That is clearly a PRESUMPTUOUS statement that I totally disagree with.

First nobody can tell for sure. Any statement on this subject is only an OPINION or THEORY, nothing more and nothing less.

Presuming an opinion to be correct does not make it so.

And neither does saying I don’t know what causes a person to feel or be gay or saying it is a point of conjecture between birth and environment is no less worthy a position in regards to the nature of an OPINION.

Obviously Leftists, intellectuals, and elitists prefer ‘gayness’ to be settled at birth in order to argue for a political policy (gay marriage) that reflects that sentiment.

Conversely, when it comes to the raising of children, the traditional 1 father-1 mother paradigm has never been equalled, much less excelled by families led by same-sex “parents.”
Personally, I can’t think of anything worse for a child than being raised by not one, but two people whose personal identity is so confused that they have chosen homosexuality as a lifestyle.

Jenfidel on April 19, 2009 at 12:55 AM

We don’t get to pick our parents–the alternative is to not be born at all. Currently, gay people are having children. The question at hand is whether it benefits society for the couple to be married or to just live together. It might be better if the parents married someone of the opposite sex, but they are gay.

As to why the gay activists pursue action in the courts. I don’t know. The civil rights movement in the 50′s and 60′s found support in the courts against the will of the voters. Maybe that is a precedent, for better or worse.

Rock marries paper and scissors.

Daggett on April 19, 2009 at 1:43 AM

Divorce is logically closer to polygamy than gay marriage. We could curtail that if we felt it put us on a slippery slope.

2.) Like straight marriage SSM would support monogamy and environments where kids are raised.

dedalus on April 18, 2009 at 7:39 PM

Why would it have to support monogamy? If you can define marriage however you want, then what’s wrong with Same Sex Open Marriage? Why not include polygamy, too? Marriage to animals? Marriage to inanimate objects? Marriage between inanimate objects? Rock marries paper and scissors.

1.) We don’t live in a democracy. The U.S. is a constitutional republic with 3 branches of government.

Then, why does the SSM/”gay” activist movement not accept something like CA’s Prop. 8 when it passes by democrat process (i.e. a vote) and tries to use the courts and judicial activism to change the outcome of the democrat referendum?

2.) Like straight marriage SSM would support monogamy and environments where kids are raised.

dedalus on April 18, 2009 at 7:39 PM

There is no evidence–NONE–that SSM supports monogamy or even monogamous environment. Quite the contrary.
Conversely, when it comes to the raising of children, the traditional 1 father-1 mother paradigm has never been equalled, much less excelled by families led by same-sex “parents.”
Personally, I can’t think of anything worse for a child than being raised by not one, but two people whose personal identity is so confused that they have chosen homosexuality as a lifestyle.

Greg Q on April 18, 2009 at 4:17 PM

1.) We don’t live in a democracy. The U.S. is a constitutional republic with 3 branches of government.

2.) Like straight marriage SSM would support monogamy and environments where kids are raised.

I am not religious. At all.

I oppose same sex marraige for two reasons:

1: It’s being pushed through the courts, in a vile assault on democracy. No one who does that should ever get anything they want.

2: Society rewards hetersexual marriage because society benefits from heterosexual marriage. How often do you hear SSM proponents talking about the benefits to society from SSM? Ever?

All I hear is “whah, whah, whah, you hurt my feelings by not pretending that my relationship is a real mariage.”

Well, chum, I couldn’t possibly care less about your feelings (and feelings have no role in public policy anyway), and I have no intention of pretending that a horse apple is a real apple. You want to be treated like you have a real marriage? Then prove that your kind of “marriage” is as valuable to society as the real ones.

Until DDM proponents do that, they should lose.

To state the obvious: the Republican Party needs to grow.

Face it Flounder, you lost. Schmidt, you had your Big Love Tent candidate and he lost. You lost minorities, you lost women, you lost Catholics and you lost evangelicals. Why should anyone listen to you now? The Gay lobby may be the ONLY audience willing to hear you speak because you are telling them what they want to hear. However, the overwhelming evidence at the ballot box was your strategy failed. You, Mr. Schmidt, are the Republican Bob Schrum with a shorter client list. Now go debate Carville on CNN like a good lackey.

dedalus on April 18, 2009 at 11:44 AM

Agreed

But as individuals I remain convinced that what we really believe affects all of our life. If we really believe something, we can’t “leave it at the door” when we enter the political arena.

Ordinary American on April 18, 2009 at 11:39 AM

I agree. Running for office and saying my character was formed by my Christian upbringing is, and should be, a positive. However, addressing a legal question for all Americans by referring to the Bible is less likely to convince the opposition.

An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against…Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance…religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government.

dedalus on April 18, 2009 at 11:21 AM

I wouldn’t disagree with Madison here, but I think that by “religion” he is talking about Organized Religion and its hierarchy (such as existed between the Catholic Church and the monarchy in France prior to the French Revolution). But as individuals I remain convinced that what we really believe affects all of our life. If we really believe something, we can’t “leave it at the door” when we enter the political arena.

The biggest problem for homosexuals who try to convince everybody that they’re “born” that way are EX-homosexuals; and there’s a lot of them.

We all are born sinners so don’t be surprised when people sin. Let’s just stop having parades at Disneyland to celebrate one particular brand of sin.

Mojave Mark on April 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM

Well yeah, just because you prefer sex with the same gender doesn’t mean you have to act on it. You don’t have to act on anything. But is it worth it to put people through that, should they truly not wish to be ‘ex-homosexual’? Outside of a strictly abrahamic interpretation of life, what about being gay is worth intervening to change?

We all are born sinners so don’t be surprised when people sin. Let’s just stop having parades at Disneyland to celebrate one particular brand of sin.

Mojave Mark on April 18, 2009 at 11:19 AM

There are young men who live a hedonistic lifestyle only to embrace celibacy later in life (e.g., Augustine of Hippo). However, that isn’t evidence that young men lack a desire for sex.

I oppose legalizing same-sex marriage because I believe that it is wrong for us as a nation to condone or give official approval to immoral behavior.

Ordinary American on April 18, 2009 at 10:43 AM

We do that all the time though (e.g., the government courts will legally protect the copyright on porn films). With regard to marriage the government will give you a license and a divorce within a few weeks of each other without making a value judgement.

Perhaps the government shouldn’t do either but it seems convenient to allow voters to protect society against a particular behavior that 95% of people have no desire to engage in.

With regard to your point on the founders, they were in favor of keeping spiritual and temporal matters in separate spheres. Madison in 1822 wrote:

An alliance or coalition between Government and religion cannot be too carefully guarded against…Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance…religion and government will exist in greater purity, without (rather) than with the aid of government.

We all are born sinners so don’t be surprised when people sin. Let’s just stop having parades at Disneyland to celebrate one particular brand of sin.

I cannot speak for anyone but myself. I am not opposed to homosexuals as people. I believe that they should and do already have the same rights as all other Americans.

Ordinary American on April 18, 2009 at 10:43 AM

the IRS does not treat them the same as other tax paying units, and does so for no discernible constitutional reason. let them file jointly.

First with regard to the Constitution, the establishment clause is simply saying that the U.S. has chosen not to have an official State Church (either, Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist,or other) as opposed to the common practice in Europe at the time of the American Revolution. America was built on the principle of Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion. You only have to read the writings of the founding Fathers (including some who are considered Deists rather than Christians) to see that faith was not excluded from public and political life. It was just that no one Church was given official predominance.

Second,all people, without exception, are religious. While people most often associate religion with faith in God (or “gods” for Hindus and other polytheistic groups), “religion” is essentially about faith, belief and trust (or confidence). It may or may not be based on real or perceived objective proof. Faith in God may be replaced by faith in Man, Nature, Government, Science or any number of other things, but it is still religion. My apologies to Allahpundit, but atheism is a religion, albeit an anti-religion religion. In the original Humanist Manifesto, the founders of the Humanist movement recognized that Humanism is a religion when they referred to their movement as “Religious Humanism”.

When the signers of the Declaration of Independence affirmed, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” they were making a religious statement of belief, not only in a Creator, but in “certain unalienable rights”. That “faith statement” is the cornerstone of our Republic.

A person’s affiliation or membership in an organization may not have a significant influence in how they live their lives (i.e. Catholics who voted for Obama and/or who are pro-abortion or pro same-sex marriage). But what a person really believes will always influence every aspect of their life. A person’s moral values are a visible product of their actual religious beliefs. A person’s political views will also be influenced by their foundational beliefs. You cannot remove religion from politics. Those who seek to do so are simply trying to make their religion the official religion of the State, which the Constitution prohibits.

American criminal law, at least in its inception, was concerned with issues of right and wrong (another way of saying “morality”). Why do we believe that stealing is wrong? Or rape, or murder? And why do we believe that in some circumstances killing another human being is not murder? These beliefs come from our underlying religious values. The push for the acceptance of same-sex marriage is a symptom of an effort to establish a new religious and moral foundation for America.

Third, this is not a sectarian issue. Sectarian would be Baptist vs. Methodist, Catholic vs. Protestant, Shiite vs. Sunni. For millennia Judaism, Christianity and Islam (to name only three religious groups) have believed that homosexual practice is morally wrong. Where is Al Gore when you need him? (“There is a consensus. The debate is over.”) Seriously, the fact that there is a debate indicates that there are differing beliefs on this issue, but claiming that those who oppose same-sex marriage are “sectarian” is disingenuous.

Fourth, the question of whether sexual orientation is a choice or genetic is irrelevant. The issue here is not about orientation, it is about behavior. And that is a choice. The quote of the day says, “it is hard to deny the inequality under the law that exists when people of one sexual orientation are allowed to marry and people of another are not…” Where is the inequality? Do heterosexuals have a right to same-sex marriage that is denied to homosexuals? And are there not heterosexual practices, such as incest (and in some States marriage between first cousins) that are prohibited by law because they are deemed to be immoral?

Does “love” somehow make same-sex marriage right and moral? If so, then should bisexuals have the right to marry one man and one woman? And if a man or a woman loves several women or men (or a mixture) should they have the right to marry all of them. And what if someone is in “love” with a six year old? Or what if someone “loves” his dog or his horse or his goat? Where does it end (or does it ever end)? Who draws the line and where is it drawn?

Fifth, what about the “rights” given to heterosexual couples/families such as health care, joint tax returns, social security benefits, etc. Are homosexual couples being discriminated against because they don’t have these “rights”? I don’t think so. Others disagree and think that homosexual couples should have the same rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples.

I have a son who has been living with another young man for several years. Both are heterosexual and both are Christians. They are committed to abstinence before marriage and faithfulness in marriage. That is why they are living with each other rather than with girl friends. But they live together, share the cost of rent and food, etc. Are they, and others like them, being discriminated against because they don’t have the same rights and privileges as a married couple? If you grant those rights and privileges to homosexual couples, but don’t give them to my son and his roommate, would you not be discriminating against my son solely on the basis of his sexual orientation?

I cannot speak for anyone but myself. I am not opposed to homosexuals as people. I believe that they should and do already have the same rights as all other Americans. I believe that this is a question of demanding special rights, not equal rights. I oppose legalizing same-sex marriage because I believe that it is wrong for us as a nation to condone or give official approval to immoral behavior. I believe that homosexual behavior is harmful to both the individual and society. These views come from a heart of compassion and love for the individuals concerned. That said, I believe that this is an issue that should be decided by the States and not by a judiciary that has decided to appropriate legislative authority to itself.

So for a scant 3% of the population we must jettison our moral belief system?
larvcom on April 18, 2009 at 10:06 AM

If your belief system doesn’t allow for divorce are you forced to modify it because someone is on their fourth marriage? If your belief system considers fornication a sin are you forced to change it because most Americans have sex outside of marriage?

Yes I know it’s off on a tangent but again why must we conform our beliefs to those that we know are heading to Hades?

larvcom on April 18, 2009 at 10:06 AM

Adulterers are headed to hades too…but i doubt you’d ban divorce.

All kidding aside, i don’t think conforming is being asked. in my view, the rational, reasonable, constitutional argument for gay rights begins and ends with taxes.

Given our guaranteed equal protection under the law, it seems that if 2 people can form a single tax paying unit that bestows upon them tax breaks and other privileges (estate planning etc). Insisting that this unit must be of one man and one female seems arbitrary from a government standpoint. The government protecting one kind of union of 2 adults over another…

That said, this doesn’t translate into a gay marriage argument. There is no constitutional argument for gay marriage. There is one, however, for federal (and even state) law to protect each individual equally. Let them file jointly, let them plan estates and maybe even adopt. That seems to me like constitutional way to look at it, and as far as im concerned the federal government has no other responsabilities BUT to be constitutional.

Yes I know it’s off on a tangent but again why must we conform our beliefs to those that we know are heading to Hades?

It’s like saying we need to change the definition of “man” or “woman” in order to give the “right” to anyone to use any public rest room that they want.

It’s just stupid.

Government hasn’t the right to change the definition of marriage. It can only recognize the definition for what it has always been.

To mandate that the meaning of “sea level” shall mean “the bottom of the ocean” is an exercise in insanity.

I suggest we return to the government as established in the Constitution. The federal government would be shrunk to a fraction of its current size, there would be a vastly different tax system, and the states would decide what they wanted to do about these various issues. States would not be able to force their wills on other states, so they alone would have to deal with the results of their policies (clearly, they would need to establish domicile rules for voting, so activists could not move from state to state in order to affect voting outcomes). And, the disaster that is universal suffrage would no longer drag our entire country to hell. Of course, this idea would require a citizenry with a basic understanding of the history of our country, which means they would not have been educated in government schools.

DrMagnolias on April 18, 2009 at 7:35 AM

I’m with you on that but the harm done by public education will take a generation or two to undo as the damage has already been done. The Teachers Unions have had social engineering as a focus for twenty years.

There’s a veritable creed of beliefs in that one little excerpt, but I have to admire the courage of any man who believes what he thinks is the truth, evangelizes that message to all who will listen, and encourages the use of them as tests for political issues and the sects parties that play with them.