/StateGlance/ballot.phtml?m=485

Also, here are some points to clear up for you:

1. When you discuss that “Gays are just trying to throw their lifestyle in our faces.” You fail to mention that it is NOT the LGBT community putting these laws on the voter ballot. They are simply fighting these laws in court, because they DO eliminate their rights. In EVERY CASE, same-sex marriage initiatives have been funded, staffed, and supported by conservative religious groups… and they are usually the pre-curser for other laws limiting more rights to homosexuals.

In California, NOM (National Organization of Marriage) and the Family Research Counsel are sponsoring a bill to ban any homosexuals from teaching in public schools. They are using Prop 8 as a defense. “Californians don’t want homosexuals to marry, your honor. So, their lifestyle isn’t accepted. Therefore, they shouldn’t be allowed to earn a living either.” And you are calling it a “GAY AGENDA”? Who really has the agenda?

2. Of course Same-Sex marriage opponents want this issue to become/remain “voter property”… because they WIN! It is not a popular issue, and it DOES BY ALL DEFINITION take away rights of a minority. If Desegregation were voted on in 1954, do you honestly think it would have passed? The Supreme Court decision to Desegregate was actually brought on by a lawsuit. This lawsuit was to defeat the current Segregation law that was PUT ON THE BOOKS BY POPULAR VOTE.

In fact, ABSOLUTLEY NO CIVIL RIGHT has ever been granted, in this country, by popular vote.

EVERY CIVIL RRIGHT in this country has been granted by either an act of congress or by the Supreme Court.: Slavery, De-Segregation, A woman’s right to vote and own property, reproductive rights (use of condoms and diaphragms among married couples), even divorce… and in most of these cases, it was to eliminate a law that was enacted by popular vote.

3. As for Marriage being a solely RELIGIOUS sanction, this is neither realistic nor is it a logical solution to this debate. By making marriage a solely religious union, then you discriminate against way more citizens than just the gays. Government sanctioned “marriage licenses are NECESSARY to keep proper records and initiate certain benefits and freedoms.

This is a personal issue that has legal and government ramifications. By denying a gay couple the right to marry, you deny them the right to collect a spouse’s Social Security/Medicare, pay equal taxes, and it can severely affect hereditary and medical rights.

4. Religious organizations will NOT be effected by Same-Sex marriage… NOR WILL YOU! Do you have any idea how many freedoms and protections Religious groups have in the country? It is still perfectly legal for a church to segregate a black man… if they can prove being black is “against their religion.” The Southern Baptists STILL have segregated churches in parts of this country. The only time a church can possibly get sued in this country over this issue is if they offer a tax-paying” service to the general public, i.e.: renting their hall to anyone (regardless of faith). In that case, they are open to anti-discrimination laws.., like any other private business.

As for you, you can still “dislike” homosexuals. You just can’t discriminate against offering them any services your business would offer anyone else. However, your taxes will not be changed, your life will not be disrupted… though, these laws ARE disrupting the private lives (financial, medical, investments) of tax paying same-sex couples who are not being treated equally under the law.

Flag for moderation

Nater:

Oh, and the same to you… I’d love to know where you get your fascinating, so obviously un-bias research.

Flag for moderation

Society should not legitimize the deviancy of supernatural belief. Homosexual pairings are found in nature and are quite normal. Only haters and bigots deny and fail to comprehend this. “Undermining marriage” is a self-serving shallow yet pervasive piece of sophistry that actually means nothing and fails to say anything nuanced or relevant about the diverse lived experience of human existence and what ought to be the freedom of two adult citizens regardless of gender to be married in the eyes of the state.

Haters and theocratic bullies, if you want to eke out the rest of your lives being brazenly proud of your blinkered tyrannical existence, go right ahead. But when the day comes that you go your graves, as all of us eventually must, know that you are loathed for what you do and have done, and that the world will be a better place for your departing it.

Flag for moderation

MD_LA:

Where did I get my research? Well, its not my research its the research of your own side.

You seem to enjoy talking about biased research. Well, in experiments dealing with very controversial issues, rarely is anything un-biased. You chastise Franklin for posting biased material and then tell him to research REAL SOURCES that are not slanted in biased in anyway. And of course, you list some wonderfully, completely and utterly un-biased sources to use (that support your thoughts, no doubt).

But I will give you one example…read my post again and you will see I had something to say about the American Psychiatric Association, the wonderful un-biased, fact based, scientifically reasoned source that they are. Prior to 1973, the recognized homosexuality as a mental disorder and treated people for it. Then they stopped. They discovered that it was natural and could not be changed, so they were wasting their time trying to rehabilitate people. Meanwhile, there were people conducting research about the changeability of homosexual behavior. The conclusion was that it could be changed. In response, they issued the quote that I posted. Let me paraphrase: “We have determined that homosexuality is biological and natural so we shouldn’t try to change people. However, not enough evidence exists to prove that it is changeable.” Remember, this is a reliable source according to you. If you notice, they don’t respond by saying that the facts support their thinking. They say that trying to change someone’s orientation brings potential risk of self destructive behavior. Because there is NO PROOF. Nothing. And they freely admit it…they changed their policy based, not on scientific evidence, but on risk factors. Their words, not mine.

All I attempted to do, was take research from my opponents and even give them the benefit of the doubt concerning their findings. Then I just re-interpret the findings or numbers in a logical and reasonable way that, you know, actually makes sense. Much like I did with the study of twins. I just used the studies that support biological homosexuality. And I told you exactly why they were stupid to conclude what they did. I have to sit here and here all this garbage about how Christians like myself disregard reason and logic in our arguments. That is complete and total BS. I spent more than half of my previous post using nothing but reason based on the facts we know.

Now I should also tell you where I agree with you. You are right with much of what you say about the same-sex marriage legal acts or proposals. Its not as simple as putting something to popular vote. And quite frankly, I shake my head sometimes when others on my side support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman. It has nothing to do with what I believe, but why does the government get to define what marriage is? If the government decided to define marriage as only between members of the same sex, you can bet there would be outrage among the people who now want them to enact a law allowing only heterosexuals to marry. They would be clamoring that the government had no right to do that and on and on and on. I don’t buy into the theory that the government can overstep its bounds as long as it agrees with my principles. Because next time, it might not.

Flag for moderation

Brendan:

Animals that devour their offspring and hunt, kill, and eat one another are found in nature. Its quite normal. Only haters and bigots look down on cannibals.

Another smart person who claims “this is true!” Why? “Because I said its true!” Oh, ok.

“But when the day comes that you go to your graves, as all of us eventually must, know that you are loathed for what you do and have done, and that the world will be a better place for your departing it.”

Ladies and Gentlemen, another open minded, tolerant and accepting liberal thinker.

Flag for moderation

The hatred and hypocrisy of the pro-homosexual movement is astounding. They simply will not tolerate disagreement from anyone for any reason.

Flag for moderation

To answer the authors question “Isn’t marriage a religious institution?”

No, it is not a religious issue!

Therefore, your argument is moot!

what a waste of space…

Flag for moderation

NATER:
Again, you are spewing all these “scientific facts.” Yet, you are not supplying a single, valid resource.

FRANKLIN:
I love how you declare me a “hypocrite” when I point out the flaws in your research and/or argument. Is that your defense? REALLY??

Both of your arguments are only “one-sided.” They have absolutely no malice, proof, or logic. NEITHER of you have presented ANY valid, un-bias resources.

At no time did I mention “what side I am on.” I simply showed the flaws in your research, and presented UN-BIAS research of my own.

I’ve asked you BOTH to do the same (to support your arguments)… and you have not. Instead, Nater rambles on about philosopical and religious “truths”, and you call me a hypicrite. Seriously, Where are your debating skills?

Please, get some REAL UN-BIAS facts, and then we’ll talk.

Flag for moderation

MD_LA:

You just don’t get it do you? What sources do you want me to give you? There is no point…any resource I would provide would be met with the same response: “It is biased, right wing garbage, etc.” Have you read the posts throughout this entire message board? On this issue, I’m sorry, but EVERY resource will be biased. Its the nature of the beast when dealing with such a controversial and divisive issue.

Take a look at the posts above. So many people argue that people like myself are completely ignorant and lack any logic in our arguments. Thus my attempt at logical arguments rather than scientific arguments. I hate to break it to you, but science sucks. At least, what most people consider “science” sucks. Science tells us the world is flat. The entire solar system revolves around the earth. Humans evolved from monkeys. An explosion resulted in an ordered universe and created life. On and on it goes. What good are “scientific facts” if they are wrong? Heck, I listen to people constantly claim that the theory of evolution is not a theory, its a fact! Its garbage and violates scientific laws left and right. There is nothing more biased than science. It is something that openly and unashamedly denies any possibility of a God, any absolute truth or morality, and labels all opponents as lovers of faith rather than facts (i.e. truth).

Don’t forget that you have not provided a single valid resource either. They are all completely biased. I have read them, and they are biased. I have pointed out to where they are biased. Remember, just because you like them doesn’t make them unbiased or reliable.

And by the way, if you find my “facts”, or whatever, to be so far out there, look it up yourself. Don’t whine about what is or isn’t properly cited or debated in your opinion. Again, all I have done is use examples of studies done by proponents of people being born gay. People use them in arguments, so I Google it and simply look at the experiment. And then I told you why it is biased and/or unreasonable.

And not to call you a hypocrite, but this entire train of thought is hypocritical from the pro-homosexual (being born gay) crowd. I am told to prove God exists, prove the Christian God exists, etc. What about the other side? They get to assume truth (quite convenient). They see an opportunity to make homosexuality a civil rights issue and so they proclaim people are born gay. And the best facts we can get? Oh, they have brain waves that look different. The evidence is not just sorely lacking, it is laughable. If I came into an argument attempting to prove God existed with the same strength of evidence as the pro-homosexuality crowd, I would be mocked…and rightfully so. Yet, my side is constantly being told “prove it, prove it, prove it.” The other side, well they claim to know science, so truth is assumed.

Here’s a novel idea…why don’t I sit back and do nothing while I wait for someone else to give me one credible, reliable piece of information suggesting that people are born gay. After all, they are the one’s pushing for something. They want change. So prove it. Prove people are born gay. And I truly hope someone can give me something better than the pathetic “brain differences” argument.

You’re right about one thing though…I do ramble…for sure.

Flag for moderation

I should point out Carl Lumberg proves my point entirely:

To answer the authors question “Isn’t marriage a religious institution?”

No, it is not a religious issue!

Therefore, your argument is moot!

what a waste of space…

Where is the questioning of this line of thought? Guess what everyone, marriage is not a religious institution because Carl Lumberg said so! Oh, Carl Lumberg said so…I had no idea. I sincerely apologize. I had not realized that Carl Lumberg had proclaimed its truth.

What a complete and ridiculous joke. I make an attempt to present logical arguments that, you know, actually make sense and then I have to read brainless drivel from the mind of a complete moron…and certainly no one would point that out.

Mark it down…at 9:45 am, on Feb. 18, Carl Lumberg attempts to prove that his IQ is equivalent to that of a jar of mayonnaise. And he succeeds with flying colors.

Flag for moderation

Sexuality is complex. This discussion, is not as black and white at it would seem. Almost everyone on here has proven that. It is awesome that people hold deep convictions and passions about this topic. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, whether you agree or disagree with the other person. Unfortunately, the core of what we fight for will never be won with blatant disregard of humanity and each other. Who wants to come to our side after we berate them? No one wants to come to our side of the argument like a dog with its tail between its legs. I’m glad everyone has gotten out his/her venting. But, this thread is FRUITLESS….if you really care about people, gay, straight, homophobic, trans, Jew, Christian, agnostic, ect. prove it by helping them next time they are in need.

In fact, find someone who you don’t agree with, someone who you wouldn’t want to talk to, or disagree with and help them…that will show how much you really care about humanity and helping people out. Doing good is more than standing up for a cause or voting a certain way, or “standing on your soapbox” via the internet.

Flag for moderation