If D wasn't a choice, then I would go with B. However, on a matter as explosive as gay marriage, letting the states decide is the best option. I believe in the traditional definition of marriage, but I have no problem with civil unions that entail the benefits of marriage for homosexuals.

You left off:


F) A Blogcritic Proclamation - Be It Resolved: this horse has been beaten to death; that any Blogcritic who shall post another essay about this dead horse will be beaten to death; and that banishment from the site will be recommended for anyone even contemplating posting about this dead horse of an issue. (Note: a daily update on the activities of someplace called 'Oregon' implies that we're missing at least 49 other daily entries -- not including Puerto Rico and other sovereign territories -- so please, for the love of Gawd, give it a rest.)

See also "Mel Gibson's Passion" for more.

How about A?

But then again, when were the racists given votes about school integration or interacial marriages?

Tyranny by the majority is still tyranny no matter how much it gets dressed up as (im)morality.

Being part of a gay couple for the last 30 years of my life, I find it repulsive that we are willing to let the civil rights of gay couples such as myself to be up to the states to grant. We pay taxes just as anyone else, although somewhat more since we are unable to file jointly. We have the same concerns as anyone else, although more, because if one of us is in the hospital, there is absolutly no reason the hospital will have to give the other the right to visit or to make medical decisions for my partner. If my partner dies, there is nothing that will dictate that I won't loose my home if his blood family decides that half of what we have built a lifetime to build, is half their's. Yes, this has actually happened to some of my friends.

If the decision to grant gay couples equality to married couples is left to the states, many will be without those rights, perhaps forever. And, in all cases, those couples will not be able to gain the over 1,000 federal rights afforded marriage.

Civil rights should not be left up to polls and popular opinion.

I believe in the traditional definition of marriage, but I have no problem with civil unions that entail the benefits of marriage for homosexuals.

I find such an ideal silly to say the least, however if something like this makes people happy, and does accord all couples the same thing then personally I'd settle for it.

However, it reads like this:

*turning to the person on my left*
Here, you may have this ice cream cone.

*turning to the person on my right*
Here, you may have this frozen dairy product on top of an edible holding device. But you may NOT call it an ice cream cone. That is biblically wrong.

Makes no sense but as long as I get my ice cream cone, you can call it whatever you want, if you feel you are obeying God's will by refusing to call it for what it really is.

Civil Rights? Define specifically civil rights as it pertains to homosexual marriage. I'm sick of everyone hiding behind the term "civil rights".

Homosexuals are not minorities. That idiot Mayor up in New York, Jason West ( who was ultimately charged with 19 criminal counts )had the nerve to reference Rosa Parks and what African Americans endured in the 1960's to the gay marriage issue. That is whacked. There is no comparison between the two issues. He's an idiot who needs to go back to high-school and re-take American History.

Civil Rights? Define specifically civil rights as it pertains to homosexual marriage. I'm sick of everyone hiding behind the term "civil rights".

Sure, this one is easy. Allowing a spouse to co-sign on a home loan but then denying some people to have spouses is a violation of that person's civil rights. Allowing some couples to file taxes jointly but not other couples is a violation of that couples civil rights of equal treatment. Allowing some spouses to not be forced to testify against their partner, but requiring other spouse to, because you don't acknowledge their relationship is a violation of that couples civil rights. I could list 1,700 different violations of civil rights when it comes to marriage, but since we both know it won't change your mind, it would be a waste of space. It's not you we need to convince, it's just Lady Justice, who continually rules on our side anyway.

This really doesn't even have a bearing on me. I was just taken aback by the civil rights comparison between gay marriage and the years and years of African Americans being denied the basics of life. That is a clear insult in African Americans.

As long you don't have people like Jason West going to bat for you, you might make some headway on the issue.

I was just taken aback by the civil rights comparison between gay marriage and the years and years of African Americans being denied the basics of life. That is a clear insult in African Americans.

There is a lot of debate in the gay community about comparing our fight for equality with the fight that African Americans went through. Granted, we don't have the lynchings that they went through in the past, but we do have crimes motivated by hate in which gay people are brutally killed and tortured every year.

Any reference to the civil rights marches of Dr. Martin Luther King or the civil rights struggles of the past are more of a reference to the 'separate but equal' philosophy.

There was a time when society had separate drinking fountains for those of different races, there were separate restaurants, separate places to sit on the bus, etc.

The judicial system decided that a separate but equal philosophy doesn't work and does not fit in with the concept of what America was meant to be.

Yet here we are in 2004, where people want marriage AND civil unions that offer the same benefits but are just called different things. Marriage is your drinking fountain and civil unions are mine. Let's disregard the fact that this country has already learned separate but equal doesn't work and let's just spend our time repeating history, huh?

That's weak. Plain and simple. No matter what your explanation, what happened to African American's should have never been brought up in the issue.

Gay Marriage your water fountain? My ass! Don't try to back peddle for that idiot(Jason West) and explain his ignorant comparison.

That's weak. Plain and simple.

Luckily, Lady Justice doesn't think so.

I have an idea. Use the voting process to start. Next use influencial gay figures along with people like yourself to work behind the scenes and get some results. Being an ill loud mouth like Rosie doesn't help the cause. Extremism does not ease tensions.

If I'm doing an investigation for an individual in a domestic matter more times than not their ex is talking in excess about all of the great things they're going to do. Meanwhile I'll relentlessly go from one town to the next, courthouse to courthouse and do whatever is needed to deliver a devastating blow to the loud mouth.

Keep doing your part within the law and you'll get your results.

I have an idea. Use the voting process to start. Next use influencial gay figures along with people like yourself to work behind the scenes and get some results.

So you've got how to accomplish gay marriage all figured out. Good for you. However, it's completely wrong.

First, one should not use the voting process to determine who federal benefits are applied to and who gets discriminated against. A democracy does not mean 'mob rule'.

Second, we have been working 'behind the scenes' as you put it, for decades. The sodomy law that was struck down took 8 years to make it to the Supreme Court. The Mass. ruling did not come about by filing a lawsuit the day before. We HAVE been working and making major advancements, and we still have more to go, due to the idiocy of perceptions like, who qualifies for what tax breaks and who gets treated how by the federal government should be put to popular vote.

Third, at no time in my discussion with you, was I defending any straight mayor or judge or court clerk who has decided to take a stand for what is right. They are reviewing their state constitutions and their laws and making decisions based on their interpretation. If there are existing laws that conflict with their constitiution, they are making their own decisions as to which takes priority. Only time and the justice system will determine if they are right or not. Neither you or I will.

Fourth, and in terms of extremism, if there are gay LAW-ABIDING people out there who are tired of being compared to animal humpers, Satan, child molesters and all sorts of other paranoia comparisons, and they are speaking out about it, loudly well then good for them.

The extremism and loud in-your-face rhetoric comes strongest from the anti-gay establishment and it comes FIRST. Any shouting back is simply that, shouting BACK.

I disagree on voting. Having the right Politicians in office and Justices on the bench can make or break any issue. Trust me, I can personally attest to this.

When I use the term extremist I feel that way toward all causes, even my own beleifs. I am pro-life, but I can't stand driving to my home and seeing loud mouths with 6ft high pics of bloody fetuses, or even worse someone claiming to christian murdering a doctor or nurse because they work in a womens clinic.

One question. Why has the issue of gay marriage sky-rocketed so much in the last few years?

More people are out and more of us are fucking sick of silently living in hell as second-class citizens while America goes on with its lie about being a land of equality. A lot of us have had enough. We're fed up and we won't put up with this crap anymore.

MERCY!!! Somebody call TWISTED SISTER:
We're Not Gonna Take It

Oh we're not gonna take it
No, we ain't gonna take it
Oh we're not gonna take it anymore

We've got the right to choose it
There ain't no way we'll lost it
This is our life, this is our song

We'll fight the powers that be just
Don't pick our destiny 'cause
You don't know us, you don't belong

Oh we're not gonna take it
No, we ain't gonna take it
Oh we're not gonna take it anymore

Oh you're so condescending
Your gall is neverending
We don't want nothin', not a thing from you

Your life is trite and jaded
Boring and confiscated
If that's your best, your best won't do

Oh Oh

We're right (yeah)
We're free (yeah)
We'll fight (yeah)
You'll see (yeah)
!

So if one has nothing substantiative to add, we just cut and paste song lyrics?

I believe there are many reasons why gay marriage has come to the forefront in recent years. Probably more reasons than I can get into, but I will try to list at least some.

First, Natalie is speaking the truth when she says more and more of us are out now than before. You would be hard pressed to find a homosexual in the 1950's who wasn't closeted. With domestic partnerships coming in and gay people on tv showing America we aren't really the boogeyman, the gay youth of today does not experience the level of bigotry and hatred and lies that their predecessors did. So they don't understand the motivations behind bigotry as much and are more likely to speak out against it. Their level of self-esteem is much higher, although because of homophobia still being so prevalent in society, the gay teen suicide rate is still 5 times that of a straight teen.

Secondly, there are an estimated 10 million kids growing up in gay households today, in this country alone. As my daughter, now 20 months old, begins to find her place in this world, I realize I am not fighting for me anymore but for her. For far too long, I was silent when the lies and slander and discrimination was around, because my own self-esteem wasn't very good. But my daughter's family is just as good as the family next door and she is entitled to all the privileges and benefits that their children receive, including the rewards that go to families via tax credits, insurance policies and whatnot.

Third, this has been in the works for decades, we have been fighting this the whole time. The federal amendment was in the works for no less than two years but was hardly a blip on the evening news. Then suddenly a heterosexual president endorsed it, and it was HIM doing so that put it in your face.

Oh -- and, thankfully, more and more hets are growing up and realizing three things:

1. It isn't all about THEM,


2. Equality doesn't exist until EVERYONE is equal, and


3. The beliefs of particular religious groups should have no part in how civil (i.e. secular) law governs and punishes others, many of whom are not part of aforementioned religious groups

Yeah, paste song lyrics! At this point we're beating a dead horse. For the love of God, Dateline NBC just ran a story 30 mins ago still debateing whether or not J. Edgar Hoover was a cross dresser.

Imagine the years and years to follow if and when gay marriage is legal.

You think it's as simple as the President and some Politicians signing a paper making it legal. If it is made legal on a Federal level there will be years of back and forth actions and appeals by Local and State governments in areas arguing the "States constitution" and rights.

You think it's crazy now. Wait and see what happens if it is made legal. You will be in for one big show.

You think it's as simple as the President and some Politicians signing a paper making it legal. If it is made legal on a Federal level there will be years of back and forth actions and appeals by Local and State governments in areas arguing the "States constitution" and rights.

So what else is new for us? I never thought it would be that simple.

You think it's crazy now. Wait and see what happens if it is made legal. You will be in for one big show.

We've fought this for decades, we know it won't be solved overnight. We've already seen 'the show' and we'll see it to the end. It's a show of your own making.

Indeed. To coin a phrase, the chickens are coming home to roost.

Are we angry or what? Chill. It'll all work out in the end.

As far as "we've already seen the show". You're dreaming. It's gonna get a hell of a lot wilder, crazier and nastier than you could imagine.

Are we angry or what? Chill. It'll all work out in the end.

Just to clarify for you and anybody else who might be reading me, I'm not angry when I post here, although it does sound like that sometimes, granted.

As far as "we've already seen the show". You're dreaming. It's gonna get a hell of a lot wilder, crazier and nastier than you could imagine.

You can't possibly imagine what we have already seen though.

I'm sorry someone or something has done you wrong. You sound really upset. If you only realized how many gay men and women I have worked with not to mention a close friendship with a gay person, you wouldn't be giving me hell.

I took a lot of shit from people, especially close friends because I was friends and regularly had breakfast,
(three to four times a week)with gay guy during a two to three hour gap between classes while in college. He respected me and I likewise respected him. Nothing more nothing less.

Live and enjoy life. Sorry if I offended and I hope you can not be so angry. Life's to damn short.
Goodbye...

It is not possible to take the position of opposing gay marriage in a debate with a homosexual, and not have the other individual's personal emotions become involved. And I completely understand that. If I was gay, I would support gay marriage too. A "conflict-of-interest" is involved here, and it's impossible to expect a gay person to not take his/her own side in the argument.

It is futile to debate this issue with BCB or ND any further. It is ludicrous to expect to be able to change their minds on this matter.

FWIW, my mind is made up as well: I oppose court-imposed gay marriages, but I suspect (as Eric points out) that they are inevitable. The Constitutional Amendment won't pass. The DOMA will be overturned by the USSC at some point. And that's that.

I also believe that the definition of marriage will face further redefinitions beyond that, since it will then be viewed as an infinitely malleable "right" instead of an unwavering bedrock of American culture. Polygamists will likely find a receptive audience in a future USSC. Incestuous couples as well. "Relationships" between humans and other sentient animals (dolphins, other primates) will be decriminalized. The age-of-consent will be lowered by the courts to European standards (13 in some countries, if I remember correctly). Etc.

Just my predicition. I could be wrong. But once you start sliding down that slippery-slope, you are likely to see an increased push at "reforms." Those who want radical change rarely are satisfied with a victory. It merely emboldens others with an issue with the status quo.

Sorry Roger if you view posts on a blog as giving you hell. Goodbye then.
RJ, you are right in one aspect, but then degenerate into silliness.
Talking about Iraq is one thing, it affects us all, talking about Condolezza or Kerry or something like that and we are all in it together.
Talk to a gay person about equality or hate crimes or marriage, etc. and you are talking about something on a very personal level to them. Might I also add when someone talks to a religious person about their religion, they get the same result?

BCB:

I don't think it's silly at all. You yourself said you would support my "right" to marry two women. I'm sure some future group in Utah will go through the courts and attain this "right."

Incest is the next step. Why shouldn't a sister and brother who truly love each other marry? (The "ick" factor does not count here any more than it counts in gay marriages.) The genetic issue is moot, since there is no law against two people with the same defective gene from marrying and producing offspring.

And why not sex with animals? Not marriages, but legalized intercourse? If a horse can "get off" with a human, and vice-versa, who are we to "discriminate" against them?

And the age-of-consent is completely arbitrary. Why not lower it to 16? Or 13? Thirteen year olds are capable of bearing children. They have an interest in sex. Why not let them fuck grandma?

The slippery slope becomes more and more lubed once you give American Culture the initial push...

Again, I know I'm not going to change your mind. But I feel as though I still have the right to respond.

I don't think it's silly at all. You yourself said you would support my "right" to marry two women. I'm sure some future group in Utah will go through the courts and attain this "right."

That's their battle, not for me to determine if it's right or wrong. By supporting your right to marry two women, I mean I wouldn't stand in your way and I wouldn't go out of my way to stop you. It is insane for me to determine what constitutes your family and it is equally insane for me to want my government to treat you differently than my own family because I may or may not approve of your family.

Incest is the next step. Why shouldn't a sister and brother who truly love each other marry?

RJ, 10 to 15% of the population is gay. There are millions who are denied equality by not being able to be married because of their orientation. How many brothers and sisters do you see in the future who want to marry each other? A couple dozen or do you see millions upon millions of Americans suddenly saying 'hey, sis, now it's our turn!'

The best course of action, RJ, is to get the government out of the business of rewarding and punishing families. Treat all families the same. Treat all people as individuals and don't attempt as a society to define what constitutes a family, because already there are hundreds of different types of families out there. There are single parent households. There are communes. There are the traditional families. There are foster households. There are same sex households. There are kids living on the street who band together and help themselves and become their own family.

And why not sex with animals? Not marriages, but legalized intercourse? If a horse can "get off" with a human, and vice-versa, who are we to "discriminate" against them?

We've already covered this, RJ. Because a horse cannot consent as consent is defined by law. We are talking about consenting adults, that DOES NOT lead to animals. Why is it that you consistently draw an analogy between two human males and a male with an animal? If you cannot see the difference, then I doubt I can point it out to you. But you know what? If there's a person out there who wants that horse's social security benefits when that horse becomes glue, then more power to em.

And the age-of-consent is completely arbitrary. Why not lower it to 16? Or 13? Thirteen year olds are capable of bearing children. They have an interest in sex. Why not let them fuck grandma?

This one thing leads to another thing is silly. Two men marrying apparently leads to all kinds of things but a man and a woman marrying just stops there. Regardless of gender, RJ, age of consent is a different issue. Age of consent is no more linked to same-sex families than it is to heterosexual families.

Again, I know I'm not going to change your mind. But I feel as though I still have the right to respond.

You have the right to respond, and you also have the right to adhere to your viewpoint. I don't think I've ever seen a blog change a person's mind on anything, no matter what the topic is. People already have their minds made up on things and blogging is just expressing viewpoints, it does not change opinions. And of course you can not get me, as a gay man with a family, to change my mind and decide that I need second class citizenship because all the walls of the world will come tumbling down if I am treated equally.

Ha, ha! I can't believe some of the ridiculous garbage and lies coming out of the woodwork on this issue! It would be entertaining if it wasn't so sad.

I'm sorry to drop the bomb on some optimistic hopes, but 10-15% of the population is not gay! Okay, maybe in San Francisco, but not across the board. Someone is pulling stats out of their fanny on that one.

One thing that I want to know is what right everyone keeps refering to when they claim that gays have the "right" to marry?

As I recall, our rights are given to us by God, as has been the understanding in American/English jurisprudence for hundreds of years. Since this is the case, then it would be a very odd thing indeed for God on one hand to say that homosexual activity is wrong, and then turn around and create a right to engage in it in the bonds of matrimony.

You might say that you want license to such an activity, but you cannot say that you have a right to it. It would be a queer world indeed if God were as confused as so many in the gay community.

One interesting point made above is that the belief exists that if a man marries a man, then bad things will happen, but if a man marries a woman it stops there. Well, that's not exactly the case. If a man marries a man then nothing beneficial happens. That's a major problem for the gay marriage movement.

Why would society or government give a hoot about a relationship that doesn't produce, or have the inherent potential to produce, anything? Why would we hold that relationship as equal to one between a man and woman who have the inherent, God given potential to produce offspring and contribute to the growth and stability of society? It ain't an apples to apples comparison, kids!

Just to say that you love each other and want hospital visitation rights doesn't give you the right to marry.

OK, I choose B. I prefer marriage vs. civil union because I am a romantic at heart. A new romantic in the grand old tradition. To a fault.

Then, limited to states that recognize gay marriage. As long as the marriage is legal on a national basis, limiting the licensing to states that pass the law is OK. Why? It would sure create a nice tourism industry to states that allow gay marriage. Go for it!

No I am not gay. I'm really hardcore heterosexual, but not anywhere near being a homophobe. Anyone who has a hang-up about homosexuality is really a fucked up person.

peaceloveguidance

"As I recall, our rights are given to us by God, as has been the understanding in American/English jurisprudence for hundreds of years."

As I recall, U.S. rights are enumerated in the Constitution, not the Judeo-Christian bible. That's the god you're talking about, right? Not the god of any other religion? I practice the religion of MEISM. I hereby give myself the right to marry myself. There. God said I had the right to do it.

"Why would society or government give a hoot about a relationship that doesn't produce, or have the inherent potential to produce, anything?"

Have you heard of adoption? Surrogate parenthood? If bearing children was a requirement for marriage, then all heterosexuals should a) be given fertility testing before being granted a marrige license and b) be required to "produce" offspring or have their marriage declared null.

Also, we should no longer allow divorce once children are born, since they were only conceived to validate the marriage in the first place.

And no post-menopausal women should be allowed to marry, since they are clearly not able to "produce" anything anymore.

Lastly, you'd think the pro-business Republicans would *LOVE* relationships where two people work but don't have kids. Think of all the disposable income for big ticket items like gas guzzling SUVs, big screen tee-vees, and diamond studded left-handed book stretchers.

Heehee!

I love how our post-modern, relativistic society thinks that they can pull rights out of the air, just like they do with their statistics!

It's insane and ridiculous to think that just because you want something it should happen. It just goes to show the mentality of those who want to submarine 7 thousand years of proven social experience that says hetero marriage is the key to social stability! They're so infantile.

Lemme explain a little history to those of you out there who feel that they can use assertion as an argument against fact.

FACT: The rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights aren't the only rights that we have, but are rights that had been proven , through the legal sciences and their discovery of GOD GIVEN RIGHTS, to be key in upholding the freedom of any people in the face of tyrannical govenment. All other rights are still to be had and upheld by the people, but gay marriage has never been discovered by a valid court to be a right. Nor will it ever be.

You see, you can't just create a right, whether you think you are god or not. They can only be discovered. God (Yes, the God of this world and the universe; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the God worshiped by those who founded this country; the God who established and upheld this country in the face of the mightest army in the world)is the only being that can create a right. Jefferson, Madison and Adams knew that; do you think you are so much smarter than they? I haven't seen you create any nations lately.

As to offspring, it takes a man and a woman, whether or not in individual cases they actually do or can have children, to procreate. There ain't no gettin' 'round that, kids!

As for those that can't, or can no longer have children, They still can serve an active and productive role in society by modeling the correct form that marriage should take.

Those that can have children and don't, well, we can look at the declining populations of selfish Europe and see what kind of stuggles that leads to. At least the married people are modeling to the younger generations a mostly correct form, and that adds some strength to society and impetous towards family life.

Homosexual adoption of children is a horrific example of mixing up innocent children that want to be happy, normal and loved. It must be very confusing to a child when they look around and find out how they came into the world, and then realize that their parents, whether two men or two women, could never have produced them. If I were that child, I think I would be very angry at them for not letting me have a normal life. I would be angry that I didn't get the stability inherent in a hetero-parent home. I would feel like I missed out on the good things in life like coming home from school to mom baking cookies, and getting a hug and kiss from dad when he got home from work. I would feel like I only got half the picture of life, and I'm sure they do as well.

Children in broken homes are often angry, so why wouldn't that same anger me manifest in children of confused homes as well? I would submit that it does, whether they understand that fact or not.

Lastly, I would think that the pro-program Democrats would *LOVE* to see large families being raised to create workers who can continue to pay into the social security and welfare systems they adore so much!

(By the bye, families with children are the largest consumers in America, not gay couples. Nice try, but you don't understand very much about what makes this country tick.)

This rant is so absurd and full of erroneous, unsubstantiated fact that it really isn't worth time, but a few comments:

It's insane and ridiculous to think that just because you want something it should happen. It just goes to show the mentality of those who want to submarine 7 thousand years of proven social experience that says hetero marriage is the key to social stability!

Marriage, over 7,000 years, has included common-law marriages, marriages of convenience, polygamy, concubines, harems, arranged marriages, etc. Marriage has changed time and time again to suit the needs of the society at any given time. There has never been a 7,000 year history of marriage being between one man and one woman. I would recommend opening a history book sometime.

gay marriage has never been discovered by a valid court to be a right. Nor will it ever be.

Marriage might not be a right, however the benefits and privileges that go to some of society and not to others IS a violation of rights, as has been proven time and time again in America's courts. It's not the church's recognition of marriage that is at issue here, nor what is before the courts, it is the governmental recognition of individuals and their relationships that is at issue. And consistently, time and time again, the courts have proven that there IS a violation of rights going on.

It must be very confusing to a child when they look around and find out how they came into the world, and then realize that their parents, whether two men or two women, could never have produced them.

No more horrific than a child adopted by straights would be to find out they didn't produce that child either.

If I were that child, I think I would be very angry at them for not letting me have a normal life. I would be angry that I didn't get the stability inherent in a hetero-parent home. I would feel like I missed out on the good things in life like coming home from school to mom baking cookies, and getting a hug and kiss from dad when he got home from work. I would feel like I only got half the picture of life, and I'm sure they do as well.

Let me ask my daughter.....nope, she's happy as a clam, well-adjusted and right on track with all the other millions of kids being raised by gay couples, falling right in step with all the studies that PROVE there are no adverse affects from having same-sex parents.

Children in broken homes are often angry, so why wouldn't that same anger me manifest in children of confused homes as well? I would submit that it does, whether they understand that fact or not.

You would submit on what proof? There is ample proof you are wrong.

I would be angry that I didn't get the stability inherent in a hetero-parent home.

Over 50% of hetero marriages break up. Children are abused and molested and neglected by their hetero parents, by the millions, every day in this country. Is that the sweet stability inherent in a hetero-parent home you are referring to?

"Over 50% of hetero marriages break up. Children are abused and molested and neglected by their hetero parents, by the millions, every day in this country."

You are absolutely right on this one. It is a terrible shame that people can't seem to stay married anymore. That does contribute to many societal problems,(Some evidence even points to this being a determining factor in an individual's homosexuality) but how is placing them in a confused family, where, I might add, the incidence of molestation and seperation is exponentially higher, going to be better than the hetero status quo? All I can see it causing is more heartache and more problems for society.

"Marriage, over 7,000 years, has included common-law marriages, marriages of convenience, polygamy, concubines, harems, arranged marriages, etc. Marriage has changed time and time again to suit the needs of the society at any given time."

The funny part about hetero marriage is that since Adam and Eve, no matter what other forms of hetero marriage have surfaced, the one man and one woman template has always been the norm. You just can't dispute that, no matter how you twist the argument. And society doesn't NEED gay marriage.

"Marriage might not be a right, however the benefits and privileges that go to some of society and not to others IS a violation of rights, as has been proven time and time again in America's courts. It's not the church's recognition of marriage that is at issue here, nor what is before the courts, it is the governmental recognition of individuals and their relationships that is at issue."

Marriage IS a right, but gay marriage is not. You have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex just as much as I do. What you don't have the right to do is to force society to accept a union that is contrary to natural law, and expect it to be protected by any type of non-arbitrary law. Even if it is protected at some point by arbitrary, politically charged law, it is still not a right because it's foundation is not based in a truth that could be discovered by the legal sciences. If it could, then that right would have been easily discovered hundreds of years ago by the Common Law courts of England or this nation and we wouldn't be having this debate today!

In truth, I don't think that the whole gay marriage issue has anything to do with equity between those who get special privileges from government, namely hetero married couples, and those who seek gay marriage. If the big issue were about equity, then gay couples would be pushing for, and be very pleased and satisfied with, civil unions. Civil unions perfectly relieve the supposed inequity that we have built into our laws for married people, without redefining, against the public will, what marriage means. The thing that kills me is that gay activists keep on pushing for gay marriage, even after the supposed inequity is remedied in certain states! So, from that we can deduce that the real goal of the radical gay marriage movement has nothing to do with inequity and everything to do with progressive social reconstuction, ie., doing away with the archaic institution of marriage. Bad idea!!! That is why the gay marriage movement must be stopped for good.

"And consistently, time and time again, the courts have proven that there IS a violation of rights going on."

Not the right to gay marriage. Only a right to have the same priviledges as marriage folks.

"Let me ask my daughter.....nope, she's happy as a clam, well-adjusted and right on track with all the other millions of kids being raised by gay couples, falling right in step with all the studies that PROVE there are no adverse affects from having same-sex parents."

Right. What studies are these? I'll bet for every study you can drudge up there are at least two that counter it. Plus there are countless studies that show that single parent families consistently raise children with more problems than normal families. I don't know if you have a partner to help out, but even if you do, your child still basically only has one type of parent, so they are missing the balancing affect of being raised by a mother and a father. Study after study shows that two parents are necessary for proper emotional, mental, phychological, and over all well being. Your child is missing out no matter how you cut the numbers.

It is a terrible shame that people can't seem to stay married anymore.

Yes, and one would think that if someone wanted to preserve the sanctity of marriage, this is what they would be working to defeat.

Some evidence even points to this being a determining factor in an individual's homosexuality

That's odd, the men I know, who grew up without a dad are very heterosexual. My father was active in my life, in my youth, and I turned out gay. Life doesn't seem to corroborate your 'evidence'.

in a confused family, where, I might add, the incidence of molestation and seperation is exponentially higher

There is no legitimate medical establishment study that proves this. Any data you have that says so, would stem from a right wing group and not the medical community.

All I can see it causing is more heartache and more problems for society.

Only for those that can't deal with it. And quite frankly, I'm not going to accept second class citizenship because you can't deal with my equality. That's your problem, not mine. Gay marriage is legal in many countries, Denmark, Germany, Spain (in 2005), the Netherlands, Belgium, etc. and there is no heartache and additional problems for society over there.

And society doesn't NEED gay marriage.

Society does need to treat all it's individuals and families equally.

If the big issue were about equity, then gay couples would be pushing for, and be very pleased and satisfied with, civil unions. Civil unions perfectly relieve the supposed inequity that we have built into our laws for married people, without redefining, against the public will, what marriage means.

Truth be told, I am happy with civil unions. There are many gay people who see it as separate but equal and so that is why they push for the term marriage as well. All I want is the same federal recognition for my family that any other family gets, because the ones who get harmed otherwise, are the children. If you want to call what you have an ice cream cone and call what I have a frozen dairy product, that's fine with me, as long as they are the exact same thing.

The thing that kills me is that gay activists keep on pushing for gay marriage, even after the supposed inequity is remedied in certain states!

No, it wasn't remedied. Vermont passed a basically 100% the same as marriage, civil union law. You don't see gay activists going after Vermont, do you? The inequity still exists from the FEDERAL government, and that is where we are going after.

So, from that we can deduce

And I just showed you how your facts are wrong, so your deducement is erroneous.

Not the right to gay marriage. Only a right to have the same priviledges as marriage folks.

The rulings of the Mass. court, in striking down civil union laws, used the separate but equal analogy. Like I said, I would be happy with the same priviledges and you could call it a union. Now look at your last sentence here.....THANK YOU for agreeing that gay people have a right to the same privileges!!!!!!!!!!!!

What studies are these? I'll bet for every study you can drudge up there are at least two that counter it.

Just about any study from a medical establishment, or from a country where this has been allowed for years and so long term effects can be gauged. These studies counter everything you say. Look it up on the web, disregarding right wing bias sources (and left wing bias sources) and you'll see I'm right. It's not my job to prove to you that my family is healthy.

I don't know if you have a partner to help out, but even if you do, your child still basically only has one type of parent, so they are missing the balancing affect of being raised by a mother and a father. Study after study shows that two parents are necessary for proper emotional, mental, phychological, and over all well being. Your child is missing out no matter how you cut the numbers.

I do have a partner. I am 39 years old, we have been in a monogamous relationship for 18 years. So your theory about us being more likely to break up is wrong. We have a two year old daughter. I am the biological father, and there are two men listed on her birth certificate. He has done a step-parent adoption. My daughter is very feminine for two years old, she loves high heels, painting her fingernails, dressing up, etc. As for the feminine characteristics of nurture, 'heart of the household' etc. that a mother can give, I have had an elderly straight friend tell me that my motherly instincts are stronger than her own daughter's motherly instincts!

Now, here's something for you to add to all your nebulous studies....no one has a RIGHT to be born into a family that YOU consider optimal. Children born in poverty are going to have a harder life than children born into wealth. That does not mean a poor person should lose the right to have a family. Women in prison are pregnant. Women living on the streets are pregnant. Single women have children out of wedlock. Children are born living in huts in the desert, children are born in arranged loveless marriages. The list goes on and on. If YOU want to put gay people in all that mix, you go right ahead. I just have to look at the development of my daughter to see you are wrong. The fact of the matter is, you can come up with as many right-wing biased reports as you want that state that a child is better off with a mom and a pop, but you CANNOT take away another LAW-ABIDING citizen's right to breed. So all that remains is the recognition of that child's family. And once this country gets it's Jesus-taught compassion back, that will finally happen.

[edited]

WHAT THE FUCK IS A COMMENT CZAR GEEK![edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited][edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
WHAT THE FUCK IS A COMMENT CZAR? You Fucking Liberal Extremist !
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited][edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]
[edited] [edited] [edited] [edited]

This is a silly debate.

The answer is A.

That is all.

Note to all: you see, I am a liberal extremist. Those of you who consider me rightwing are obviously mistaken in light of this analysis. Oh, and the second comment with all the [edited] marks came like that. I'm far to lazy to type [edited] that many times.

Well it certainly does make my response/the discussion difficult to read.

your responses are always readable, boom. Unless you're seriously referring to a formatting issue that isn't showing up here.

formatting. My page is like 4 times the width of my screen now. Each paragraph is like a single line of type that goes on forever, you have to scroll while you are reading a single line.

Since I didn't have the problem, I can't tell if I fixed it. How is it now?

It's fixed. Thank you so much.

Just so you know, I was that helpful before I became an extremist liberal a few hours ago.

Are you sure that time is the factor? I thought you were liberal on blogs with even dates and conservative on blogs with odd dates. I'm sure if I tried hard enough I could come up with the statistics that would prove it. The data that proves the phases of the moon are involved is almost complete.

I can't believe you told.

There's no shame in being a liberal. Throw open those closet doors and join us in the Light. All are welcome.

[edited]

[edited]

I appreciate all (well, not ALL) of the recent interest in my original post.

I must say my opinion has changed somewhat. I am no longer supportive of B or D. I support C.

FWIW... :-/

"Just about any study from a medical establishment, or from a country where this has been allowed for years and so long term effects can be gauged. These studies counter everything you say. Look it up on the web, disregarding right wing bias sources (and left wing bias sources) and you'll see I'm right. It's not my job to prove to you that my family is healthy."

Really? One problem I have with this statement is that if we rule out the right wing and left wing sources we are left with nothing. Name one "source" out there that doesn't have a bias. European organizations and countries? The U.N.? Ha!! That's just funny! The medical community? Like people in the medical community are apolitical!!! This is a ridiculous test on it's very face! European countries are the bleeding heart of left wing socialism, and the U.N. is their alter ego. Can you spell: B-I-A-S-E-D?!

From what you've said, your position here is that you don't have any stats to back up your claims because you claim to pull your info from some "nebulous" unbiased source. Since there are no unbiased sources you are saying you base your info on nothing. I would rather gather info and evidence from time tested models and obvious historical conclusions than from relativistic, humanistic, and immoral foreign governments and entities.

[edited]

Converted homosexuals have described their monogamous gay relationships as merely playing house, when what they truly wanted in their hearts was a real family life.

I have friends that are gay, and they have had a long monogamous relationship as well. In our discussions, when they are willing to be honest, they want to be normal, only they recognize that accomplishing that would be a very painful and long process. They would sometimes rather believe the lies that are perpetuated by the militant gay community saying that you are born gay and can never go the other way. It happens all the time though! There have been many gay individuals who, with the help of competent phychiatriac professionals and the Lord, have been made whole again and lead very normal, happy lives.

Stephen Bennett is a perfect example of a gay man, who was in a monogamous gay relationship of many years, who is now happily married to the woman of his dreams and has two perfect little children. Change and true happiness is possible through Jesus Christ, and it is a blessing to all who are willing to receive it.

"The rulings of the Mass. court, in striking down civil union laws, used the separate but equal analogy. Like I said, I would be happy with the same priviledges and you could call it a union. Now look at your last sentence here.....THANK YOU for agreeing that gay people have a right to the same privileges!!!!!!!!!!!!"

This is an interesting situation. The libertarian side of me believes that it is wrong for the government to redistribute wealth through subsidies. Since it does this by giving married people tax breaks, it would seem that an inequity has been perpetrated. The logic behind it is very clear and convincing, but it does seem to me to be a classic example of government overstepping it's bounds. The only problem I see in giving the same advantages to gay couples is that we are destroying the reason for having the subsidy in the first place, and then widening the problem.

I guess what I'm saying is that I can see the injustice on the taxation side of the equality problem, but giving the same subsidy to gays doesn't pursue the issue in the right direction either. It would seem that there still remains a very valid reason to stop the beast at the status quo. What gays should be bargaining for, if they really wanted justice, is for a repeal of the married tax status. That would be fair. Seeking to give it to themselves as well is really only discriminating against those who don't have a legally recognized relationship. See, gays don't want justice, they just want to squeeze themselves into a "normal" status.

As for the rest of the rights and priviledges that married people have, you too can have them, you only have to get married, to a woman, first. There is no discrimination there. You have every right, in reserve, that I do. What gays really want is to set themselves up as a higher class of citizen. Right now you say that you are second class, but that is just another lie. You have merely chosen to take a path that leads you away from the rights and priviledges that you wish to have. With every right there is a responsibility attached, and you have chosen not to have the responsibility of hetero marriage, hence you can't enjoy the inherent rights.

You mentioned Jesus-taught compassion as a way for us to open ourselves to ridiculous social reengineering. I think that Jesus does have compassion on those that are born to individuals who have selfishly perverted His divine mandate to marry and remain faithful. He said,"..For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh..." There is no mention of any other form of family commitment uttered by Jesus or His Apostles anywhere in the scriptures.

We have been taught the true form of the family, and all other situations are merely shadows, perversions or sad deletions of the correct form. He said, "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." The truth of the matter when it comes to gay marriage is that it does not lead to true happiness. How could it if it is merely playing house and trying to immitate the original pattern established by God for man?

One problem I have with this statement is that if we rule out the right wing and left wing sources we are left with nothing. Name one "source" out there that doesn't have a bias....The medical community? Like people in the medical community are apolitical!

The American Medical Association, The American Psychological Association, et. al. are my sources. They have determined there are no adverse affects to a child growing up in a gay household. You are certainly entitled to believe that there is bias going on, but I have a little more faith in humanity in that if children were being harmed, I believe the medical establishment would say so, rather than allow children to be harmed for political reasons.
Perhaps because I know a lot of people in the medical community, and know that they have gotten into it to help others sincerely, rather than to further a political agenda, makes my opinion biased. :-)

I would rather gather info and evidence from time tested models and obvious historical conclusions than from relativistic, humanistic, and immoral foreign governments and entities.

Hence my reference to countries where gay marriage is legal. I meant look at the citizens, the married gay families and their children to see your 'time tested model' rather than focus on their parliment.

I know that you only want to be normal and that you have tried to get as close as you can to that goal by following the path you have taken.

One thing many can never understand and so I rarely bring it up, is that sexual orientation/attraction, has no relation to paternal/maternal instinct. One can have a paternal instinct, because it is within them, like their orientation, rather than have it be an attempt to conform to people who will never accept such conformity anyway.

I have friends that are gay,

You all must not discuss much together.

There have been many gay individuals who, with the help of competent phychiatriac professionals and the Lord, have been made whole again and lead very normal, happy lives.

My take on the ex-gay movement, is that people who promote it, look at things as either straight or gay, with no inbetween. Personally, I see sexual orientation on a scale of 1-10, (with 5 being bi for example), and that most individuals are a 2, 3, 7, 9, etc. without being on the extreme end of the spectrum. So yes, I see how with peer pressure, lots of time on the psychiatrists couch being told over and over again how and why you are really attracted to someone, coercive prayer, etc. one can probably slide from a 6 to a 4 or something. I think it has to do more with repression than curing though, but that's just me.

Since it does this by giving married people tax breaks, it would seem that an inequity has been perpetrated.

I, as well as many people, would be happy with no governmental recognition of families/relationships because it's none of their business. You will never convince mainstream America that though. There will always be family oriented laws, so therefore all families/relationships need to be treated equally by the government.

As for the rest of the rights and priviledges that married people have, you too can have them, you only have to get married, to a woman, first.

Do you advocate a man, who is attracted to other men, get married to a woman, who he cannot love, and have children, and have such an environment be preferable to two consenting adults who DO love each other? Children know if there is love in the house or not. I'm not sure what values such an arrangement would give to future generations.

You have merely chosen to take a path that leads you away from the rights and priviledges that you wish to have.

Why would one do that? That makes no sense. No one would choose to go on a path that takes them away from what they want.

How could it if it is merely playing house and trying to immitate the original pattern established by God for man?

Just one of the countless problems with trying to build a society based on religious belief, is that religious belief is open to interpretation. As another thread called godhatesfags is currently pointing out. You see, God created Adam and Eve, right? To be together, man and woman. Then somewhere along the way in the bible, men started having multiple wives. Then by the time we get to your Jesus quote about cleaving to each other's flesh, we're back to a single man and woman again. Apparently the definition of family is flexible in God's eyes. There are also faiths that believe in being accepting of homosexuals, the Unitarians come to mind.

If you, as a libertarian, cannot see the danger in having governmental laws reward and punished, based on YOUR interpretation of the bible, no matter what the topic is, then I doubt there is anything I can say to convince you of the foolhardiness of that and so anything else I can say is a waste of my time.

Of thousands of Old Testament passages, only two make explicit reference to homosexual acts; Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. Both of these passages are a part of the Levitical holiness code which is not kept by any Christian group. If it were enforced, almost every Christian would be excommunicated or executed. It has been logically argued that science and progress have made many of the Levitical laws irrelevant for us. For example, although Levitical laws prohibit intercourse during menstruation, medical authorities do not view it as harmful; and, therefore, it should not be viewed as sinful. Those laws were given 3,500 years ago before showers and baths were convenient, before tampons, disinfectants, and other improved means of sanitation had been invented. Ironically, though, the Levitical laws are one of our chief cornerstones. Much of the holiness code is now irrelevant for us as moral law. Thus, having children which was of exceptional importance to the early Hebrews is now made less relevant by overpopulation, just as the prohibition against eating pork and shell-fish has been made irrelevant by refrigeration.

The Bible never addresses the issue of homosexual love, but has several examples of same-sex love. David's love for Jonathan was said to exceed his love for women. Ruth's relationship with Naomi is certainly an example of a deep, bonding love. The Bible does value love between persons of the same sex.

"The American Medical Association, The American Psychological Association, et. al. are my sources."

The AMA and the APA both have track records that demonstrate that they do bow to politically correct ideals and that they are not apolitical. The APA especially with it's complete, and sudden, reversal on the diagnosis of mental illness for homosexuality is a very curious thing to research. It would seem that rather than being non-partisan, they chose to allow the militant homosexual activists to force their decision to overthrow, and disregard, decades or more of solid research on the causes of, and propensity towards, homosexual behavior and it's treatment. It would be very disengenuous to say that that is unbiased behavior.

All that they really did was make a decision to go with Kinsey and his disgusting and abhorent "research" and tow the humanist, relativist line. And now they say that there is no harm being done to the children! Ich verle mich ubergeben, Doktor Freud!

"Hence my reference to countries where gay marriage is legal. I meant look at the citizens, the married gay families and their children to see your 'time tested model' rather than focus on their parliment."

So, you've gone around and asked married gay families in European countries how things are going and made a unbiased study of it? If not then I suppose we will have to rely on the studies that have been done; most of which are generated by government entities in socialist Europe. And seriously, like there is gonna be less bias in European reports than there are gonna be in American ones?!

In the face of that though, there is plenty of research being done by private groups in Europe that controvert all "evidence" that you have claimed is available. In fact, a current report just claimed that in countries where gay "marriage" is legal, marriage overall has diminished because it has lost all meaning. This clever arrangement now leaves those countries with even less social stability: higher rates of teen pregnancy, depression, substance abuse, and a massive list of other social problems. I'm sure that's exactly what we want more of here in the U.S. too. Good plan everyone!

"sexual orientation/attraction, has no relation to paternal/maternal instinct"

I believe you on this count. Within all of us there is still the desire to have what God wants for us. We all have the desire to make a family built into us. Only some of us seek to circumvent the form in which God intended families to take.

It is obvious to the honest observer that a family with a mom and a dad are far better off than those without. It is obvious that we as humans are intended to procreate in that form. Just because you have chosen a different path does not mean that the desire to have a family would be kept from you. God want us to have families. It is part of His plan for us.

The only problems that come into all of this is when we decide to toy with what is true and good and twist it to meet our own agenda and not the Lord's. Remember what the Lord said through His prophet Isaiah, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" If we confuse what is good with what is bad, and call it good, what do we accomplish in the end? Nothing! All we do is bring pain and suffering upon ourselves as we are dashed against the rock of truth.

It's funny how relativists can believe that in the physical sciences there are truth's that can be discovered, and have to be followed, but that similar laws don't apply to their behavior, or society in general. It's stupid for us to try to break the laws of nature and not expect to have negative consequences. Gay "marriage" flies in the face of nature and culture and society. It is confusion and needs to be avoided at all costs to protect our societal integrity.

"Do you advocate a man, who is attracted to other men, get married to a woman"

I don't advocate anything on this issue other than abstinence, repentance and a sincere desire to change.

"No one would choose to go on a path that takes them away from what they want."

I want a million bucks, but so far I haven't worked hard enough to get it. I think desire is the biggest problem in many cases. Either that or a belief in the big lie that change isn't possible.

they agree with the truth that I have recieved. Government involvement in society is a tricky thing that requires balance and wisdom. It's impossible to have a no interference attitude, as the libertarians mostly want, and expect to have societal accord.

...well, gotta go. More later...

There seriously is no further ground to be gained by either side in discussing this.

You are entitled to think that entire nations, along with every medical establishment in America that I've ever heard of, and also millions upon millions of citizens on this globe, are all in some vast 'bias-the-data-to-promote-homosexuality' agenda if you want, but you're not going to convince me of any vast left wing conspiracy.

As for the rest of your commentary, I have said repeatedly, you are entitled to your beliefs. You can believe my family is inferior if you want. But my family should not be punished by the government because of your belief. You will never accept my family as normal, and I will never accept the belief that what I see, the loving development, in my own household, or the households of single parents everywhere, as the ultimate armageddon for all humanity. So we are at an impasse.

I think A is the best answer. Gays and Lesbians should be allowed to marry. Some people argue that the bible says its wrong. The bible was written by men, not God. It also says that you can go to hell for eating shellfish, that law has never been enforced. Some say that the values of marriage are at stake. That is what people said when African-Americans and whites wanted to marry. Some people say that if this is allowed, what is stopping people from marrying an animal. Gays/Lesbians are marrying the same species! There is no connection there. Every arguement made against gay/lesbian marriage can be defended. Teens support the idea more than adults, and with each generation, the idea is more accepted. If children are the future, its going to happen, so why do we need to make it more difficult?

Well obviously homosexual couples would always raise gay children, because straight couples always raise straight children, right?

Option A. It is an epitome of evil to harm people that do not harm anyone.

And no, hurting your 'moral feelings' doesn't count.

A) NO!!!, Gay Marriage is no Civil Right.

B) NO!!!

C) NO!!!

D)Yes, only if the people VOTE for it!!!

E)No Gay Marriage, because homosexuality is not naturally meant to be.

We've beaten this gay marriage thing to death. Let's take on another subject.

There seems to be a dramatic increase in natural disasters. Some religious groups contend that this is the wrath of their respective God. Discuss.

Anthony's bigotry rears its ugly, uneducated, conservative head again! Homosexuality exists in nature, and scientists have made fruit flies prefer their own gender by altering a gene.

scientists have made fruit flies prefer their own gender by altering a gene.

BUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLLLSHSHSHSHSHSHSSHSHSHSHSHSHSHSHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Homosexuality is surprisingly common in nature, as a simple google would confirm.

Link

Jesse Dirkhising (May 24, 1986-September 26, 1999) was a 13-year-old boy who was raped and tortured by two men in 1999. Dirkhising died soon after as a result of his torture. Controversy ensued over the lack of coverage in mainstream media outlets of Dirkhising's murder. This lack of coverage was attributed to the homosexuality of the perpetrators by some commentators and media organizations.

On September 26, 1999, police in Rogers, Arkansas, responded to a 911 call and went to the home of David Carpenter, 38. They also found Jesse Dirkhising, a 13-year-old boy from nearby Prairie Grove, tied to a mattress. Also present was Joshua Brown, 22. Police determined that Dirkhising had been repeatedly raped over a period of several hours.

Dirkhising's ankles, knees and wrists had been bound in duct tape and he was gagged and blindfolded with his own underwear, held in place with a bandanna that was also used as a gag. He had been administered a sedative. He died in hospital shortly after being discovered, apparently as the result of positional asphyxia. The affidavit has much more detail on the Dirkhising's death.