Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I know what I'm going to say will sound like a joke or an invention.
But, making a review of events related with the establishment of gay marriage in US, a rare event happened: Tyranny took place to make it pass.
Not the will of The People, but a tyrant rejected the vote of The People and manipulated the events to force a legislation approving it.
By principle, an authority can't overcome the vote of The People.
According to the Constitution, The People have the right to form militias and carry arms, to prevent the arising authorities and becoming tyrants thru the abuse of their power. In this case, the people of California are known for having even war tanks and arms of all kind, but they might chicken at the last minute. whatever it happened, they didn't react to the abuse.
The media, for some reason, perhaps to evade shame if the event is reviewed and exposed, even internationally, kept silence and until today is not touching such a remembrance.
Current people in power as well, they know about it but prefer to ignore what happen because is bad example for Americans and specially for people from other countries.
Homosexuals and lesbians are taking advantage of the current silence of authorities and the media.
If someone, like I did, make a review of the winning vote "NO" which happened in California, a vote which was included in the electoral ballot, and was approved to be included by the same Governor of California, a vote choosing the validity of gay marriage in that State. What is going to be discovered is that after the majority of Californians said "NO", the Governor declared null the will of The People calling it "Unconstitutional".
Same president Obama didn't look with good eyes what the governor of California did, In the pictures the president appears with doubts about congratulating the Governor. It was living fire close to a gas station.
A scrutiny of date of the vote, the results saying "NO' as majority, the refusal of the Governor to accept the will of The People, and months later, "the patch up" made by the court to cover up the tyranny from the Governor... the whole scenario shows how for the first time in American history, a man born in a foreign country, became a Governor of California, and became the first tyrant who abused his power rejecting the will of The People and imposing his will instead.
Feel free to make your own review. Events and dates show this sad moment in the history of US.
I guess the same is happening in other countries, it's not the people of those nations but their corrupt authorities the ones approving gay marriage.
The rights of individuals are not determined by popular vote. That in itself would be "tyranny."
LGBTs are not "taking advantage" of anything. They are just finally enjoying the blessings of liberty same as everybody else, and this involves absolutely no skin off your teeth or anybody else's.
BTW: this entire "debate" about what term to use is utter garbage and a waste of time. It's stupid and petty hair-splitting.
I'm sorry, but it is clearly not a waste of time. It seems the 'term' marriage is really important to the LGBT community. Moreso than just a matter of rights. A previous poster said that any other term would be a lesser contract. The gay community didn't like the definition of marriage, so with powerful friends, they changed it in the name of equality and did a happy dance. If the concept of marriage wasn't fundamentally changed in your favor, it would be considered separate but equal. That seems like a pretty big deal. I'm still not sure if sexual preference can be considered exclusion if in all legal sense there is total equality. Exclusion from what?
What are you, anti-semantic?I agree to a point. Government and religious recognition should be separate. It is ridiculous that you get a marriage license from the government and take it to a clergy to finalize it. I believe that in Europe, all marriages are performed by a government official and if the parties so wish, they can then go to their religious institution and have a religious wedding .You misunderstood me. What I want is for NO government to recognize ANY marriage sanctioned by any religion. Only civil unions would be recognized by governments. We'd all be separate so we'd all be equal. You can call yourself married if you care to just don't expect a tax break without a gov't recognized, civil union on file. This plan will separate the state from religions.Wrong ! If you are not legally married the federal government does not recognize it for the purpose of any benefits. But it is not about a tax break. Married couples get to file a joint return if that is in their best interest. You don't automatically pay less taxes for being married. Every case is different.In the US, marriage offers various legal rights and privileges. Secular governments should not be sanctioning marriage, that should be in the domain of religions, they should only sanction civil unions. Civil unions provide the rights of marriage without the introduction of any religion. If your church doesn't recognize gay marriage, they don't have to perform one, but that doesn't mean a gay couple can't get a tax break like other couples.It was never clear why the term "marriage" had to be adopted. It seems merely an attempt to appropriate language. Equal protections should have been enough. But, if the majority doesn't mind capitulating, it isn't very serious.
Still, equal protection must suffice now, and further campaigns to make special groups more equal than others will only serve to deepen the distrust and divides that exist in society.
Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that religious people can enjoy the status of marriage, but that the rest of us should be relegated to a civil union. Are you serious? Can you even begin to contemplate the constitutional implications?
However, I see no good reason to scrap the concept of marriage as we know it.
Where the hell is that coming from?What are you, anti-semantic?I agree to a point. Government and religious recognition should be separate. It is ridiculous that you get a marriage license from the government and take it to a clergy to finalize it. I believe that in Europe, all marriages are performed by a government official and if the parties so wish, they can then go to their religious institution and have a religious wedding .You misunderstood me. What I want is for NO government to recognize ANY marriage sanctioned by any religion. Only civil unions would be recognized by governments. We'd all be separate so we'd all be equal. You can call yourself married if you care to just don't expect a tax break without a gov't recognized, civil union on file. This plan will separate the state from religions.Wrong ! If you are not legally married the federal government does not recognize it for the purpose of any benefits. But it is not about a tax break. Married couples get to file a joint return if that is in their best interest. You don't automatically pay less taxes for being married. Every case is different.In the US, marriage offers various legal rights and privileges. Secular governments should not be sanctioning marriage, that should be in the domain of religions, they should only sanction civil unions. Civil unions provide the rights of marriage without the introduction of any religion. If your church doesn't recognize gay marriage, they don't have to perform one, but that doesn't mean a gay couple can't get a tax break like other couples.It was never clear why the term "marriage" had to be adopted. It seems merely an attempt to appropriate language. Equal protections should have been enough. But, if the majority doesn't mind capitulating, it isn't very serious.
Still, equal protection must suffice now, and further campaigns to make special groups more equal than others will only serve to deepen the distrust and divides that exist in society.
Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that religious people can enjoy the status of marriage, but that the rest of us should be relegated to a civil union. Are you serious? Can you even begin to contemplate the constitutional implications?
However, I see no good reason to scrap the concept of marriage as we know it.
Did the meaning of marriage really change? It was and still is a union of two people who want to be together.I agree with everyone who says there should be no discrimination based on sexual preference. I believe most of those labeled 'right wingers' also wish for their to be no discrimination. I'm not sure why the meaning of marriage had to change for people to be equal, but I wish no one any harm.
I agree to a point. Government and religious recognition should be separate. It is ridiculous that you get a marriage license from the government and take it to a clergy to finalize it. I believe that in Europe, all marriages are performed by a government official and if the parties so wish, they can then go to their religious institution and have a religious wedding .You misunderstood me. What I want is for NO government to recognize ANY marriage sanctioned by any religion. Only civil unions would be recognized by governments. We'd all be separate so we'd all be equal. You can call yourself married if you care to just don't expect a tax break without a gov't recognized, civil union on file. This plan will separate the state from religions.Wrong ! If you are not legally married the federal government does not recognize it for the purpose of any benefits. But it is not about a tax break. Married couples get to file a joint return if that is in their best interest. You don't automatically pay less taxes for being married. Every case is different.In the US, marriage offers various legal rights and privileges. Secular governments should not be sanctioning marriage, that should be in the domain of religions, they should only sanction civil unions. Civil unions provide the rights of marriage without the introduction of any religion. If your church doesn't recognize gay marriage, they don't have to perform one, but that doesn't mean a gay couple can't get a tax break like other couples.It was never clear why the term "marriage" had to be adopted. It seems merely an attempt to appropriate language. Equal protections should have been enough. But, if the majority doesn't mind capitulating, it isn't very serious.
Still, equal protection must suffice now, and further campaigns to make special groups more equal than others will only serve to deepen the distrust and divides that exist in society.
Furthermore, you seem to be suggesting that religious people can enjoy the status of marriage, but that the rest of us should be relegated to a civil union. Are you serious? Can you even begin to contemplate the constitutional implications?
However, I see no good reason to scrap the concept of marriage as we know it.
I know what I'm going to say will sound like a joke or an invention.
But, making a review of events related with the establishment of gay marriage in US, a rare event happened: Tyranny took place to make it pass.
Not the will of The People, but a tyrant rejected the vote of The People and manipulated the events to force a legislation approving it.
By principle, an authority can't overcome the vote of The People.
According to the Constitution, The People have the right to form militias and carry arms, to prevent the arising authorities and becoming tyrants thru the abuse of their power. In this case, the people of California are known for having even war tanks and arms of all kind, but they might chicken at the last minute. whatever it happened, they didn't react to the abuse.
The media, for some reason, perhaps to evade shame if the event is reviewed and exposed, even internationally, kept silence and until today is not touching such a remembrance.
Current people in power as well, they know about it but prefer to ignore what happen because is bad example for Americans and specially for people from other countries.
Homosexuals and lesbians are taking advantage of the current silence of authorities and the media.
If someone, like I did, make a review of the winning vote "NO" which happened in California, a vote which was included in the electoral ballot, and was approved to be included by the same Governor of California, a vote choosing the validity of gay marriage in that State. What is going to be discovered is that after the majority of Californians said "NO", the Governor declared null the will of The People calling it "Unconstitutional".
Same president Obama didn't look with good eyes what the governor of California did, In the pictures the president appears with doubts about congratulating the Governor. It was living fire close to a gas station.
A scrutiny of date of the vote, the results saying "NO' as majority, the refusal of the Governor to accept the will of The People, and months later, "the patch up" made by the court to cover up the tyranny from the Governor... the whole scenario shows how for the first time in American history, a man born in a foreign country, became a Governor of California, and became the first tyrant who abused his power rejecting the will of The People and imposing his will instead.
Feel free to make your own review. Events and dates show this sad moment in the history of US.
I guess the same is happening in other countries, it's not the people of those nations but their corrupt authorities the ones approving gay marriage.
The rights of individuals are not determined by popular vote. That in itself would be "tyranny."
LGBTs are not "taking advantage" of anything. They are just finally enjoying the blessings of liberty same as everybody else, and this involves absolutely no skin off your teeth or anybody else's.
BTW: this entire "debate" about what term to use is utter garbage and a waste of time. It's stupid and petty hair-splitting.
Actually rights are determined by popular vote.
Marriage is a rightThat is quite a rant. I'm not even sure what side you're on here although from what ever little sense that can make of it , you're not a fan of same sex marriage . The issue is the acceptance of same sex marriage. Can you please just comment on that and leave out the religious mumbo jumbo , Japan, China, North Korea, and Zimbabwe, race ,communism and whatever other crap that's in there . Get a grip!Obviously marriage is not a right; otherwise, you would not seek to obtain a marriage license. According to Black's Law Dictionary the word license (in this context is):
"In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort."
What is LICENSE? definition of LICENSE (Black's Law Dictionary)
By seeking such a license, you are agreeing to the terms of the contract and the authority of the issuers. So, why do we need a marriage license? Are licenses not to serve as a means to enforce things we think are beneficial to society?
You feel that you got screwed when the government didn't issue the license. Do the people not have the right to decide what is in society's best interests? We outlawed polygamy. You cannot marry your dog. There is a minimum age for getting married. Don't you think that the people in those relationships feel the same, exact way you do?
Which is more important to you - the relationship you're in OR the benefits you derive from a piece of paper? Essentially, you are saying that if society doesn't accept you and cut you in as an equal, you're being denied something. Now, weigh that attitude against people who want to remain segregated from society. We don't allow people to create segregated communities. How are they infringing upon anyone's rights? Society determines who they want to accept.
"Society determines who they want to accept"
so you have no problem with a christian society hounding and persecuting gays, atheists, muslims, feminists, liberals?
because, as a christian, it doesn't affect you?
you have no problem with OTHER people being hounded, punished, beaten, discriminated against just as long as it doesn't happen to you?
According to polls over the last 20 years the percentage of christian in America is shrinking and the percent on NON_believers is rising.
If we ever get to a point where no believers outnumbers christians can we count on you to shut the fuk up when they start persecuting YOU?
The is the USA
NOT the CHRISTIAN FASCIST DOMINION OF GOD!
YOU do NOT get to decide who to torment
Like it or not America was founded as a Christian nation, not as a theocracy, but as a nation founded on Christian principles and based upon Anglo Saxon jurisprudence... (and that was a reflection of Christian values.) The very first governing document of the New World begins like this:
"In the name of God, Amen. We, whose names are underwritten, the loyal subjects of our dread Sovereign Lord King James, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, defender of the Faith, etc.
Having undertaken, for the Glory of God, and advancements of the Christian faith and honor of our King and Country..." (excerpt from the Mayflower Compact of 1620)
So, let me be blunt:
Americans have NO problem with the homogeneous societies like Japan, China, North Korea, or Zimbabwe. But, man, if the United States isn't bending over backward to kiss some minority's ass, you'd think the end of the world happened. Far too many people think we should be the melting pot of the world when our Constitution says quite the opposite. The Preamble of the Constitution states:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
That terminology, according to the United States Supreme Court, applied to members of the white race. In turn, that caused the Republicans to illegally ratify the 14th Amendment. That amendment nullified the Bill of Rights and artificially elevated everyone to some status not anticipated by the founders / framers of the Constitution. Ever since that illegally ratified amendment was passed, America has been at war.
We remain silent and do business with communist countries; we allow other countries to exist that do not buy into the One World / One Race / One Religion utopia that the globalists need to create their Hell on earth. But, America is treated differently. Your accusations are false.
OTOH, a lot of Americans have a fleeting knowledge of their past and don't understand that, why, over the last half century it is the posterity of the founders / framers that have been jerked around, mistreated, and screwed over. The richest 1 percent of Americans control half the wealth. Once you take that old money and globalist money off the table, you see a growing, yet subtle trend to disenfranchise white Christians and now the minorities can crow about the white Christians who are becoming a minority in the land their forefathers fought, bled and died in so that we may have Liberty.
Granted, those calling themselves Christians are, for the most part, not fit to claim that title. They have elevated one of those rich 1 percent to the position of Jesus himself and they have made it plain what they would do IF they had any power. But, they don't. They are useful idiots for the globalists. Me, I've been persecuted since I was a kid. I was poor growing up; got denied entrance to a college once for 7/8ths of one point on the entrance exam (would have made the cut with points to spare had I been black and / or female.) I got laid off a job and the company hired blacks to replace us in order to keep their government contract and unemployment was so bad the military was the only place left for guys like me. It's been like that all my life. I used to see the signs that said Equal Opportunity Employer. It was a euphemism for NO whites need apply.
I get tired of hearing the whining and moaning by those who think you can be anything and do anything and impose upon society. If you don't get what you want, you use corrupt politicians. The right is trying to imitate those who have been successful at it. They're failing. But, if somebody came along and wanted to reclaim our Liberties and do so without doing it at the expense of the Rights of others, I'd fight to the death to help the cause. But whites seem to be content to give up their country, abandon their heritage, corrupt their own religious values and give this country to those who least deserve it.
Support for gay "rights" (privileges bestowed upon them by a corrupt government) IS growing. Socialism is accepted by the left and the right. You might be taking over, but IF a war breaks out to restore Liberty (which ultimately happens in the cycles of history), rest assured, I will be on the front lines for the cause of Liberty.
Edited meister
Both sides suck. I'm my own man. Marriage is a privilege, not a Right. If the government wants to grant a privilege and call it a "right," they are welcome to. It still requires a license and you cannot demand permission from a superior authority - unless you like the word NO.
Privately, I'm not a fan of same sex marriage. AND it is not within any court's authority to change the laws on that. The legislatures have to create some kind of legal status. If they do, they do. But it's bad precedent to give the courts that kind of power. They should not be in the Rights granting business.
Having said that, I'm not a fan of smoking, but what other people do in private and in a manner that does not hurt me, then I do not interfere with them. Your Rights end where my nose begins. Other than that, Liberty is a gift from the Creator and is given upon birth to ALL men (which is inclusive of women too in the DOI context.)
Let us put aside for a moment the fact that the Supreme Court has, on numerous occasions, said that marriage is a right. However, a brief review is in order. Here is one example:
In Turner v Safley (1987), the Court refused to apply strict scutiny to a Missouri prison regulation prohibiting inmates from marrying, absent a compelling reason. Instead, the Court found the regulation failed to meet even a lowered standard of "reasonableness" that it said it would apply in evaluating the constitutionality of prison regulations.
The right to marry and the Constitution
This is why even the likes of Charles Manson, a mass murderer who stand little chance of ever getting out of prison was granted permission to marry (Subsequently the blushing bride came to her senses and the deal was off) Yet, until recently, two people who desired and were committed to each other, but happened to be of the same gender could not marry. How does that make sense?
But, let’s focus on the meaning of the words -rights and privileges rather than the legal aspects. If marriage is not a right as some contend, then it is a privilege. There are no other possibilities. So then what is a privilege? I submit to you that a privilege is something that must be earned- something that you must demonstrate a degree of competence to engage in. Driving is a privilege.
As for marriage, there is no such requirement. One must simply meet certain criteria – age, ability to consent, not to closely related, and until recently, being of the opposite sex. There is no test to take, no requirement that they prove that they will be a good spouse or that they “deserve” to be married. They can take for granted that they will be allowed to marry as long as they meet those very minimal criteria. The fact that a license is required does not, in itself make it a privilege. The license only serves to ensure that those minimal requirements are met.
Now, one can lose both rights and privileges under certain circumstances but the bar is set much higher for revoking a right than it is for revoking a privilege. In the case of driving, if you are irresponsible and have accidents and get tickets, or if you have a medical condition that renders you unsafe, your driving privileges can be revoked often by administrative process for which you have no appeal.. On the other hand, while you have the right to your freedom, that to can be forfeited, but only if you are afforded due process in a court of law, convicted beyond a reasonable doubt of a serious crime, and exhaust your appeals.
In the case of marriage, no third party can nullify it, not the government of anyone else for “not being good at it” or breaking the rules. The government only step in and revoke your marriage if it is found that you misrepresented your eligibility based on the aforementioned minimum criteria. Otherwise, the only role for government is to mediate and ultimately grant the desolation of the marriage. Marriage is clearly a right.
You ignore the fact that the majority of people support the idea of Gay Marriage. It is just a dwindling minority of folk who have a problem with it.
The arguments against it become more and more convoluted and more and more ridiculous.
People seem to think that reinventing definitions is a good cover for prejudice and discrimination.
When I got married I had a choice between a civil ceremony or marriage. So did you, so did all the naysayers on here.
But you want to deny that right to Gay folk. Thus creating a second class of citizenship.
That is not just.
You ignore the fact that the majority of people support the idea of Gay Marriage. It is just a dwindling minority of folk who have a problem with it.
The arguments against it become more and more convoluted and more and more ridiculous.
People seem to think that reinventing definitions is a good cover for prejudice and discrimination.
When I got married I had a choice between a civil ceremony or marriage. So did you, so did all the naysayers on here.
But you want to deny that right to Gay folk. Thus creating a second class of citizenship.
That is not just.
I don't ignore anything. On the contrary, I talk with people and so far their answer is "NO" and "is not my business" but no one have told me "yes", that is OK such gay marriage. Take note that my question was directed to straight couples and single persons.
To me, the phrase "not my business" doesn't mean "yes".
What you say "majority of people support the idea of gay marriage", such is just an opinion of yours, such is not a fact.
Usually polls about gay marriage are "paid" by someone, and this someone has an agenda, and will look for fulfilling what is the intent of the poll by manipulating the way of asking the question, and more.
The whole charade about gay marriage is well written and organized. Allow me to give you an example: "Modern Family".
On this TV series, the gay couple is not only married but have adopted a child. Here is when the producers were so careful selecting the child. A white boy should cause from the audience to demand closing the show after the very first chapter. A black boy should cause scandal and court cases. A white girl and black girl should be offensive for millions of American families.
Then, the only alternative choice was a "Chinese girl".
I think that laws are made essentially to protect the individual not so to punish him.
Laws must go in accord not only with human behavior but also in accord with human nature. Our laws must avoid the most they can the isolation from the laws of nature.
See? Nature formed species with certain model which will fit for the best survival of that species. The roach can obtain both sexes when is needed, but such is with a roach. We are humans, and in our species, the two sexes were formed to couple between themselves and keep procreation and survival.
Marriage is just a ceremony, but it was invented to make official the union of a man with a woman towards procreation and be part of society as family, no more as individuals alone.
Such intention can't be fulfilled by homosexuals and lesbians. Even in the Constitution their presence is not mentioned. And is not by cause of ignorance or rejection, but because laws and rules in those times were guided to be the close they can to our nature.
This is what it must be respected by any law in society: respect our nature.
This is to say, yes, the individual is free to choose what to do with his body, no one will argue about it. The problem is when the government make regulations protecting and inciting such a sexual behavior which is against nature.
As I pointed before, it is not the gay person, it is not The People, but corrupt authorities who becoming even "dictators" (like the Governor of California mentioned before) are destroying decency, moral and integrity -which are the foundation of laws- and these authorities are the fault of the current chaos in societies of the world. (Check what president Trump made as a great achievement, saying "transgenders" won't be allowed in the US army. Surely this is how the rest of authorities must fulfill or attempt to fulfill their duties looking toward the best for the American society)
From my part, I do not reject the sexual preference of each individual, but gay marriage is simply unacceptable. It should never come to be "official". That step has been a big mistake.
My humble opinion.
Read it again.Where the hell is that coming from?What are you, anti-semantic?
Don't play games with me Pal.Read it again.Where the hell is that coming from?What are you, anti-semantic?
It seems I can't. Look here.Don't play games with me Pal.Read it again.Where the hell is that coming from?What are you, anti-semantic?
"From my part, I do not reject the sexual preference of each individual, but gay marriage is simply unacceptable. It should never come to be "official". That step has been a big mistake.
My humble opinion."
your opinion didn't sound humble at all.
it is MY not-so-humble opinion that YOUR opinion is outdated, antiquated, unfair and unconstitutional.
"MY WAY or FUK YOU" is hardly a humble opinion
You are wading into some dangerous territory !! You're lucky that this is the CDZ If you're referring to my use of the word "clergy" -while it usually denotes Christians-it can apply to any religious leader. Now get back on topic or shut upIt seems I can't. Look here.Don't play games with me Pal.Read it again.Where the hell is that coming from?What are you, anti-semantic?
"From my part, I do not reject the sexual preference of each individual, but gay marriage is simply unacceptable. It should never come to be "official". That step has been a big mistake.
My humble opinion."
your opinion didn't sound humble at all.
it is MY not-so-humble opinion that YOUR opinion is outdated, antiquated, unfair and unconstitutional.
"MY WAY or FUK YOU" is hardly a humble opinion
Oh, I see.
I was told in the topic "Introduce Yourself" that I might receive flowered replies like yours. My luck didn't last long, your reply is astonishing.
My cast eyes are blurred.
My opinion might be unfair, but is not outdated, neither antiquated and less unconstitutional.
The Constitution does not mention gays as allowed for marriage. I go not only for the writing document but also for the INTENTION given when was written and signed.
I don't know much about politics, but I read and understand very well what I read. I searched for those people and their personalities, works, actions, and more. And definitively the Constitution was not intended for considering one day the possibility of marriage of gay couples.
Definitively you can't use the Constitution to support your arguments.
That is a no no.
"but gay marriage is simply unacceptable."
really?
UNACCEPTABLE?
meaning?
you'll kill to stop it?
If you were actually HUMBLE you wouldn't say things like "the things I hate shall NOT be tolerated no matter how IRRATIONAL my opinion is!"
that's NOT humble
That's tyrannical
and antifreedom
Hogwash. There is no mention of "straight people" or any kind of marriage in the Constitution. It doesn't mention women either.Marriage is just a ceremony, but it was invented to make official the union of a man with a woman towards procreation and be part of society as family, no more as individuals alone.
Such intention can't be fulfilled by homosexuals and lesbians. Even in the Constitution their presence is not mentioned. And is not by cause of ignorance or rejection, but because laws and rules in those times were guided to be the close they can to our nature.
"but gay marriage is simply unacceptable."
really?
UNACCEPTABLE?
meaning?
you'll kill to stop it?
If you were actually HUMBLE you wouldn't say things like "the things I hate shall NOT be tolerated no matter how IRRATIONAL my opinion is!"
that's NOT humble
That's tyrannical
and antifreedom
Please do not compare me with the former dictator and governor of California. There is no tyranny in my words.
We must have a rational discussion here. No need of insults or aggressive expressions.
When I said "Unacceptable", the meaning was in accord to the text in the posting, which is "gay marriage official recognition" as unacceptable.
Society must respect nature in this issue. And homosexuality is against nature.
I will give you a simple example and you can provide your source as well.
You can "drink" (Ingest) orange juice using your nostrils. Sure you can. Of course you can.
However, the nostrils are not the proper part in our bodies to let orange juice pass thru to the stomach. Nature formed our mouths to have such a duty. The tissue of the mouth, teeth, defenses in saliva, etc, are the proper entrance for food and drinks.
Ingesting orange juice thru the nostrils becomes against nature because will damage the tissues inside that area and if it is an abuse using such a method of ingesting juice, severe negative health consequences will occur. The entrance for foods and drinks according to nature is the mouth. Please do not mention ridiculous arguments like people in hospitals are feed thru needles, and etc. They don't use those methods to obtain marriage licenses.
This example shows you that going against nature will cause negative outcomes.
Sodomy is also against nature.
But, people is free to perform both, ingesting orange juice thru the nostrils and having sex thru the rectum. However both actions are against nature.
Then, the government's position is not to interfere with people ingesting orange juice thru the nostrils and people having sex thru the rectum, but also the government can't support those things by making them "official".
Yes, the laws are made to protect the integrity of our bodies, not so to cause them harm.
You can cause harm to your body if you want to, but you can't force the rest of people to accept your actions in a way that is officially supported by the government.
I don't buy it.
You can claim whatever you want, but homosexuality is against nature. This is a fact.
People is free to reject homosexuality as acts to be officially allowed in society. Nobody has the right to interfere the sexual preference of others, but the ones doing acts against nature can't demand acceptance of their actions.
Again, do whatever you want with your body, but the intervention of the government supporting actions against nature is completely unacceptable. Gay marriage must be taken away from official business.
