Homosexual Marriage – Rights (Part 2)

I’ve been having trouble finding good reasons for legalizing homosexual marriage.  No one is arguing that it will benefit society, help raise more stable children, lower gas prices, or have any positive effect at all.  They are only arguing that it is a fundamental right, and it won’t have an adverse effect.  They say that anyone against it is a bigot, trying to force their morals on others.  The fact is; all laws stem from morals.  Moral judgement is implicit in the act of deciding that something is wrong and should be outlawed.  Why is stealing wrong?  Why is murder wrong?  Why is pedophilia wrong?  Why is it against the law?  All laws were originally created because someone recognized that it was immoral for someone to be a victim of rape or theft.  Stealing is wrong because someone loses their property.  Rape is wrong because it violates my right to choose who I have sex with.  Those are easy.  Homosexual marriage is harder because both sides think their ‘rights’ are being violated.

That is where a lot of ‘civil rights’ become harder to define.  Rape, murder, theft, those are all easy because there is an obvious victim involved.  Many rights, however, effect other people.  So the law simply has to decide whose rights are more important.  White people used to think their children had a right to attend a school without black children.  Blacks thought their children had a right to attend the same school as everyone else.  These ‘rights’ clashed, and so the government had to get involved and say that the rights of blacks to be treated equally superseded the rights of others to not have to be around black people.

Many people feel they have the right to smoke.  This is, of course, their choice.  However, other people feel they have a right to breath air that doesn’t contain addictive carcinogens.  Whose right is more important?  The government has to decide.  In many cases they have decided that in public places people cannot smoke.  They can make the choice to smoke in their own homes and cars, but they cannot smoke where other people have the right to breath clean air.

Another right that often clashes is freedom of speech.  Some people feel they have the right to not hear swear words or lewd innuendoes.  Other people have the right to say swear words and speak as crassly as they desire.  If they happen to be in the same area, those rights clash.  ‘Artists’ can produce films, sculptures and paintings more pornographic or violent than I could ever imagine.  This is their right.  This right clashes when these artists are working on government subsidies, and others don’t want their money spent creating offensive, pornographic art.

There are also cases where people’s rights are just denied.  Some people think they should have the right to kill themselves.  It is their body; I addressed the ‘self-ownership’ belief in the chapter on abortion.  However, the government has decided that there are legal limits on the damage someone can do to their own body.  Suicide is illegal.  Many forms of drugs are illegal.  Drinking is legal, despite the damage it does to the drinker, but drinking and driving is illegal because it puts other people’s lives in danger.

So that is the big problem with homosexual couples wanting to marry.  They believe it is their right.  Some people think it is not their right.  Some people believe that marriage is a civil right, but accept that we have to make sure others rights are not being infringed on by allowing certain people to marry.  This is not a new concept.  The homosexual lobby wants to put all the focus on it simply being a right to marry.  However, many rights are limited or not allowed because they, in turn, infringe on others rights.  The questions are whether or not it is a right, and whose rights are more important.

In order to determine that, we need to take a look at what rights are being effected.

A benefit that homosexual couples want from marriage is for both parties to receive work health insurance coverage.  This effects everyone receiving work insurance because prices will go up.  There would be more people to cover, which increases prices.  There is also the fact that people who engage in a homosexual lifestyle are more likely to contract certain diseases, some of which are very costly to treat.  This expense will be passed to the companies or the employees.  The increase in costs infringes on the people’s right to choose how they spend their own money.  This also extends to taxes.  When tax breaks formerly reserved for married couples are granted to thousands of additional couples then the government will look for other sources of revenue, which will effect everyone paying taxes.

Other consequences to legalizing homosexual marriage would be the degrading of its purpose.  It was established to specifically give married couples recognition and benefits, and not give those same benefits to unmarried couples.  There would suddenly be no restrictions on marriage, it would be readily available to any two people who wanted the benefits.  Right now the most common benefits to marriage are monetary.  Tax breaks, joint insurance, family discounts, etc.  Many people have roommates, I did for a while in college.  What is to stop two friends from getting ‘married’ in order to claim a tax break?  If a marriage license costs $40 and the tax break is $2000, it would seem stupid for two roommates to not take advantage of it.  Maybe one friend has really great insurance at his work, but one of his friends can’t get insurance because of a preexisting condition.  What is to stop them from getting married and claiming the benefits?  They don’t have to combine their bank accounts, they don’t even have to live together.  They can just get a marriage license and claim all the benefits afforded to married couples, because suddenly there are no restrictions on who can or can’t get married.  This, again, infringes on the rights of those who are effected by rising costs.  It would also have a negative effect on the legal system; we can’t predict how many marriages and divorces would result.  Many gay couples complain about how degrading it is to not be ‘equal’ to married couples.  If  merely feeling degraded is a legitimate argument, then I think it would be degrading to be in a formerly respected institution that was turned into simply a way for any two people to claim government benefits.

Apparently, in the short time homosexual marriage was legal in California, it infringed on the rights of a heterosexual couple to be married.  They filled out a marriage license application, which had been changed so couples would fill out their names after “Party A” and “Party B”.  They designated ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ by their names on the appropriate lines, then sent in the application.  Their application was returned, denied, because it did “not comply with California State registration laws.”  So, the state would not allow the couple to refer to themselves as the bride and groom on their marriage license application, probably because using the terms ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ discriminates against marrying couples which do not contain a bride and groom.  Denying their marriage license was certainly an infringement on their rights.

Colorado has recently revised its Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to include discriminating based on preference and gender identity.  This means that men who claim to feel like women can use women’s restrooms or locker rooms.  Not allowing them that right, or trying to make them use the men’s room, is discriminatory and illegal.  So, in Colorado many women are experiencing an infringement on their right to privacy, as they have to share a locker room with a possible sex predator.  Young girls entering a restroom may find a man urinating in an open stall.  This law applies to restrooms in a mall, movie theatre, schools, doctors offices, restaurants, any public area.  Business owners who want to keep their restroom patrons separate are subject to jail time and a fine.  If a father stands outside a women’s restroom door and tries to stop a man from entering, he is subject to a $5000 fine.  Companies ‘must allow each employee to dress according to the gender the employee identifies with, even if the employer has a gender-specific dress code.’  So, if a company requires men to wear suits and women to wear skirts, and one of their male employees feels like a woman, he can wear a skirt.  That seems like quite the infringement on an employer’s right to decide how his or her company is run.  This doesn’t directly apply to homosexual marriage, but is an example of the effects this continued tolerance will have.

There are many religious organizations which are involved in facilitating adoptions.  There has already been a case with Catholic Charities of Boston, which had to shut down after gay marriage was legalized there.  The adoption agency needs to be licensed by the state, and in order to receive a license they need to obey laws banning discrimination.  They declared they would not adopt to same sex couples (they had placed a few children with same sex couples, but announced they would follow the Vatican’s declaration that such actions went against their church’s teachings), and so they are no longer allowed to operate.  They asked for a religious exemption from the law, but it wasn’t granted.  This religious charity’s choice to only adopt to heterosexual adults resulted in them having to shut down.

One of the hottest topics concerning the possible results of gay marriage is the effect it will have on the public schools.  This effects people deeply because parents love their children so much and have such a strong desire to teach and protect them.  So when parents are told they have no say in what their children are being taught, their rights as parents are being very much disregarded.

There have already been cases showing how legalizing homosexual marriage will effect public schools.  The most famous case concerns a family in Massachusetts, who requested their Kindergarten son not be taught about homosexual relationships.  They sent several letters and had several meetings with school officials; each time they were told that because homosexual marriage was legal it was not a parental notification issue.  The administration and teachers simply refused to notify the parents or remove the son from the classroom when the topic came up.  The parents continued to request cooperation, eventually they were at a meeting at the school where the father refused to leave until the administration respected their requests, and the father was arrested for trespassing.  They are still fighting for their rights as parents.  In 2006 U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed the civil rights lawsuit by David and Tonia Parker of Lexington, concluding there is an obligation for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.

Another case happened in California right before the 2008 election.  Faith Ringgold School held a “Coming Out Day”, which they specifically chose not to inform parents of.  Kindergarten students were given cards to sign, pledging to support the GLBT lobby.  The school held several pro-homosexual events, including “Ally Week” where children were taught to be allies to the pro-homosexual cause, and “Gay and Lesbian History Month.”

In Oakland, California, some kindergarten to fifth grade students are being taught that there are more than two genders.  Really?  No, there aren’t.  And I would not want my sons being told they might be little girls, just as I would not want my daughter being told she might be a little boy.  If those things come up, eventually, later, I will deal with it.  I don’t want those ideas put into their heads when they are too young to understand it.

Teaching these lifestyles to children of all ages is unnecessary and refusing to allow parents to opt their children out is infringing on their rights as parents.  Parents do have the right to determine what and when their children are taught, especially when it comes to sexuality.

How about people who just want the freedom to make their own personal choices?  In 2008, in the case Vanessa Willock vs Elane Photography, a Christian photographer was sued (and lost) for declining to photograph a wedding between two women.  Um, what?  Now Lesbian couples have the right to force someone to work for them, because to refuse based on religious convictions is discrimination?  How are we as a people free when we have to fear standing up for what we believe in?  What sense does that make, anyway?  If she wasn’t comfortable working around lesbians, why would they want her photographing the wedding?  Wouldn’t they prefer someone else, someone who would be excited about their special day and sure to do a fabulous job?  If bigotry is so ridiculous, why not just blow of the stupid photographer and move on to someone less with less medieval views of sexuality.  Instead they choose to bring her to financial ruin, for what?  Hurting their feelings?

This push to teach homosexuality in the schools and force others to act against their religious beliefs is a blatant infringement on the separation of church and state.  The fact is, it goes both ways.  Schools can not in any way endorse religious beliefs, the ACLU even going so far as to make it illegal for schools to tell students that evolution is a theory, and that other theories exist.  Just as a teacher can not get in front of a classroom and say “There is a God” they also can not get up and say, “There is no God.”  Both infringe on the separation between church and state.  Health teachers cannot tell students that sex before marriage is wrong, because that has moral implications.  They also can not say that sex before marriage is right, good, healthy or normal, because that perspective also has moral implications.  If gay marriage is legalized then it is legally condoned.  It will have to be taught as normal, right, good and healthy, even though this specifically conflicts with many religions beliefs.  Legalizing gay marriage will result in an infringement on the separation between church and state, against the church.  America was established to ensure the rights of the people to practice freedom of religion.  The implications of breaching those rights our forefathers fought so hard to secure are immense.  The possibilities are endless; looking at what has happened so far in California, Massachusetts, and in Colorado we get only a small taste of what would happen were the gay lobby to win and legalize gay marriage.

What rights are being infringed on when homosexuals are not allowed to marry?  The ‘right to marry’ is not a fundamental right, mostly because it involves two people.  You can claim to have a right to marry, but if no one wants to marry you no one else’s rights can be infringed on to force them to marry you.  The ‘right to marry’ is not a right, because it is not something that can be guaranteed to you.  The three unalienable rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  The government exists to protect those rights from being taken away from us, not guaranteeing that we have all three.  Of course, the couples lobbying for same-sex marriage have each other, and do want to be married.  But because marriage is not a fundamental, government protected right, they can not make a claim to it.  Historically, marriage has always been a religious institution.

“Somewhere in the annals of time, there came a point when someone said, we need a way to legitimize this occupation, or qualify this agreement, etc. etc. and there’s nothing like a marriage (which is supposed to represent a commitment of love and unity) to do that.

In modern US history, a marriage was a convenient marker. Governments need to group people for census purposes or taxing purposes. So they group by state, county, town, village… and then by family. But in order to recognize that group as a family, they needed an official marker.

So they said, “Why don’t we make marriage a legal institution?”

And they did.

It spiraled down from there. See, once there was a legal qualifier for it, other people wanted to use the same qualifier because it made it easier to wrap into nice packages. That’s how we end up with automatic hospital visitation rights and insurance benefits simply because we paid the $50 and signed the piece of paper that said that according to the state, we were married.”

The government took it upon themselves to define marriage, set requirements for it, allot special privileges, and secularize it.  This was done for convenience, and is a reasonable succession if events.  But marriage existed before the government got involved, and so the government can not simply change what marriage is.  Because of this fact, couples cannot claim marriage as a right the government is obligated to provide.

In the last several decades less emphasis is being placed on the role religion has always played in marriage.  In 1950 it was not socially acceptable to live with someone before you were married, nor was it socially acceptable for people to have children outside of marriage.  Marriage marked a much more significant commitment than it does now.  Divorce rates were significantly lower fifty years ago.  Now it is quite common for people to live together for years, sometimes couples eventually get married.  Adultery, cohabitation, illegitimate children are all very prevalent, and people commonly think that sex and parenting have little to do with marriage.  So when gays say they want the right to marry they are not asking for the right to live together, raise children together or have a life together.  It is quite common today to have all those things without marriage.  What they want are the legal benefits and recognition that come with marriage.

What, exactly, are they missing out on?  Some states in America have domestic partnerships and and civil unions available for gay couples, which provide some of the same rights.  Probably one of the biggest differences is that marriage is so universally recognized.  When I married my husband in Maryland, we were still married when we went to Mexico for our honeymoon, we were still married when we lived in Utah and we will be married wherever we settle permanently.  Domestic partnerships and Civil Unions are recognized in the states they are issued, but may not be recognized in other countries and states, especially states that don’t issue those standings.  It is harder to dissolve, or ‘get a divorce’, with a Civil Union.  Immigrants who enter into a Civil Union with an American Citizen can not be sponsored for citizenship the way married couples can.  They do not receive all the same tax benefits, especially at a federal level.  There are many other benefits marriage offers; automatic spousal benefits like veterans benefits, inheritance laws, sick leave for a spouse, insurance coverage, family discounts and making medical decisions for an incapable spouse.  Some of these benefits can be obtained by giving a partner power of attorney, but this is much more costly and time consuming than getting a marriage license.  It probably costs less than many weddings, but that isn’t the point.

They feel like they have a right to these benefits, because they love and are committed to their partner, and because they feel discriminated against when they can’t obtain the same privileges given to married people.  Legally the question is whether or not their rights are being infringed on more than the rights of others in society.  Is giving them all the same benefits and recognition worth the increased costs; the monetary loss to businesses and insurance companies, the lawsuits to people who would like to choose not to provide benefits to homosexual couples, the loss of parental control over teaching their children sexual values?  Whose rights are being infringed on more?

I would decide against homosexual couples on multiple levels.  Marriage transcends government regulations, the fact that the government controls handing out marriage licenses does not give them the authority to redefine marriage.  More importantly, I think parental and religious rights are much more important than homosexual rights.  Giving monetary benefits and ‘equal standing’ to gay couples pales in comparison to taking away the parent’s right to choose the morals they want to teach their child and individuals rights to practice their religion.  All parents should be able to choose the values they teach their children.  If they want to teach their children that being homosexual is acceptable, that is their right.  If they want to wait until they are a teenager to teach them about homosexuality, and then tell them that being homosexual is sinful, that is their right.  Legalizing homosexual marriage will result in all public arenas, especially schools, openly contradicting those teachings and thrusting them upon children before they are old enough to discern between their parents beliefs and what society accepts.  The rights of the parents transcend all other arguments.  Teaching the homosexual lifestyle as acceptable in schools is an infringement on the separation between church and state.  These rights, the rights of a parent and the right to freedom of religion, are rights that should never be infringed on.

About whyimconservative

I'm a stay-at-home, homeschooling mom with a Biochemistry degree living in Austin. I love my kids, my husband and my country. I want to explain why I'm conservative.

Posted on June 20, 2011, in Homosexual Marriage and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 34 Comments.

  1. Michael Ejercito

    The only argument that might have great weight in the future is an argument on the basis that the customary understanding of marriage changed. “I would hope it to be the same as for language in general: custom. “- Robert , in reply to RC Dean’s question “Now, the question is, who says what “marriage” means for purposes if this discussion [of whether marriage should be redefined to include same-sex unions]?”

    Of course, today the customary understanding of marriage is one man and one woman.

  2. In Canada gay marriage has been legal for years and what happened ? Nothing absolutely nothing has changed. Two gay people marrying have no affect on you . I can say because you donate to a church and a church is a tax free institution potential tax funds are being funnelled through religion which in turn makes me have to pay more taxes.

    • I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove. Things are already happening. Religious institutions are loosing their rights to practice what they believe. Individuals are being sued, and losing, for practicing their religious beliefs. Children are being taught things that parents would like to teach them on their own, and are being told by the schools that the schools will not stop or notify the parents prior to these lessons. A lot of things have changed in the last decade, so your claims that nothing will change seem misinformed.

      • You can’t claim abuses by government are a negative effect of government legalizing something. For example, if cannabis were legalized and the government punished a business for terminating an employee for cannabis use, you can’t use that as an argument against cannabis legalization. The issue of government over-reach and control is a different issue.

        Personally, I don’t oppose gay marriage legalization as a stepping stone on the road to marriage privatization.

  3. what religious institutions are loosing their rights to practice what they believe? Christians?
    Muslims obviously are having a rough go, from Wisconsin to Tennessee people are opposing them letting them open up houses of worship. Fox News made a lot of hay out of them being able to worship freely in an abandoned burlington coat factory that was just over two blocks away from where the twin towers used to stand. Are you arguing that Muslims rights to free religion are being trampled on or Christians?

    • The examples in my post have to do with Christian institutions, adoption agencies losing government permission to stay open and the photographer losing the lawsuit. Muslims should have the right to worship, of course. I’m not sure the relevance to this topic, though. Muslims like to castrate homosexuals, obviously I don’t think that should be allowed. But they should be allowed to worship. Any religion that is forced by the government to either change their practices or shut down is having their right to the free practice of religion infringed.

      • Cons,

        You write as though you are very educated and informed, but there are quite a few factual errors in your post:

        “The fact is; all laws stem from morals. Moral judgement is implicit in the act of deciding that something is wrong and should be outlawed. Why is stealing wrong? Why is murder wrong? Why is pedophilia wrong? Why is it against the law? All laws were originally created because someone recognized that it was immoral for someone to be a victim of rape or theft. Stealing is wrong because someone loses their property. Rape is wrong because it violates my right to choose who I have sex with. Those are easy.”

        This is not necessarily the case. You error in the first statement. There are plenty of laws in various countries that stem in what we would recognize as being immoral. Morality – or enforced morality at least – is always subjective. Proper laws – those seen as being moral in a universal way (such as theft) stems not from enforced morality, but from moral universalism: the idea that causing intentional or avoidable harm is wrong.

        What we have in many cases, particularly in the area of sexual ethics, is the enforcement of social order in the moral order spectrum. Morality (or moral universalism) is binary. There is right and wrong. Social order steps in and adds to that, placing weights and consequences on things that are either moral or amoral and further labeling them as “immoral”. That is the root of the label that homosexuality is “immoral” when it is not. It is amoral (as is heterosexuality and bisexuality and pansexuality, etc. etc.).

        I digress. “Suicide is illegal.”
        No it’s not. Assisted suicide is illegal due to the violation due to agreements in a doctor or medical professional’s license agreement.

        “A benefit that homosexual couples want from marriage is for both parties to receive work health insurance coverage. This effects everyone receiving work insurance because prices will go up. There would be more people to cover, which increases prices. There is also the fact that people who engage in a homosexual lifestyle are more likely to contract certain diseases, some of which are very costly to treat.”

        Irrelevant for two reasons: Social transformation channeling young gay men and women into the template of monogamy (and therefore safer sex) would directly and drastically reduce the heightened transmission of STD’s/HIV. I would like to point out here that gay women are the lowest risk group for the transmission of STD’s/HIV. Fewer people would repress themselves or hide in shame from friends and family who would disown them. Second, my previous comment on your part 1 post defines what I point out to be the “gay tax”. You state that because cost of medical insurance would go up, gay couples should not be able to marry. This is a foolish notion since gay men and women already subsidize both public and private health insurance costs so that not only straight couples, but their children benefit from medical insurance at the heavy burden of having to purchase a second plan for themselves OR not being able to cover themselves or their children. The harm towards gay couples, both medically and financially, drastically outweighs the minor cost of allowing gay couples the opportunity to file jointly on a medical insurance plan. There aren’t that many of us.

        “Other consequences to legalizing homosexual marriage would be the degrading of its purpose. It was established to specifically give married couples recognition and benefits, and not give those same benefits to unmarried couples.”

        This is a false statement based heavily on revisionist history. Marriage was never fundamentally “established”. It has manifest in countless ways throughout the ages. Pre-Puritanism collapse and even pre-Civil War, marriage was always considered a private, contractual agreement between two families. In most circumstances, it involved an exchange of property or a business agreement. Earlier in history, sons were prized because brides would bring with them a dowry, increasing a families wealth. In Jewish culture, the opposite manifest where a man would exchange property or resources with the woman’s family prior to their union. The concept of benefits is very new in the whole spectrum of the establishment of marriage or marriage-like unions.

        “There would suddenly be no restrictions on marriage, it would be readily available to any two people who wanted the benefits. ”

        This is both hyperbolic and inaccurate. Gross exaggeration’s are unbecoming a post such as this. Your roommate analogy is currently something that can occur among straight men and women who are roommates. Given the social climate surrounding gay men and women, two male or two female roommates who are straight wouldn’t exactly lock themselves into a difficult (and expensive) to dissolve union to save a few thousand bucks in the short term. You lacked insight in this example.

        “They designated ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ by their names on the appropriate lines, then sent in the application. Their application was returned, denied, because it did “not comply with California State registration laws.” So, the state would not allow the couple to refer to themselves as the bride and groom on their marriage license application, probably because using the terms ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ discriminates against marrying couples which do not contain a bride and groom. Denying their marriage license was certainly an infringement on their rights.”

        They weren’t denied a marriage license. It was returned to them to be corrected. Or is it less insulting for a same-gender couple to have to place their name on the form next to the gender they do not identify with/the gender that they are? I for one don’t like the prospect of either my partner or I having to play the bride on a legal document. We are both men. Spouse 1 and Spouse 2 or some gender-neutral equivalent causes zero harm.

        “Colorado has recently revised its Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to include discriminating based on preference and gender identity. This means that men who claim to feel like women can use women’s restrooms or locker rooms. Not allowing them that right, or trying to make them use the men’s room, is discriminatory and illegal. So, in Colorado many women are experiencing an infringement on their right to privacy, as they have to share a locker room with a possible sex predator.”

        Inaccurate and evidence that you do not know any transgender men or women. This does not mean that men who claim to feel like women can use women’s restrooms or locker rooms. That is dialogue and rhetoric coined by MassResistance. Instead, you fail to mention that gender identity and transgenderism stems from Gender Identity Disorder – a very real biological disorder far exceeding psychology and stems more from both brain chemistry and brain structure. Furthermore, your citing of invisible consequences are exactly what it appears to be: ghost rhetoric without any evidence of consequence. It is also irrelevant to the discussion on marriage equality. What currently (more often than not) prevents transgender men and women from marrying the partner they love isn’t their gender identity, but their sexual orientation.

        “One of the hottest topics concerning the possible results of gay marriage is the effect it will have on the public schools. This effects people deeply because parents love their children so much and have such a strong desire to teach and protect them. So when parents are told they have no say in what their children are being taught, their rights as parents are being very much disregarded.”

        No, they are not. Parents have a choice in how and by what means they educate their children. They can select homeschooling or private schooling at a cost – is that cost any more burdensome because they are straight? Is it somehow less tolerable than the costs gay couples and their children encounter on a regular basis being denied marriage equality?

        “There have already been cases showing how legalizing homosexual marriage will effect public schools. The most famous case concerns a family in Massachusetts, who requested their Kindergarten son not be taught about homosexual relationships. They sent several letters and had several meetings with school officials; each time they were told that because homosexual marriage was legal it was not a parental notification issue. The administration and teachers simply refused to notify the parents or remove the son from the classroom when the topic came up. The parents continued to request cooperation, eventually they were at a meeting at the school where the father refused to leave until the administration respected their requests, and the father was arrested for trespassing. They are still fighting for their rights as parents. In 2006 U.S. District Judge Mark L. Wolf dismissed the civil rights lawsuit by David and Tonia Parker of Lexington, concluding there is an obligation for public schools to teach young children to accept and endorse homosexuality.”

        Again, not factual. The book in question – about a prince who falls in love with another prince – was included in lessons about tolerance and kindness to those who are different. The parents were heard out and were dismissed, particularly in light of no other parents in the class having any problem with the reading of said book to their children (Lexington, MA, despite being a dry town, is a very accepting one). You cite rights and rights and rights and rights. Where is it defined that a parent has a right to force a school to alter curriculum to adhere to the parents personal and/or religious beliefs? Should science classes no longer inform students of the theory of evolution? Should high schools no longer offer analysis of Christian/Jewish scripture in mythology classes? Should parents be able to band together and be able to prevent schools from reading Shakespearean plays in advanced English literature because some of them include topics of murder and/or incest? Recently, elementary schools in New York began teaching a different method for performing addition and subtraction. Should parents force the school to remain on the old system and violate Education Department/State ordinance?

        “In Oakland, California, some kindergarten to fifth grade students are being taught that there are more than two genders. Really? No, there aren’t.”

        Don’t show ignorance. The real life examples of various species were evidence enough that in nature, gender isn’t quite so binary as it appears to be. Also, with the presence of Gender Identity Disorder or those born legitimately with both male and female genitalia or an extra chromosome, it is quite obvious that gender isn’t always black and white. It’s a fun fact.

        “Teaching these lifestyles to children of all ages is unnecessary and refusing to allow parents to opt their children out is infringing on their rights as parents. Parents do have the right to determine what and when their children are taught, especially when it comes to sexuality.”

        They do. And they have options to ensure that happens, whether by sending the child to a different public school, homeschooling, or sending them to a private school – boarding or non-boarding. Weight of cost comes into play. The cost isn’t more burdensome/unethical because they are straight. Or do you negate the opinion of other parents who have no problem with the lessons, including parents of the same gender who send their children to these very same public schools?

        “How about people who just want the freedom to make their own personal choices? In 2008, in the case Vanessa Willock vs Elane Photography, a Christian photographer was sued (and lost) for declining to photograph a wedding between two women. Um, what? Now Lesbian couples have the right to force someone to work for them, because to refuse based on religious convictions is discrimination?”

        This photographer was found to be in violation of the state’s Human Rights Act. Or is it suddenly acceptable for business owners – say shop owners or resturaunts or hotel chains or taxi services or airlines or doctors offices or dentists or repairmen or plumbers or electricians or cable companies to deny service to gay men and women because of their “religious beliefs”? Do you honestly look at those similar examples and believe that they aren’t another manifestation of segregation? Are subjective religious beliefs in this country suddenly more important than law? This photographer wasn’t fined for religious beliefs, but for actions in violation of law established through the state’s democratic process. I do agree with you on the sense of it all. If a photographer expressed such hesitation in being hired for my future, planned wedding, I wouldn’t sue. I would find another photographer. Then again, many Americans on both sides are very, very lawsuit happy. That has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

        ” Legalizing gay marriage will result in an infringement on the separation between church and state, against the church.”

        No. It won’t. Your rhetoric prior to this statement is both misleading and inaccurate. Since there are Christian religious organizations who have no problem performing marriage ceremonies for same-gender couples, it is an issue transcending religion. Your language and direction here suggest that only specific religions (perhaps your own) matter – and the beliefs of those of diverging/different religions are irrelevant. In the eyes of the law, what is of more significance? The ultra-conservative Christian teacher who wants to teach children that sex between people of the same gender is immoral and evil because God forbids it… or the Wiccan priestess, also a teacher, who believes it to be moral and good because the gods admire it? Your argument – at least from the direction of religion – is very one sided.

        “America was established to ensure the rights of the people to practice freedom of religion. The implications of breaching those rights our forefathers fought so hard to secure are immense.”

        And what of my religious beliefs? My religious beliefs recognize that marriage between two, unrelated loving couples is good and beautiful despite gender. My religious leader is vested in the ability to validate marriage licenses. She cannot, however, do so for me and my boyfriend because the federal government recognizes the religious beliefs of another religion being more important than my own in the eyes of the law. See where I’m going here? You’re pointing at religious persecution and are unable to see it as religious persecution.

        “What rights are being infringed on when homosexuals are not allowed to marry? The ‘right to marry’ is not a fundamental right, mostly because it involves two people. ”

        Wrong.

        Loving v. Virginia:

        “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

        In particular, dissect this and focus on the ‘basic civil rights of man’. It is only a matter of time before court law recognizes that replacing race with sexual orientation and including the same decision based on the 14th amendment and due process will be given.

        We are telling you that according to the United States Constitution, the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional. It is fundamentally unconstitutional.

        “In the last several decades less emphasis is being placed on the role religion has always played in marriage.”

        Factually inaccurate. It wasn’t until a few hundred years ago that religion played a role in marriage at all. Sure, there were some nations or areas that did, but it was universally a secular institution – even a private agreement and a public announcement that held little weight. You are revising history. Please don’t.

        “They feel like they have a right to these benefits, because they love and are committed to their partner, and because they feel discriminated against when they can’t obtain the same privileges given to married people.”

        It is so much more than that. Without marriage equality, gay couples are really harmed. Some, as you even cited, are separated by international boarders because our federal government treats them as legal strangers (even if married in another country, even if married in one of the states with marriage equality).

        “More importantly, I think parental and religious rights are much more important than homosexual rights.”

        Irrelevant. What about the parental and religious rights of gay men and women? Are they so easily dismissed? Are their parental and religious rights easily dismissed simply because they are gay or because they are different?

        “Giving monetary benefits and ‘equal standing’ to gay couples pales in comparison to taking away the parent’s right to choose the morals they want to teach their child and individuals rights to practice their religion.”

        Again, what about the parental and religious rights of gay couples? The right to choose the morals they want to teach their children? The individual rights to practice their religion? This religious rights/family rights vs. gay rights is shallow. Gay couples have families. They have values. It is outright wrong to have said families and values treated differently under the law based on the religious beliefs of other citizens.

        “The rights of the parents transcend all other arguments.”

        By that you mean “the rights of straight parents”. Correct?

        “Teaching the homosexual lifestyle as acceptable in schools is an infringement on the separation between church and state.”

        No, it’s not.

        There is a saying I heard a while back. “The rights of one should end where the rights of another begins”.

        Right now, observable discrimination is going in one direction: The religious majority telling a minority what they can and cannot do. When gay couples marry, the only cost to society is a few pennies per household in extra taxes knowing that the rights, benefits, protections, and responsibilities instilled in civil marriage are rarely taken advantage of. On the other hand, when gay couples are denied the ability to enter into civil marriage, they are treated as legal strangers by the government. When even a single right, benefit, protection, or responsibility needs to be invoked, it is often done at such great cost that gay couples suffer very real harm, especially when unable to pay the cost.

        Your argument is very one sided. I question whether or not you actually truly know any gay men or women. Your rhetoric suggests not. Your opinion is simply uninformed manifestations of that precise ignorance. It is obvious that you are not a homophobe. You are also not a bigot. You are, however, very one-sided and are truly unable to see the harm gay couples face both economically and socially when not allowed to solidify their relationships legally, spiritually, and festively.

        I apologize for the length.

      • “Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

        In particular, dissect this and focus on the ‘basic civil rights of man’. It is only a matter of time before court law recognizes that replacing race with sexual orientation and including the same decision based on the 14th amendment and due process will be given.

        Actually, a court of law did consider the question of replacing race with sexual orientation just five years after the decision in Loving . It was the Supreme Court no less, in their decision in Baker v. Nelson , 409 U.S. 810, 34 L.E.2d 65, 93 S. Ct. 37 (1972) In Baker, the Minnesota Supreme Court had rejected the contention that a State statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman violated federal due process and equal protection principles. The court found no “fundamental right” to same-sex marriage, 191 N.W.2d at 186-87 (Minn. Sup. Ct. 1971), and concluded that the traditional definition of marriage effects no “invidious discrimination,” and that the definition easily withstood rational-basis review. Id. at 187. The Baker plaintiffs appealed to the United States Supreme Court under their then-mandatory appellate jurisdiction, and the appeal was dismissed for want of a substantial federal question. Such dismissals are decisions on the merits. Hicks v. Miranda , 422 U.S. 332 at 343-344 (1975) The Court further explained the significance of summary dismissals in Mandel v. Bradley , 432 U.S. 173 (1977) (per curiam)

        Summary affirmances and dismissals for want of a substantial federal
        question without doubt reject the specific challenges presented in the
        statement of jurisdiction and do leave undisturbed the judgment
        appealed from. They do prevent lower courts from coming to opposite
        conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided
        by those actions.

        id. at 176

        The statement of jurisdiction in the Baker appeal thus contains the issues that were presented to the Supreme Court. The appellants argued that the denial of a marriage license on the basis of their sex “deprive[d] appellants of their liberty to marry and of their property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment . . .[and] violate[d] their rights under the equal protection clause of the
        Fourteenth Amendment . . . [and] deprive[d] appellants of their right to privacy under the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments.
        Appellants’ Jurisdictional Statement at 3, Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810 (1972)
        (No. 71-1027) Thus, by dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court necessarily rejected these arguments that the denial of the marriage license impermissibly denied the appellants their liberty, property, privacy, and equal protection. In particular, Loving was cited seven times in the jurisdictional statement. id. at 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 Thus, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that Loving compels lower courts to recognize same-sex “marriage”.

      • “Actually, a court of law did consider the question of replacing race with sexual orientation just five years after the decision in Loving . It was the Supreme Court no less, in their decision in Baker v. Nelson , 409 U.S. 810, 34 L.E.2d 65, 93 S. Ct. 37 (1972) In Baker, the Minnesota Supreme Court had rejected the contention that a State statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman violated federal due process and equal protection principles. T”

        Michael,

        You should recognize that when it comes to court law and Supreme Court decisions, a single strike decision isn’t the culmination of the process of law. Particularly, since this occurred in the Minnesota Supreme Court in 1972 and appeal was rejected in the Federal Supreme Court. Because of the dynamics of law, even invoking Loving v. Virginia is shaky on my part since law and court decisions are subject to reevaluation. It’s all dynamic and I am telling you that until marriage equality is had, the decision against marriage equality will never be final.

  4. RJ

    The AIDS edemic for the most part is a problem in the homosexual community. It is bizarre that you blame the institution of hetereosexual marriage for this. Moreover, among nonmaried heterosexauls, AIDS was never a plague in this community. Then you reason AIDS..therfore, legalize homosexual marraige which already evokes the natural disgust repsonse…why are you shocked that so many heterosexuals oppose the legalization of homosexual marriage.

    The fundamentsl issue is this:homosexauls are demanding to be able to violate what is a sacred heterosexual social and cultural space. This provokes a very strong disgust response in millions of heterosexuals. You want to call this bigotry and intolerance..I’ll accept the charge…not all bigoty and intolerance is wrong ..in fact it is quite justifiable.

    Now about morality and the law. If a law violates the moral sensibilities of a large part of the US population-in this case heterosexxaul moral and cultural senisitivity-the law will be percieved as being unjust. This will provoke a backlash. Have you and your fellow homosexauls ever considered this possibility?

    Considering that 31 sates have already passed anti-homosexual marriage referendum..with more to follow-the level of support for legalizing homosexual marriage in America is not all that strong and solid. Homosexuals will fight tooth and nail against a NYS referendum on legalizing homosexaul marriage..because they understand all to well the a majority of heterosexual adults in NYS will vote against it.

    One last point. The homosexual marriage issue does not exist in a vacum. The power of the Democratic Party has increased because of an immigration policy that has flooded American with millions of high fetility nonwhites. In other words the Democratic had to import its voters from various nonwhite nations. But here is the paradox:this large population of nonwhite voters is highly socially conservative. In the near future, the Democratic Party will be a socially conservative Party hostile to the White homosexaul cultural and social agenda..this ou can take tothe back. It is only a matter of time before homosexaul marriage is reversed across the nation.

    • The power of the Democratic Party has increased because of an immigration policy that has flooded American with millions of high fetility nonwhites. In other words the Democratic had to import its voters from various nonwhite nations.

      Jack Hunter pointed this out. Quoting Fernando Espuelas, a Los Angeles-based Spanish-language radio talk show host:

      “For the past few weeks, Latinos have called in to my radio show, horrified at the idea of same-sex marriage. Callers said they would vote for Obama for change — and for Proposition 8. They told me that the future of their family was at stake. Biblical passages were quoted, divinely inspired indignation given voice. The vision of a collapsed society, where men abandon their wives in droves to ‘become gay,’ consumed these callers.”

    • Patrick,

      In my post, I never blamed “the institution of heterosexual marriage” for this. I accurately stated, using very rational logic and observation, that the vast majority of gay men in America who become HIV positive are those who engage in high risk, sexual behavior – particularly sex with a partner of unknown status without using condoms. Gay men who appreciate monogamy and have safer sex are at much lower risk. Recognizing and steering young gay men towards monogamy and opening up the venue for marriage in a way that’s celebratory will drastically reduce the impact HIV has had among gay and bisexual men.

      You are more or less incorrect about HIV/AIDS not being an issue for straight men and women. It is, even in America, becoming a problem for straight men and women. I’ve experienced it myself having worked in an HIV testing center. More and more straight men and women are coming in and testing positive, having always thought that HIV/AIDS was a “gay disease”.

      I will add that the lowest risk group for HIV/AIDS in America is, in fact, gay women…

      I digress.

      “The fundamentsl issue is this:homosexauls are demanding to be able to violate what is a sacred heterosexual social and cultural space.”

      Don’t you see? There is no violation here. What is being stated is not a desire to violate, but a desire to participate: for young, gay men and women to grow up in a nation where their family, friends, government, or society as a whole do not scorn and disgust them, but praise them as they would anyone else, placing before them a path to participate in part of what it means to be an American citizen, to marry the person you love, to crease a household, to form a family. This would move gay men and women away from a culture where their relationships are considered less-than/temporary and towards permanence: increasing their happiness, safety, security, and health.

      “This will provoke a backlash. Have you and your fellow homosexauls ever considered this possibility?”

      Yes. We already recognize that every time a law is created where gay men and women are treated more fairly by the government, whether it be hate crime legislation or repeal of DADT, violent crimes against LGBT men and women escalate. Should we resign ourselves to being partial participants in American culture, paying more to be treated as less-than simply because there are those who wish us harm? Surely not.

      “Considering that 31 sates have already passed anti-homosexual marriage referendum..with more to follow-the level of support for legalizing homosexual marriage in America is not all that strong and solid.”

      I fear you exaggerate. 51% in CA and 52% in Maine do not really constitute a “strong and solid majority”. The other states where referendums occurred were very conservative states where few counter campaign initiatives were launched. You’re also ignoring age group variation in support, where there exists strong opposition in those older than 60 and very little opposition in those younger than 30. Most LGBT men and women involved in political activism recognize this: even if we would win a state by 80%, we still would rather not see a voter referendum because we hate the fact that our lives, our relationships, our families, our households are placed in the voting booth for strangers to come in and say “Yes, I want to see this person treated as an inferior because of my religious beliefs.”

      “It is only a matter of time before homosexaul marriage is reversed across the nation.”

      Your future outlook is fundamentally flawed. You appear to believe that even though younger generations embrace equality, support for marriage equality will be bred out of favor by immigrants? That’s quite a claim to make and requires much more thought and analysis than you offered.

      When push comes to shove, you proved my point: People do not like the idea of gay couples being married because they are disgusted by gay men and women in general. You stated this yourself. I will paint you a different picture:

      Year after year, more and more gay men and women, half of them who are living life in secret, not revealing their beautiful capacity for love to their family and friends are becoming more comfortable with coming out. As more and more men and women, particularly young men and women, come out to their families and friends, people are beginning to realize that when they support anti-gay bigotry and intolerance and when they vote against gay men and women, they aren’t voting against a foreign element, against strangers. They are voting against their son or daughter, their best friend, their coworker, their aunt, uncle, cousin, classmate, teacher, student, neighbor, etc. etc. etc. That, as we have shown in the last decade alone, influences more acceptance and transition to equality than you realize.

      The moral compass of America is moving. Instead of pointing north to a social order, it is beginning to point true north towards a moral order, where something that is good and beautiful is not labeled immoral because “God wills it”.

      • Recognizing and steering young gay men towards monogamy and opening up the venue for marriage in a way that’s celebratory will drastically reduce the impact HIV has had among gay and bisexual men.

        Even if the state chooses to do so, why is calling such unions marriages better than calling such unions by a different name?

      • “Even if the state chooses to do so, why is calling such unions marriages better than calling such unions by a different name?”

        I thought I was pretty clear when I wrote that comment. Why? Because society has conditioned everyone, when wanting to celebrate and make permanent the union one has with someone he or she loves, to ask “will you marry me?” Not “will you unite with me civilly” or “will you partner with me domestically?”

        The expectation of social celebration is already instilled, even in young gay men and women. Calling it by another name is the establishment of legalized and social relationship apartheid. Especially in the way of religion, my religion recognizes that same-gender couples can and should be married. It is a marriage ceremony – not a civil union or domestic partnership ceremony which means so very little when traveling to or moving to another state.

        At this point in time, I feel so very much that I am a full citizen of the state of Massachusetts. At the very same time, I know that I am a second class American citizen. Can you comprehend what that is like? That you are telling me how to live while at the very same time I am doing absolutely nothing to you?

      • Why? Because society has conditioned everyone, when wanting to celebrate and make permanent the union one has with someone he or she loves, to ask “will you marry me?” Not “will you unite with me civilly” or “will you partner with me domestically?”

        And society has conditioned almost everyone (including me) that marriage is between one man and one woman.

  5. “I’ve been having trouble finding good reasons for legalizing homosexual marriage. No one is arguing that it will benefit society, help raise more stable children, lower gas prices, or have any positive effect at all.”

    Wow. Really? You should work harder to understand your opponents, because people do argue that it will benefit society and create a more stable environment children being raised by same-sex parents. Also, Judge Ware has ruled that Judge Walker’s same-sex relationship did not give him a special interest in the case because ALL of society benefits from equal treatment under the law.

    Now, you may disagree with these arguments, but you cannot say that “no one is arguing it will benefit society.” That’s just wrong. People ARE arguing that, whether you agree with them or not.

    • Also, Judge Ware has ruled that Judge Walker’s same-sex relationship did not give him a special interest in the case because ALL of society benefits from equal treatment under the law.

      Were that the case, anyone would have standing to challenge any law on the basis of equal protection.

  6. Yeah and you can be absolutely certain that Judge Ware is supporter of legalizing same sex marriage and this was a major contributing factor in his ruling conceriing Judge Ware. As far as equal treatment goes…legalize polygamy.

    Anti-discrimaniation-which the homosexuals push as the fundamental issue-is not a unversal moral principle. where it applies is crucial. The homosexauls understand this obvious point. The Courts are promoting an invalid moral and legal priniciple.

    • Patrick,

      You cite “universal moral principle” without comprehending the philosophical construct of moral universalism. Whether Judge Ware supports or does not support marriage equality is irrelevant. As your side did with Walker, you are also doing with Ware. You seem to believe that a judge must be biased because of a decision that disagrees with your personal desire to reduce and harm gay men and women in this country.

      Go ahead, though. Read the decision – both Walker’s and Ware’s. If you possess the legal expertise enough to make a judgment, show us where in his decision he was guilty of bias.

      I live in Boston. In the near future, my partner and I will walk down to city hall, receive a $35 marriage license, invite our friends and family together to celebrate and solidify our relationship and we will be husbands. This is not morally invalid. It is obviously not legally invalid. Your rhetoric is falling apart.

  7. RJ

    What exactly is it that you think I don’t understand? I have been following the homosexual marriage debate very closely for the past several years. Homosexuals have made it very clear over and over again that the issue is discrimination and that discrimination is always wrong. Homosexuals do not make it any more complicated than the way I have just stated it. This view of discrimination emerges out of the Liberal mindset. I am just stating the obvious fact that Liberals live and die by political abstractions…without regard to the real world of real human beings. Mark Steyn-just yesterday-brutally exposed the full-blown insanity of poltical liberals. Go read his hypothetical-maybe not so hypothetical-scenario about that Gay couple in leather shorts getting ready to attend the Gay Pride parade and their Muslim immigrant neighbors on the other side of the fence.

    Of course, it is easy enough to see that the claim that discrimination is always wrong is false. The polygamy issue creates a very serious problem for the case for legalized homosexual marriage. Homosexuals can either defend polygamy-and thereby seriously undermining their universalist claims about anti-discrimination or oppose polygamy-thereby conceeding the point that cultural and social norms can be taken into account when the issue of extending legal rights to certain classes of people in a society. Either way, the case for legalizing homosexual marriage ends up skating on thin ice.

    If Judge Ware was a social conservative, the probability of his letting Judge Walker overturn the referendum-the popular will- would be very low. Both Ware and Walker are unelected and unaccountable Judges-for life. This is the problem…a very serious major problem.

    Lawyers and Judges reason in very narrow ways. And it wouldn’t be the first time in American history that narrow “objective” legal reasoning set into motion events that resolve the issue in another way. The homosexual marrriage issue-and several other issues festering in the nation-to the extent that they violate popular will very likely set into motion events that will resolve the issue of homosexual marriage in other ways.

    You are completely wrong about AIDS problem. It was never a problem in the heterosexaul community except for drug addicts. I left out the HIV part because of the very high probability of momumental scientific fraud with regard to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. AIDS is 100 percent a life style problem that was incubated in East Coast cities duting the mid-to late seventies in the homosexual community.

    • The polygamy issue creates a very serious problem for the case for legalized homosexual marriage.

      There is, of course, more.

      There were attempts to legitimize p[olygamy in the United States, and Congress passed a series of laws to stamp out the practice. These laws were challenged, and the Supreme Court upheld each and every one of those laws.

      One of the most important cases was Davis v. Beason , 133 U.S. 333 (1890). In Davis , the appellant alleged that the Edmunds Act, which prohibited, from voting, those who advised, counseled, and encouraged persons to commit polygamy, was unconstitutional. He made several challenges, including an equal protection challenge. Brief for Appellant in Davis v. Beason, O. T. (1889), No. 1261, p. 41. The Supreme Court rejected all of the Davis appelant’s challenges. First, they explained that the trial court had jurisdiction to hear the offense (something it would not have if the criminal statute was unconstitutional). In reaching that decision, they held:

      Bigamy and polygamy are crimes by the laws of all civilized and Christian countries. They are crimes by the laws of the United States, and they are crimes by the laws of Idaho. They tend to destroy the purity of the marriage relation, to disturb the peace of families, to degrade woman, and to debase man. Few crimes are more pernicious to the best interests of society, and receive more general or more deserved punishment. To extend exemption from punishment for such crimes would be to shock the moral judgment of the community.

      id at 341

      It was never intended or supposed that the [First Amendment] could be invoked as a protection against legislation for the punishment of acts inimical to the peace, good order, and morals of society.

      id. at 342

      “Certainly no legislation can be supposed more wholesome and necessary in the founding of a free, self-governing commonwealth, fit to take rank as one of the coordinate states of the union, than that which seeks to establish it on the basis of the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony; the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization; the best guaranty of that reverent morality which is the source of all beneficent progress in social and political improvement. And to this end, no means are more directly and immediately suitable than those provided by this act, which endeavors to withdraw all political influence from those who are practically hostile to its attainment.”

      id. at 344-345, quoting Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U.S. 15 at 45

      In conclusion, the Court held that:

      [The Edmunds Act was] not open to any constitutional or legal objection

      id. at 347

      Can anyone explain to me how the reasoning behind Davis does not apply equally to same-sex “marriage”?

    • Patrick,

      You obviously haven’t been following it closely enough, then. It isn’t completely about anti-discrimination. At its core, there is a strong desire to fully participate in American culture and to be able to exist in such a way where we don’t walk down the streets of the cities and towns we live in for fear of verbal and physical harassment and violence.

      At the core of your argument, you were never a gay youth, possessing a drive by society towards marriage (given societies hetero-normative message). If from a conservative area, you are afraid. You fear rejection from your family, from your friends, the thought of being disowned or even kicked out of your home. You believe that there’s no purpose if you can’t meet someone you love and be married. Fast forward years latter when we do meet someone and wish to celebrate with remaining friends and family (those that still associate with us and support us) our relationship through the very same social and civil institution that we all know. Our siblings do. Our parents have. Our cousins, nieces and nephews have. Our friends have. Our coworkers have. Then society turns around and, with the very same hand of hostility and violence, says “no”.

      Making my point short: There’s another whole side to the request for marriage equality than you’re able (or willing) to see – the argument of raised expectation followed by rejection of full participation in the very American culture we all share and love.

      “Both Ware and Walker are unelected and unaccountable Judges-for life. This is the problem…a very serious major problem.”

      So judges should campaign and be elected to their seat? That poses more risk when it comes to impartiality and objectivity than does a legislative nomination and selection. This is a different topic entirely. I care not to discuss this.

      “You are completely wrong about AIDS problem. It was never a problem in the heterosexaul community except for drug addicts. I left out the HIV part because of the very high probability of momumental scientific fraud with regard to the HIV-AIDS hypothesis. AIDS is 100 percent a life style problem that was incubated in East Coast cities duting the mid-to late seventies in the homosexual community.”

      Am I? What is your basis or expertise in this? I have served as a voluntary HIV tester and safer sex counselor for a few years now. I can tell you that it is a problem among straight men and women. In fact, it is an escalating problem, particularly among straight women in low income areas. There is no fraud here. We are well aware that HIV/AIDS impacted gay men in the 80’s very hard, particularly due to the lack of education on safer sex during the sexual revolution. The elevation of social acceptance and willingness/capability to unify into groups for protection is akin to what would happen should someone lower the drinking age to 18. Before anyone understood what HIV/AIDS was, it had already impacted a significant number of gay men.

      We know better here. You should know, then, that sex between two gay men, a man and a woman, or two women (lowest risk group) results in an HIV infection. Instead, what does is unprotected, penetrative sex with a partner of unknown status.

      What is the ultimate solution? We have known that for quite some time: education, teaching safer sex practices to young men and women despite sexual orientation, getting everyone, gay and straight, tested for HIV as a part of regular checkups, and moving folks, gay and straight, to monogamy and marriage. Don’t you see? Channeling gay couples to marriage as well as straight couples has a positive impact on health and longevity, a very ideal social benefit.

      • At its core, there is a strong desire to fully participate in American culture and to be able to exist in such a way where we don’t walk down the streets of the cities and towns we live in for fear of verbal and physical harassment and violence.

        Changing the definition of marriage will not change that.

      • “Changing the definition of marriage will not change that.”

        There is no change in the definition of marriage. The “definition of marriage” is empty rhetoric. Unless, of course, you’re referring to DOMA in 1996 which rewrote the legal definition of marriage…

        Allowing gay couples to marry will in no way, shape, or form change, transform, or redefine current marriages between straight couples or future marriages by straight couples.

        And I will argue: normalizing LGBT youth to marriage will, in fact, go quite a long way in social tolerance and acceptance over time. It will become less and less likely that LGBT youth will experience maltreatment by peers. People will feel less and less compelled or justified to scream “FAGGOT!” at a young, gay person. They will feel less and less justified in verbally or even physically assaulting a young, gay person because there will be no reason to.

        Can’t you see that gay men and women aren’t harming straight men and women? It is most definitely the other way around. The scorn, harassment, discrimination, and violence is one of the last remaining, great social problems America faces today. It’s a shame you can’t see that.

      • There is no change in the definition of marriage. The “definition of marriage” is empty rhetoric. Unless, of course, you’re referring to DOMA in 1996 which rewrote the legal definition of marriage…

        It did not rewrite the definition of marriage, it reiterated it. In fact, the summary and analysis quoted a Supreme Court decision, Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U.S. 15 (1885) In obiter dicta , the Court noted that marriage was a “union for life of one man and one woman in the holy estate of matrimony.” id. at 45 and far from ignoring that, the Court in subsequent decisions quoted that passage in Murphy to reach holdings. Davis v. Beason , 133 U.S. 333 at 344-345 (1890) United States v. Bitty ,208 U.S. 393 at 401 (1908)

        They will feel less and less justified in verbally or even physically assaulting a young, gay person because there will be no reason to.

        Bullies will make up any “justification”.

  8. The problem with legal rights universalism can be seen in its implementation. Once homosexual marriage is legalized anti-discrimination laws will kick in with a vengeance-homosexual variety. A homosexual couple will go to the local baker to order a cake for their homosexual “marriage”. The Baker-a conservative Chritisan heterosexual Man with a wife and children-responds that he will not bake the wedding cake because to do so would violate his moral sensibility on marriage. Homosexual couple leaves. One week later, the Baker recieves a letter from a high powered Coporate law firm announcing in it that the Baker is being sued for violating the civil rights of the Homosexual couple. It will happen-with 100 percent certainty. A conservative Christian wedding photographer in California was sued and had to pay damages for refusing to photograph and video tape a Lesbian couple’s wedding.

    Homosexuals should not be shocked if the legalization of homosexual marriage in New York provokes massive resistance. Homosexual marriage would be defeated in a referendum in New York State. Homosexuals understand this obvious point.

    The homosexual “marriage” issue is going to cause split in the Republican Party. And it won’t be a 50-50 spit. It will be a split between the socially conservative base and a morally and culturally degenerate Republican Party insider club. The Republican Party at some point in time will no longer be politicaly viable when its’conservative base revolts against it. A new party, a much more socially conservative will emerge to replace it. I don’t see this as a bad developement at all.

    • And all the baker had to say was “I’m sorry I am unavailable to work on your order. Here is another bakery that I know is available.”

      I must ask you, Patrick, when you meet a young man like me, are you incapable of seeing me as anything other than “a homosexual”?

    • Again, you can’t claim other abuses by government are a negative effect of government legalizing something. For example, if cannabis were legalized and the government punished a business for terminating an employee for cannabis use, you can’t use that as an argument against cannabis legalization. You’re arguing against a different issue.

      Also if anybody is interested, I find that Cato’s people usually have some good insight on the marriage issue, especially David Boaz:
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/29/sexreligionandconservatives
      http://www.slate.com/id/2440/

      • By the way, I apologize for the obnoxious presence of that video. I had no idea it would automatically embed just by linking to it.

  9. All right, so my friend showed this to me and we spent all day reading this and laughing. But I am seriously concerened that there are people who are so blinded by their hate and homophobia that they can’t even realize how stupid they are. I’m gay. I’ve been going through my own personal hell because of people like you. And you believe that you can judge me and tell me that I can’t even MARRY the person I LOVE while watching all my friends get married and saying that it was the happiest day of their lives? I don’t know who you are, but I really hope you don’t have kids, because I would hate to see you raise them to hate everyone different then them.

    Now, onto your incredibly invalid points-

    So, basically, gays can’t marry because of taxes? Oh wow, I’m convinced already!

    On one paragraph you wrote, saying tolerance is bad… okay, you get the pitchfork and I’ll het the torches, we’ll burn all of the black people’s homes and make all women sit around and do nothing and take all of their rights away.

    And no, when we say we want to be married, we’re not talking about a peice of paper that says we’re married. We want to be able to grow old together, knowing that we made the most sacred of vows because we LOVE eachother.

    Also, what happened to seperation of church and state? Marriage is kind of a Christian thing…

    Ah, here we go, the most ridiculous argument of all. Gays shouldn’t marry because pedophiles can’t marry kids and people who are into incest can’t get married! Why? Well, maybe that’s because pedophilia is RAPE, and incest leads to DEFORMITIES.

    And now we’re saying that we shouldn’t get married because we do things that married couples do, so we don’t respect marriage? Alright, first of all, have you watched the news lately? There is literally no such thing as a year long marriage that i’ve heard of besides NPH and his PARTNER. Interesting… secondly, what would we be waiting for? Death? I know this may come as a shock to you, buy gays AREN’T NECROPHILIACS.

    Last thing- what really scares me is that someone commented saying that they made the same points in their blog. That honestly terrifies me.

    Ooh, one more thing. This song was literally written about people like you, and i find myself agreeing with it.

    Can’t argue with that logic.

    • Chris, um, why the Nicki Minaj? Really? Also, your exaggeration of whyimconservative’s “incredibly invalid points” kind of serves to invalidate our points, because you come across as raging and immature. The sentiment is appreciated, the violent rap song, not so much. Think about it next time.

      To others: Gays don’t affect you, you’re just freaked out because they’re different. Get over yourselves.

  10. Once again Pamela and whyimconservative post an even better post as you really touched on very important issues. I would also like to add:

    (1) It was great that you brought up the health issue. Who would have thought that with the harmfull health effects of homosexual activity that led to the AIDS crisis in the 80’s we would be seeing this lifestyle being shoved down our throats today.
    You touched on a great point. Thanks to SSM it has lead to more government imposed costs on businesses and to the rest of us. If fact the homosexuals in their ability to hijack the civil rights laws found a way to make everybody else pay for their health care. In insurance there were different rates for smokers and nonsmokers. They were not treated equally. Notice how all of the liberals support non equallity when it fits their agenda like smoking. These different rates were justified as why should a non smoker have to pay for someone elses smoking?
    Did you know that in Massachusetts where this RJ guy lives the state justifys this same argument in the seat belt laws. The seat belt law was justified with the argument of why should other drivers have to pay their costs. When they do not use seat belts it effects all of us. Get it. Your behavior affects the costs to all of us.
    Oh so when the homosexuals engage in this behavior the costs affects all of us. So when the insurance rates are made equal the straights are forced to subsidize the gays. When they demand that the business must accect their same sex relationship then they have transferred the costs onto them. Previously uninsurable or high risk insured people are now insurable by imposing the costs onto the rest of us. The homosexuals want the right to have sex as they please as long as the rest of us pay for it. Just like when they want the procreation benefits only not to procreate and expect the entitlements when they are old like everybody else. In other words the offspring of those bigoted Christians are paying the entitlement taxes when they get their pensions and Social Security.

    (2) You mentioned the impact in public schools. How bad is it. In order to appease the homosexual lobby anal sex is now taught as being good for you. The health consequences are not taught to the children. if you are a health teacher either teach this or lose your job. To save your job you must lie to the kids.

    (3) The Catholic Charities is another case of special rights. You have a rule that all those who wish to adopt must provide a mother and father. This applies equally to all regardless of sexual preference. Along comes the homosexual couple who did not provide a mother and father. They claim equallity. Equallity or special rights? Everybody else provided a mother and father.

    • Oh look, more selfish bigotry. “Oh so when the homosexuals engage in this behavior the costs affects all of us.” Are you kidding? You don’t have to pay for them. They’re not trying to steal your money. They just want the same rights that are given to any other couple who love each other.
      “In order to appease the homosexual lobby anal sex is now taught as being good for you.” Who is saying this? I’ve never heard this before. “To save your job you must lie to the kids.” No, never. That is absolutely ridiculous. Please, if you say something as surprising as this, provide examples or proof.
      “Along comes the homosexual couple who did not provide a mother and father. They claim equallity. Equallity or special rights?” Definitely equality, even though your misspelling of the word leads me to believe that you don’t fully understand the concept. Homosexual couples are just as capable of raising children as you are; more so, from what I can tell of your current mental capacity.

      I found this tidbit of information, which I give to you now (Originally posted by RJ, commenting on Part 1 of this anti-gay marriage thread.)
      “…adoption, for example. As of the 2000 census, the National Survey of Family Growth, and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System, there are an estimated two million gay Americans interested in adoption. Among those, an estimated 65,000 children are being raised by gay couples and 4% of all adopted children in the country are being raised by gay couples. Adding in biological children and children since those studies in 2002/2004, it is estimated that 8 million children are currently being raised in households where parents are of the same gender, many of whom are foreign-born, but not adopted as infants (those that are a part of the 330 million orphans in the world group).

      Recognize that this is all coming from LGB Americans, who constitute roughly 5-7% of the US population.”

      Having said my piece for now, I would like to end by saying, people on the internet are less likely to take you seriously if you don’t bother to use proper spelling and grammar. Just saying.

  11. Boy does the above post really shows that persons lack of education, knowledge, and any creditability whatsoever. I made three valid points in my post and all I get is selfish bigotry from her. Oh well you know the old saying if you cannot refute the point attack the messenger.

    No I was not kidding when I said that we all are paying for their perverted sexual behavior. Any time any group of people engage in destructive conduct we all pick up the tab. Did you bother to understand the tobacco analogy or are you just close minded. We do have to pay for them. There is no need to steal your money when you get laws enacted that your conduct is be treated as an equal. Making a healthy behavior equal to unhealthy behavior does just that. It makes the one not engaging in the activity to subsidize the ones who are.
    This person is also denying the reality of what is happening in the public schools. By allowing the homosexuals to control the agenda they get to state that the conduct is good while forcing any negative statements out. Thus the truth about the health dangers is not presented. Hence: The teachers are forced to lie about anal sex.
    This person also ignored point #3. The one where they want special rights and not eqaule rights. In adoption everybody was supposed to provide a mother and father in order to adopt. They refuse and want to impose their own rules. That is not equal treatment but special treatment. So I do understand the difference and the concept.
    It is disgusting what they are doing to these children by denying them the love of a mother and father on purpose. The 7% of the population claim is also a lie.

    Having said my piece for now, I would like to end by saying, people on the internet are less likely to take you seriously if you don’t bother to do any research and just claim bigotry. In debate attacking the messenger when the message is right just shows your lack of knowledge on the subject. Perhaps a little more research on the internet in regards to health and homosexuality and its costs on society might have enlightened you. Just saying.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: