If you answered yes to these questions, then logically, you must believe that God created homosexuality. If you answered no to those queries, then you believe God is flawed and not perfect. If that is the case,then you are not a christian. That would mean that Homosexuality is a choice or you don’t believe in the power of God. If it isn’t a choice and God created it, why did she create it? Why would a perfect being create something to erradicate? Out of boredom?

Do you believe God is ubiqutious? If your answer is yes, then you believe she is with everyone, including homosexuals. If God is ubiqutious, then it stands to reason that God is in all of us, including homosexuals? If you respond with a no, then you do not believe God is ubiqutious.

Why would any one who is heterosexual stand against homosexual unions? Speaking as a heterosexual male, I for one, welcome all homesexuals. Logically, this would reduce the level of competition for myself in the field of dating. Please do not respond with poorly thought out comments such as, What about the women competing with you. They would only attract other woman who are interested in homosexual relations with another woman, and ergo would not affect me. It would also reduce the risk of wasting my time trying to attract the affections of the opposite sex who are indeed homosexuals themselves; and would not be interested in my advancements.

Socialogically, all heterosexual unions as of 1970, have ended in divorce 50% of the time. That means that marriage between a man and a woman fails in half of the circumstances. Being that half of all hetero marriages end in separation(divorce.) There must be something flawed about hetero unions. What are these flaws? Is it that gays are infiltrating the marriages to cause them to stop? Is it the devil? Why do half of all marriages end in divorce?

Please tell me why homosexuals want to end the sanctity of marriage? Clearly, they want to be married, lending to the idea they want to assimilate into society. If you are against this, then what do you expect of these people? They want their domestic partner to share in their benefits, just as a hetero couple desires; how is that taking advantage of the system? The current laws prohibit homosexuals from sharing job benefits with their dependents, unless they are in a formally recognized union, but only by a few states. That is why they wanted to change the laws. Why do people oppose the peaceful and logical restructering of our legal statutes in an orderly and intelligent fashion so a small segment of society can achieve the American Dream of living together and sharing each other’s fortunes. If you are against a man sharing his medical benefits with another man, what is the justification for sharing benefits with a woman he is linked to? Isn’t that group’s finacial resources supporting someone outside of the group in either circumstance?

But I think that the bigger problem for society may come in the form of changing social standards for heterosexual marriage. If marriage is defined as a civil right, discussion of differences between same-sex unions and man-woman unions will often be considered to be “discriminatory” or “hate speech”. This repressive atmosphere is likely to have damaging effects on both same-sex and traditional couples.

In a New York Times article concerning the mixed experiences of married same-sex couples in Massachusetts, one gay man said that he and his husband had agreed that it was O.K. to play around because, “I think men view sex very differently than women. Men are pigs, they know that each other are pigs, so they can operate accordingly. It doesn’t mean anything.”

Traditional marriage often requires a degree of heroic self-denial, especially on the part of men whose natural inclination is to seek variety in sexual partners. Because sex between two gay men does not produce children, the possible adverse consequences of multiple sexual partners within marriage do not include production of children with more than one partner. There is no “biological” reason for married gay men to sacrifice their desire for variety just because they are married to someone they love.

A lot of young heterosexual men would find this societal standard for marriage to be enticing, even though it would be likely to hurt them down the road (not to mention their children). A societal expectation of fidelity on the part of heterosexual marriage partners also influences many unmarried heterosexual couples, especially those with children. Even the reportedly common standard among married gay men of “for the most part monogamous, but for maybe a casual three-way” would not help the children of heterosexuals in my unsophistocated low-income community if applied to their parents.

According to a 2002 study published in left-leaning Child Trends, statistically, children do best in a low-stress home where they grow up with both biological parents. Just because this is not always possible does not mean that we should not encourage this type of domestic arrangement whenever possible. We need to strengthen social support for the ideal of marital fidelity between a man and a woman – not weaken it. It is hard. Why try if no one cares?

Gay couples may be able to maintain a relatively low-stress home which is conducive to raising children even though they are not “faithful” sexually. It won’t work that way for most heterosexual couples.

Certainly we do not need to re-define marriage in order to find ways to dignify same-sex couples and to encourage the best outcomes for their children. Stretching the definition of marriage in order to accommodate same-sex couples will change expectations for heterosexuals, too. Civilization is fragile. A free society can tolerate a lot of private behaviors which it should not hold as public expectations or ideals.

…your kids and grandkids aren’t going to “choose gay” if same-sex marriage is legalized… — ProgMeister

The truth of the matter is…

If your parents didn’t have children, odds are you won’t either.

On the other hand, if the homosexuals adopt children, they’ll probably teach them to be homosexuals too. So if you and your wife are killed before any of your children reach their majority and no one in your family takes them in, they could be adopted by homosexuals…..and….well….

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. -- Proverbs]

P.S. And the obverse is true too…..

No protected “class” of people is being prevented from marrying. In fact the legal heterosexual marriages of gays and lesbians are proof that they have not been discriminated against on the basis of their orientation.

right … and black folk used to have their very own “personal water fountains” and “reserved seating” in the back of the bus

(And the children from such unions are proof of the arbitary nature of the entire idea of sexual orientation.)

hey, T …. don’t sweat it: your kids and grandkids aren’t going to “choose gay” if same-sex marriage is legalized (unless of course they’re already gay); it doesn’t work that way … ask Dick Cheney

Separate sports is also a practical matter. Men are generally at least 50% heavier than women. They are also 40% muscle to a woman’s 25%. That means they are at least twice as strong as women. There are other physiological differences.

Title IX money is realistic. Men are generally more interested in sports than women, but are not so keen on watching women play, other than for sexual tittillation. So, women cannot bring in as much money for their sporting events, so the money gets shared a bit, allowing women to also have competitive activities.

I can’t decide if you really didn’t understand this, or whether this was an intentional red herring. Your lack of discrimination against sexual orientation is also just plain bogus. It’s a creed. Their creed says they prefer their own gender and wish to legally co-habitate and enjoy the benefits of legal marriage. As long as it hurts no one else, to me it’s no problem.

Maybe, it’s as I stated earlier, we should have the State get out of the marriage business entirely, and just have civil unions?

My statement about God changing his mind was meant to speak only to those who derive their objection to gay marriage from religious texts. I think the issue can be argued without reference to God.

The current definition of marriage discriminates on the basis of sex, not sexual orientation. No protected “class” of people is being prevented from marrying. In fact the legal heterosexual marriages of gays and lesbians are proof that they have not been discriminated against on the basis of their orientation. (And the children from such unions are proof of the arbitary nature of the entire idea of sexual orientation.)

But back to sex discrimination. Apparently our culture thinks some sex discrimination is a good thing. When you succeed in eliminating all the other public accomodations that discriminate on the basis of sex like restrooms, military service barracks, sex segregated athletic events, women’s colleges that take federal funding, and public high school locker rooms, among a myriad of others, then I could be convinced we’re serious enough to revisit the issue of marriage.

As an aside I noticed that you advanced some paternalism of your own when you cited the state’s interest in protecting children from pedophiles. So I guess paternalism is OK if you like it?

….you’re [myself] a demagogue…. — ProgMeister

I wonder if ProgMeister has a dictionary handy. Maybe should look at it now and then.

RE: ProgMeister & Projection

….you’re [myself] a demagogue…. — ProgMeister

’nuff said.

RE: ProgMeister & Facts

….you’re [myself]…add nothing to the conversatione…. — ProgMeister

Only pointing out a serious lack of factual information on the part of ProgMeister regarding these ‘conversations’. I think that pointing that out adds a LOT to such discussion. Something along the lines of pointing out that ProgMeister either (1) doesn’t know what he’s talking about or (2) much, much worse.

RE: ProgMeister and a Monty Python Moment

I will not be responding to your comments unless and until I see some utility in doing so. — ProgMeister

Can you say…..”Run away!? I knew you could…..

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]

“…and God decides HER ‘fate’. And, as I undestand it, His decision is ‘final’.

It is precisely what i believe. The great WHITE THRONE JUDGEMENT terrifies me.

As for gay marriage: Most definitely is a revolution-without a doubt….enough said.

ProgMeister didn’t like that. So he started his usual song and dance in response. With me, down the hall from here, when he couldn’t back up his claims with factual references, he tossed the f-bomb and ran away.

Chuck, let me save you some time: you’re a demagogue and add nothing to the conversation so, other than this, I will not be responding to your comments unless and until I see some utility in doing so.

Just one question, followed by my answer. Say gay unions are upheld after judicial imposition, equal rights and all that; we mustn’t discriminate on the basis of sex or sexual orientation.

What prevents a pedophile from saying he’s being discriminated against on the basis of age?

a very clear and compelling state interest in protecting the health and welfare of children prevents it