If you blinked during the mainstream media’s blanket coverage of Wall Street's recent meltdown and the government’s subsequent bailout response plan, or their heightened coverage of the 2008 Presidential elections, you may have missed the fact that Connecticut recently became the third state of our union to legalize same-sex marriage by judicial fiat. To be sure, there was none of the frenetic coverage accorded the California Supreme Court decision in May to legalize same-sex marriage in that state, or the subsequent spectacles afforded the nation by the same-sex weddings that took place en masse when the law handed down by the state judiciary took effect on June 16. But make no mistake, next to the presidential election, California Proposition 8 is the most important vote in America. It will determine the definition of marriage for the largest state in America, and it will determine whether judges or society will decide on social-moral issues.Arizona and Florida have similar proposals on their ballots — Proposition 102 and Proposition 2, respectively — which seek to amend their state constitutions to define Marriage as the union of one man and one woman. While it is vital that these propositions pass decisively, in some cases like Florida by more than a 60% majority to ratify that state's constitutional amendment, the situation in California is, perhaps, the most critical. Indeed, Proposition 8 represents the only option at this stage to return democratic governance to the people of California who already voted by a 61% majority in 2000, through Proposition 22, to preserve marriage in state law as the union of one man and one woman. Conservative commentator and scholar, Dennis Prager, summarizes the California situation:
"...What we have here is truly manipulative. Four justices create a right, and then a sympathetic attorney general renames a proposition so as to protect a 4-month-old right that no one had ever voted to create. And the left accuses the right of imposing its values on society..."
"…These charges of "hate" against proponents of retaining the man-woman definition of marriage do not speak well for those who make them. I, for one, find it easy to believe that most opponents and most proponents of Proposition 8 are decent people. There are millions of decent people who think marriage should be redefined. I think they are wrong, but I do not question their decency. Why won't those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who want gays to be allowed to love whom they want, live with whom they want, be given the rights they deserve along with the dignity they deserve, but who still want marriage to remain man-woman?…”
Indeed, we are just beginning to get some honest answers from homosexual activists with respect to these questions. Clearly, many of them like Peter Tatchell — a human rights campaigner, and a member of the queer rights group OutRage! and the left wing of the UK Green Party — already know that homosexuality isn’t natural and are actually saying out loud now what many researchers, psychologists, and social scientists have been saying all along, which is that we ought to ignore those researchers who claim to have discovered a ‘gay gene’ because gay desire is not genetically determined. But consider now what homosexual activists like John Corvino — a philosophy professor at Wayne State University in Detroit who travels the country speaking on homosexuality and ethics — are saying now in the midst of all the deception being spouted regarding what it is exactly that homosexuals are seeking from society at large. For many years, the homosexual agenda’s intentions, goals, and beliefs have been shrouded in smokescreens of “equality,” “benefits,” and “fairness.” But Corvino provided a breath of fresh air recently by telling us, honestly, that what homosexuals really want goes well beyond tolerance. What they want, he says, is moral approval. However, Austin Nimocks — senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, a legal alliance defending the right to hear and speak the Truth through strategy, training, funding, and litigation — breaks down what this translates to for the rest of us and reminds us that, unfortunately, this is a mindset we cannot afford:
"…This groundbreaking concession now provides an opportunity for an honest public discourse on what homosexual advocates are really after. They want your heart and soul. It’s not enough to just be tolerant.
Now, I realize that you probably believe that your fair-mindedness is sufficient for any number of circumstances in life, but on this issue, you have been duped. You see, moral approval goes well beyond fairness or tolerance. It requires you to look upon the homosexual behavior of another and say to yourself and others, “That’s a good thing.” Moral approval means that you plan to teach it to your kids as righteous and true, and not just as something that other people do (and then secretly pray that you never find your kids doing). Moral approval means that you must reject other people, businesses, and persons who do not morally approve of homosexual behavior.
Most of all, moral approval means that you not only permit it in your home, but you embrace it. You applaud TV shows that celebrate it, Web sites that promote it, books that endorse it, and you may even choose to practice it. Moral approval goes to the very essence of our person.
Not convinced that anyone could want something that radical from you? Well, there’s no need to accept something just because I say it. Instead, look at the strategy employed by those who promote this agenda—in the courts. That alone tells you something. Courts are not sought by people who simply want you to tolerate an idea. Courts order people to do things. From just this small sample of court cases, you can see that tolerance or simple access to certain “benefits” is no longer enough. What is desired is court-ordered moral approval:…"
So, what’s really at stake in this same-sex marriage debate? For one thing, our religious liberty, as we discussed at length after the California Supreme Court ruling. And for another, our First Amendment rights to free speech. However, as R. Albert Mohler Jr., President of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., reminds us, when we go out to vote YES on Proposition 8 in California, Proposition 2 in Florida, and Proposition 102 in Arizona, ours is not the odd and out-of-step position that it is typically characterized as by the mainstream media. Same-sex marriage may, for now, be legal in three of fifty states in the United States. And beyond our borders, it is legal in the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, South Africa, Canada and Norway. However, this represents a very small percentage of the world's population. Same-sex marriage is, by any measure, the exception rather than the rule. Even when legalized civil unions and domestic partnerships are thrown into the mix, the countries that consider same-sex unions and heterosexual marriages to be equal before the law represent a small percentage of the world's nations.
Keep that in mind when you observe the media's coverage of the issue. Keep that in mind as you determine to understand why Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and most every major religion as well as every civilized culture have weighed and, ultimately, rejected homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle. And keep that in mind as you vote YES to preserve the definition of Marriage. It has always been—and should continue to be— defined as one man, one woman!
RELATED BROADCAST: Preserving Marriage Foundation- Part 1 Focus on the Family.org, September 29, 2008
Radio talk show host Dennis Prager discusses the biblical foundation of marriage and offers a thoughtful examination of how that foundation is being undermined in American culture.
RELATED BROADCAST: Preserving Marriage Foundation- Part 2 Focus on the Family.org, September 30, 2008
22 comments:
Excellent coverage on a very serious issue this election. I am one of those who found out by the way regarding the Connecticut decision handed down. This very important issue seems to be falling under the radar of the media, which as you have pointed out may just be deliberate.
Yes! on 8 in California! YES! on 2 in Florida! Yes! on 102 in Arizona! Or God help us all.
The reality is that, unless California sets an example and overturns the abuse of power demonstrated by the judiciary in California, it is likely that the other states that have domestic partnerships and civil unions will have their judicary rule also in favor of gay marriage, which would be a travesty. The saying goes, "As goes California, so goes the nation" so we better wake up before the same thing happens in Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Oregon, Hawaii, Maine, Washington and the District of Columbia, which all have some form of domestic partnership laws.
This gay thing has gotten way past ridiculous! Can't turn on the TV anymore and not see their crap up in your face, even on a "family" show like "Dancing with the Stars". There can be no question any more that the media has bought into their game hook line and sinker...or are so infiltrated by gays who confuse what they want to see as entertainment with what the rest of America wants in their living room.
I, for one, will no longer pay money to watch another Brad Pitt movie...neither at the theater or on video, period! Why should I continue to put money into the pockets of people like him and Ellen Degeneres, or Steven Spielberg for that matter for them to turn around and use it to overturn my values?? When you think about it, we not only fund their $20m homes but also to flaunt their sh*t in our faces!
Rock on Real Proposal!
K. Benjamin is quite correct. I made the exact same decision standing in the popcorn line at the movie theater last weekend while waiting to buy their $2 bag of popcorn and drinks "value meal" for $17.50!
No longer will I be putting a dime into the pockets of either Brad Pitt, whom I like as an actor, or Steven Spielberg, or any other of these Hollywood types that I hear about contributing mega$ to causes that do not reflect mine in such a profound way. I came to the conclusion that I can no longer afford to fund their support of misguided causes like gay marriage in California. BTW, the guy in line in front of me also came to the same conclusion, and we both walked away determined that our kids would have to understand that the buck literally stopped at their treat! They got it.
YES on Marriage! One man, One woman!
What continues to be a shocking thing is how barefaced many pastors and clergy are when they continue to OPPOSE the ban on gay marriage! God's word is very clear! Who can doubt that this is a "trojan horse" designed to split the Church from within, as is already happening in the Anglican Church because of the ordination of a gay bishop and the refusal of the Archbishop of Canterbury to rule properly against this breach?
The book of Jude warns about this very thing. Jude warns the Church against false teachers who slip into the Church SECRETLY, godless men who pervert the grace of God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ as our only Sovereign and Lord. When those in the church question whether or not sciptures are divine text, then we know that there is evil within our ranks. Many of us are already worshipping in the "Synagogues of Satan" spoken about in Revelation. Those final Apocalyptic letters were not written for pagans. They were written for the CHURCH!
Vote YES on Marriage!
Some Evangelical Ministers are urging people to Vote NO on Proposition 8. Also, isn’t the parental notification initiative more important to Christians?
Obviously Reamworks didn't view to view the coment posted by "Yes! on Prop. 8!"
Because some evangelical ministers are endorsing the "No on Prop. 8" campaign doesn't make it right. It is out of a misguided sense of compassion that they base their arguments on. The model of Jesus to the sinful woman at the well who had been living with a 7th man that was not her husband was "Go and sin no more". As "Yes!" said, this is a trojan horse being used by those who ultimately- knowingly or unknowingly- harm the Church.
You are dead on about the homosexual agenda that have infiltrated mainstream publications like Time magazine and news outlets like the Associated Press. Their bias is often staggering and it takes discernment- and voices like yours that keep unvieling their covert tactics- to spot the slant in their opinion pieces that are more often than not carefully disguised as objective news reporting. But even their gay writers (a fact that is not always clear in their "news" pieces (like this one:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1852263-2,00.html) have to concede:
"In what must be one of the most successful electoral runs in history, marriage traditionalists have won a remarkable 29 times out of 30 — and often by margins that political strategists regard as near mythical: 78% in Louisiana; 76% in Oklahoma; and four years ago, fully 86% in Mississippi. Two years ago, however, the winning streak stopped in John McCain's home state of Arizona, perhaps because conservatives had reached for too much, attempting to forbid both gay marriage and civil unions."
The majority of America does not want gay marriage! Get out and VOTE Yes on Proposition 8, 2 and 102!
On a recent "Ellen" show Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joseph Biden said that if he lived in California, he would vote no on Prop. 8 Biden called Proposition 8 "regressive" and "unfair" and added that he and running mate Barack Obama opposed a similar initiative nationally. Are these two schizophrenic or what? Haven't they said they OPPOSE gay marriage but supports partnership rights for gays and lesbians? So, isn't Proposition 8 AGAINST gay marriage?
Vote YES on Marriage!
you all are obviously brainwashed by whatever you read! if you read the bible and take everything literally then you will surely sell your daughter into slavery (leviticus), god will also kill you from "spilling your seed" aka masturbation which im sure all of you men have done before (look up the story of onan)
Dont take everything so literally. The bible also says THOU SHALL NOT KILL, but how many people are put to death and innocent (and not innocent) people are killed by YOUR tax dollars, well the bible said specifically THOU SHALL NOT KILL, that doesnt mean that you can go and kill someone because they killed someone.
The bible that you read has also been translated and re-translated many times. Just think people, you DONT have the right to invade on someones privacy. It is very christian of you not to invade on someones privacy.
think!
saying no to prop 2 in florida takes away the rights from ALL domestic partnerships to visit their loved ones in the hospital! even if you have been with your boyfriend girlfriend for ever! say your grandma whom is now widowed in south florida meets a man and theyve been together for 15 years and he gets sick. Prop 2 would take away your grandmas rights to visit him!
If people want the rights and benefits of marriage they should GET MARRIED. All of these "exemptions" postulated by anonymous are exactly what started the "slippery slope" to this juncture on same-sex marrige.
BTW, the commandment is "Thou shall not MURDER". Big difference.
Anonymous said," It is very christian of you not to invade on someones privacy."
This issue is long past what two people are doing in the privacy of their bedroom! As the article stated the issue has been turn into court-mandated moral approval. Homosexuals are no longer concerned with "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships". They want society's stamp of approval of their lifestyle, which is not conducive to either a civil or a healthy society. Gay sex kills!
I love the article on your main website which quotes Dr. Joseph Nicolosi of NARTH as saying, "AIDS affects gays disproportionately because of the behavior that they engage in, behaviors that will spread AIDS. Anal intercourse is the way of spreading AIDS. And there is a great deal of sexual promiscuity and a lot of reckless self-deceiving, self-destructive impulses in gay men and they are killing each other. Paradoxically, all this talk about homophobia and hatred toward gays—when you think about it, who is really killing gays? Other gays! A very sad irony is that they are killing each other through a behavior that should be associated with love. Paradoxical, isn't it?"
Gays are equal to everyone else in dignity and worth as human beings, but their sexual behavior is not. So, let's not confuse the issues with arguments that obfuscate from the real issues at hand.
That whole claim on the Vote No side of Prop 8, 2, and 102, which says that these consitutional amendments will take away the rights from all domestic partnerships and civil unions, including the right to visit loved ones in the hospital, is nothing but a canard...a red herring! If same-sex couples want the right to visit sick partners in the hospital, then they need to lobby for HOSPITALS to change their policies...not lobby the courts and political machinery to redefine Marriage for an entire society! That's akin to throwing out the baby with the bath water!!
Civil laws already exist for most every category of concern that same-sex couples have. There are civil contracts, trusts, living wills, wills, and so on. And if somebody's grandma has concerns about someone she is involved with, then there are prenuptial agreements that two consenting parties can agree upon prior to marriage to protect any inheritance and visitation rights, etc. People enter into contracts all the while with each other and with businesses... and they sue if the agreement is breached!!
So clearly the issue, if they are honest, is NOT about the benefits of marriage that same-sex couples want; what they want is the kind of approval and validation that heterosexual couples get, and they will settle, if it comes down to that, for the in-your-face court-mandated type. But homosexuality has been weighed, it has been tried and found wanting...and it has been rejected as a viable social lifestyle by every culture for the past 5,000 years! What's interesting to me also is the number of straight women that fail to recognize how homosexuality puts them right back into the category of "baby maker" if when the boys want to have their fun they can do so with each other. Truly sad state of affairs.
Wow, well, where to begin? First of all, courts are not there to force their social views upon society, but to uphold the Constitution. And they did just that. This is what the judges upheld: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Secondly, there are so many other important issues (i.e. the economy, the war, oil prices, the environment, Prop 4 in California - parental notification for minors getting abortions) on the ballot in this election and for the conservative right to impose their religious views on the GLBT community while simultaneously claiming freedom of religion...? What gay couple is going to ask a homophobic church to marry them? Seriously? The only people who have to "accept" gay marriage are those who work to give out marriage licenses - that's their job. And they don't even have to accept it, but just give them the form. As for the words of tolerance and accept, would you want anyone to "tolerate" you? To me, that sounds like a pebble in my shoe, i.e. "Oh, I can tolerate you [for now]." You don't have to accept me, I won't go that far, but don't force your social & moral issues upon me, many of with which I disagree. America is about freedom - freedom of religion, freedom of press, freedom of speech, and the right to privacy.
Further, who are you, the conservative religious right, to say that those in the GLBT community can't marry whom we love? Do I tell you how to live your life, who to love, or who to marry? Our potential marriage has NOTHING to do with yours. As for your kids, I hope my kids don't attend the same schools. I don't want your bigotry which you pass down to your kids to affect my kids. I could have sworn that you are the same people who are trying to get Intelligent Design to be taught in the schools? Hmmm, the so-called "radical left" says Intelligent Design is not true and we can't teach our kids non-factual ideas in science class. Yet, you, the conservative religious right, says we can't teach that all people are different but deserve to be treated equally to our kids. How about we teach Intelligent Design, along with Evolution, and that people are different but equal and let them develop their own beliefs instead of forcing your ideas upon your kids. (Though, I do believe kids should be old enough to understand all of this and neither issue should be in the curriculum for elementary students.)
Therefore, I ask, when was separate, but equal okay? Yes, it was before the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950's and 1960's. Separate, but equal is not equal and our laws say that is so. As for petitioning the hospitals for equal rights, there are more rights than just that (that's just one of the big ones). As for the elderly who decide to get domestic partnerships, it's about their federal retirement benefits.
As for domestic partnerships and marriage being equal: "Even under California law, same-sex couples are not completely equal. Domestic Partners cannot file joint state income taxes and state employees are not entitled to the same benefits under the states long-term care benefits package." Also, same sex marriages are not recognized out-of-state and the over 1000 federal benefits given to married couples are not given to same sex couples, no matter what their union is called. Same sex marriage does not equal domestic partnerships.
Don't even get me started on "the homosexual agenda." Again, it's about equal rights. The GLBT community doesn't sit around and think about what we can do to make your life difficult. We just want the rights that all other U.S. citizens can enjoy if they choose to get married. We are not second-class citizens.
In the words of one of my favorite comedians, "It's called marriage, not gay marriage. Just like I have lunch, not gay lunch."
Anyone that has read the book, "After the Ball", which was written for the gay community from back in 1989 by 2 Harvard-trained marketing and PR professionals, Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen, can no longer question IF there is a "homosexual agenda." That is the exact reason that the authors themselves openly and publicly declare as the purpose of their writings...to provide a strategy that would assiduously "jam" any messages that conflict with advancing their lifestyle as anything but a choice, to "desensitize" the public to the "ick" factor of same-sex sex by flooding the airwaves with gay messages and behaviors that show how much homosexuals are otherwise "just like us," and eventually to "convert" straight America by playing into our deeply held sense of "fairness" into accepting that gays are just a victim group that has been targeted for "discrimination" by "religious bigots," which then makes people like me "bigots" and "haters" that need to be silenced by law. And they will succeed if people don't wake up from their slumber.
I bought and read the book for my own education to see what all the fuss was about that the "the religious right" was making on the topic and it was an eye opener! Chapter 4, titled "Tactics for eating the media alive: A sound bite here, A sound bite there" deals specifically with the kind of message the LGBT community should use to promote gay-friendly opinion and how they should target their message so as to infiltrate the media without it being obvious to the "homophobic" and unsuspecting public...which is exactly the tactics they have mastered and are using successfully in such an insiduous way that most of the time people don't understand that they are being "sold" homosexuality just like anything else being marketed from Madison Avenue.
What I like about this kind of article is the fact that it doesn't just make wild statements but provides great linking to the research used to back up opinions, which is a very helpful strategy to educate those of us, like me at one time, that don't understand HOW we got to this place where homosexuality is now not just being recognized as normal behavior but given validity as a proper "lifestyle choice" and a "constitutional right"
What's sad to me is the "collateral damage" of the homosexual indoctrination strategy-- the people in the gay community who don't understand how they are being manipulated and brainwashed into not continuing to seek help with what is a clearly a gender-identity disorder. When homosexuals can explain why in same-sex couples one of the partners always seem to morph into looking and behaving like a member of the opposite sex, then they will begin to understand this fact and continue to dig for the truth, which is being buried more and more if bold voices don't continue to speak up.
VOTE YES FOR (heterosexual) MARRIAGE!
If love is the only criteria for marriage, why not endorse and institutionalize other types of "love" relationships like polygamy, and even some cases of incest? Recently, the Times in the UK had an article about a woman touting the "virtues" of the consensual sexual relationship between herself and her brother (http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article4332635.ece) and in Austrailia, a father and adult daughter recently gave birth to a child that was the result of a "loving" consensual relationship(http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=443023).
Let me make it clear. I am not saying these relationships are essentially the same as same-sex relationships. What I am saying is that if you apply the same "love" criteria that they use to justify the validity of their relationships, then who are we, if same-sex relationships are just fine with society, to say that these other kinds of "love" relationships are immoral and unacceptable? So here's the key: If you start off with the false premise that marriage is simply the union of "two loving and consenting" parties, you would be able to justify the marriage of a man and his 3 lovers, a father and his daughter, a woman and her dog, etc.
LAWS EXIST PRECISELY TO "DISCRIMINATE" AGAINST CERTAIN KINDS OF BEHAVIOR that society finds unacceptable. Otherwise, we would descend into anarchy and chaos! By setting laws, government has determined that there must be some ethical standard by which it governs its people in the best way that preserves society and advances the social benefit. The question then becomes, whose morality is the objective standard? Most major relgions and civilized societies say it is God's and typically have laws that reflect their acceptance of scriptures largely as Divinely-inspired text. So far, there is no other equally acceptable proven standard and we simply cannot be governed by every person's whim and fancy, or even their own heart and conscience, which can be very misleading and deceptive, and subject to change over time.
On the issue of marriage, just like applying to a university, or to a corporation for a job, if you won't accept its standards and criteria for entry, don't apply! Marriage is the union of one man, one woman! This issue is not about how same-sex marriage affects my own or another heterosexual couple's marriage and it is just a disingenuous or misguided tactic to say that this is what the issue is about. Frankly most heterosexuals don't give a hoot what same-sex couples (or anyone else for that matter) do behind closed doors...and it would simply be obfuscation to make this a personal opinion survey. The real issue is about the INSTITUTION of marriage, how it is defined, what it represents as a foundational building block for the raising of families in society, not about how same-sex marriage affects anybody else's INDIVIDUAL marriage. Most people don't care what others do in the privacy of their homes, so a gay couple is doing down the street will not affect MY personal marriage. However, legislating deviant behavior and enshrining into law how the INSTITUTION of marriage is going to be regulated affects everyone, because then, by law, it affects how my children will be indoctrinated by public schools, what I will be legislated to feel and accept about homosexual behavior regardless of what even the Centers of Disease Control tell us they know about homosexual sex. Sorry, but that's not a "right" that anyone is entitled to ask me to give.
I will be voting YES on Proposition 2 in Florida!
Can we just PLEASE put to rest this ignorantly quoted "equal protection" defense that the LGBT agenda continues to use to defend their lifestyle PREFERENCE. "Equal Protection" under the law applies to PEOPLE (black people, white people, men, women, the indisputable inherent characteristics that define our humanity) not actions or behavior, which is the category that homosexuality falls into. Homosexuality is a PRACTICE just as much as heterosexuality is a practice, which is why we can wait to have sex until we are 18 or 30 but cannot do the same for being black or white, or to be a man or a woman. Homosexuality is a LIFESTYLE expressed through sexual PREFERENCES for reasons that have yet to be proven have anything to do with a genetic component... and I suppose this is the reason why the race is on to find a "gay gene." But, regardless of the propaganda, no "gay gene" will be found. Besides, no "gay gene" will ever explain bi-sexual behavior a la Ann Heche and Lindsay Lohan, and the other spectacles we witness ad finitum, ad nauseum in this glorious state.
This "equal protection" defense has been rejected by even such liberal courts as the Supreme Court of New York on this issue of same-sex marriage, and is the very reason why 30 other states have already legally been able to implement constitutional amendments to define marriage as one man, one woman in their states!
It was a seriously misguided, "compassionate" move on the part of the California Supreme Court to strike down our law against same-sex marriage, and is the likely reason why a Federal Marriage Amendment may be what will be needed in the long run to protect other states from having to recognize laws that would technically import the shennanigans of another state's politically motivated court mandated decisions. Karin rightly said "Courts are there to uphold the Constitution" but this is NOT what was done in California! What we witnessed here was legislation from the bench that overturned a law that had already been rightly voted upon in 2000 through Proposition 22 by 61% of the people in California, which rightly reconfirmed our definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Now we find that our democratically instituted law wasn't sufficient. Four men have decided that the majority will of the people was irrelevant....THAT is what is unconstitutional!
I'm so tired of people saying that being gay is a choice. Listen, if being gay is a choice, then being heterosexual is a choice. I'm NOT talking about with whom you have sex. I AM talking about to whom you are attracted. Yes, a gay person could choose not to have sex with people of the same sex, but that person would still be attracted to people of the same sex. For all you heterosexual people out there, back when you were 12 or 13 and realizing your sexuality, were you attracted to both men and women and CONSCIOUSLY decided that you only wanted to be attracted to members of the opposite sex and suppress your urges to be attracted to the same sex? If you can't say that is true, then you can't make the claim that being gay is a choice. Now, also, don't get me wrong about bisexuality. I believe that everyone is inherently bisexual, but that some people are more straight, or more gay than others (look up the Kinsey Scale).
Therefore, since being gay is not a choice (also, there has been plenty of studies that correlate sexual orientation among siblings, and holds true for those separated at birth), you can't say that if we recognize same sex marriages, then automatically somewhere down the road, we're going to have to recognize incestuous and polygamous relationships.
By the way, many couples in incestuous relationships were separated at birth or only half brother and sister and didn't know they were related until after they consummated their relationship. - Not that I'm defending incestuous relationships, but the reason they were outlawed was because of the potential offspring. In an incestuous relationship, the chance of having a baby with a serious physical or mental defects is upwards to 50%. They were not outlawed because of the "ick factor." And if you are a Christian or a Jew and believe in the Bible, then that's how humans came into existence. Adam and Eve slept together, had kids, and then incest took over. (I don't remember God creating any other humans from the dust or from another person's rib, do you?)
You can make a choice to not sleep with someone to whom you're related. Also, you can make the choice not to sleep with two or more people. You can't make the choice to not be attracted to all members of the same sex or all members of the opposite sex.
Therefore, since being gay is not a choice, the equal protection clause should be upheld.
Attraction is NOT what makes you homosexual or heterosexual. As a married heterosexual female, I might be attracted to another man. But that does not make me an adulteress until I actively cheat on my husband. As a consumer walking into JCPenny, I might desire more clothes than my budget can afford. But I am not a thief unless I put my desires into action and shoplift. We all have certain desires. But not all should be acted upon. And it has nothing to do with "suppressing your true identity" as many within the GLBT suggest. Would you say a man contemplating murder should act on his desire and would be suppressing himself if he did not? Should a child molester who feels attracted to children from birth be encouraged not to "suppress his identity"? Obviously not! There is something to be said about restraint. That is the only way civilization can be sustained.
"Karin" laces her arguments with the kind of FAULTY PREMISES and ill-logic that inevitably lead to a FAULTY CONCLUSION. Karin argues that, because homosexuals cannot help their orientation and who they are attracted to (read that, there must be some kind of "gay gene")... because of that "immutability," then society should entrench into law homosexual demands for "gay rights" and "gay marriage". In fact, what she spouts is THE central tenet and persistent mantra of the LGBT agenda.
Despite their wishful thinking (and the unfortunate brainwashing being done by the majority of their own gay rights activists), however, there is no evidence for any such "gay gene" driving same-sex attraction, and this is a FACT that has been confirmed by the head of the human genome project:
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/mar/07032003.html
As gay activist Peter Tatchell points out in his (linked) article, "There is a major problem with gay gene theory, and with all theories that posit the biological programming of sexual orientation. If heterosexuality and homosexuality are, indeed, genetically predetermined (and therefore mutually exclusive and unchangeable), how do we explain bisexuality or people who, suddenly in mid-life, switch from heterosexuality to homosexuality (or vice versa)? We can’t."
Karin must also have missed the linked article by Robert H. Knight: "Born or Bred? Science Does Not Support the Claim That Homosexuality Is Genetic"
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5458&department=CFI&categoryid=papers
It totally debunks the arguments and fake science that homosexuals quote to support their arguments and should truly encourage those struggling with homosexuality to seek the kind of HELP that can free them from what is clearly a deeply compulsive, enslaving behavior that leaves them trying to justify and rationalize what they surely must already know in their conscience is wrong.
The Bible Karin loves to refer to quotes God as saying, "My people perish for lack of knowledge". It also says, "The truth shall set you free" and Karin would be wise to take heed.
Vote Yes for Traditional Marriage: ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN!
Our Kinsey quoting friend should check out:
Kinsey's Secret: The Phony Science of the Sexual Revolution
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=6036&CFID=16430451&CFTOKEN=26080595
Kinsey had a dark side and the truth is much of his work was flawed and discredited. He was also a practicing homosexual,
sadomasochist, and voyeur who advocated — and possibly even directed — the sexual abuse of children. Check out the work of
internationally known pornography researcher Judith Reisman, Ph.D. She has studied Kinsey's work and its effects on our culture for
25 years. He was a sicko...and a wacko.
Post a Comment