Enter Email to Receive New Post Alerts:

Gay agenda: not about rights

December 2, 2008

The most common argument for legalizing same-sex marriage is that homosexual partners have a right to marry just like everyone else. People often compare the current movement to the civil rights movement of the 1950-60’s. This argument is compelling to many people, but it is also misleading. The “gay rights” agenda has little to do with rights.

Today in the United States, every person, no matter their gender, race, ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation, has a right to marry. Any American can marry a person of either gender privately. This right is denied to no one. Similarly, any American can marry civilly, including homosexuals, provided that their partner is of the opposite sex. This right also is denied to no one. Permitting civil marriage between people of the same sex would not extend an additional right, it would only expand the existing right to marry to include a specific preference.

Same-sex marriage vs. interracial marriage
Perhaps, though, this theory sounds simplistic. Until 1967, it was legal to prevent people of different races from marrying. One could argue that blacks and whites had equal rights to marry before then, provided that their partner was of their own race. Today, interracial marriage is legal and seems to be acceptable to most Americans. But are race and sexual preference comparable?

According to the courts, the U.S. Constitution prohibits anyone, including government, from discriminating against people of any specific race, ethnicity, color, gender, or age. These are protected classes of people because those attributes define who people are, whether they like it or not. Whites are born with white skin. Same goes for blacks, and everybody else. To my knowledge, a black person cannot make their skin white. People are also born male or female and can’t change their gender. A person’s color and gender is just part of who they are.

Genetics or choice?
The issue of same-sex marriage boils down to this question: is homosexuality an inborn attribute that defines who people are or is it a choice?

Scientific evidence is not conclusive on whether or not homosexuality is part of a person’s genetic makeup. Some scientists believe it is, others believe it is a result of environmental factors, and others believe it’s a combination of both. I believe it’s a combination of both, in a way. According to Elder Oaks:

Different persons have different physical characteristics and different susceptibilities to the various physical and emotional pressures we may encounter in our childhood and adult environments. We did not choose these personal susceptibilities either, but we do choose and will be accountable for the attitudes, priorities, behavior, and “lifestyle” we engraft upon them.

People have physical characteristics and susceptibilities that give them natural inclinations to do many things. A person’s physical strength and mental toughness might make them more likely to want to become a boxer or football player. A person’s natural sensitivity and loving disposition might give them a natural inclination to care for others as a parent, neighbor, or nurse. Similarly, a person might have a natural propensity to take on risk and therefore enjoy gambling, or they might crave the odor and taste of alcohol and decide to take up social drinking.

Note that though each person has unique physical characteristics and susceptibilities, he or she must choose how to respond to them. A person with natural inclinations to take on risk does not become a compulsive gambler unless he or she chooses to do so. Similarly, a person with physical characteristics and susceptibilities that makes him or her more likely to feel attracted to the same sex does not become a homosexual unless he or she chooses to act on those feelings.

A physical characteristic or susceptibility might be a natural part of who a person is that they cannot change, like race or gender, but the way he or she responds to who they are is a choice. No matter the struggles that people endure, everyone has the ability to choose how to respond to any thought, feeling, or urge.

Protected classes for behavior?
Homosexuality is a sexual preference, or a series of actions that lead to a behavior. Should we begin to recognize a group of people that engage in a specific behavior as a protected class? In my opinion, that would be unwise. Then people with a natural inclination to play board games who choose to start up a chess club, or people who love the elderly and make a habit of volunteering at rest homes and for Meals On Wheels might demand to be protected classes. Of course, this probably wouldn’t happen, but it illustrates the silliness of creating a legally protected class for people who engage in a specific behavior.

Should government endorse homosexuality?
A state’s or nation’s laws reflect the general beliefs of its people. Through government, the people can encourage or discourage behavior that they believe benefits or harms society, whether for scientific, religious, or other reasons. Americans have decided to encourage a human behavior — marriage between one man and one woman — that most Americans believe is best for society. Today, government does not discourage homosexuality by prohibiting it, and it also does not encourage or endorse it by making it legal.

The marriage debate is not about rights, it is about whether or not we as a society believe that homosexuality benefits society and if we want to encourage and endorse it. To this day, despite the rulings of several courts, no people of any U.S. state have chosen to make same-sex marriage legal. Let’s hope the courts leave this decision to the people rather than making it for them.

What do you think?

Resources
Same-Gender Attraction, Dallin H. Oaks
LDS quotes, articles, and materials on same-gender attraction

29 Comments »

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://justandholy.blogsome.com/2008/12/02/gay-agenda-not-about-rights/trackback/

  1. This is perhaps one of the weakest argument that anti-equality folk use, Matthew. Paul uses it all the time too. But the foundation of the argument is that the “behavior” of homosexuals is somehow inferior to your own “behavior” and therefore you deserve a level of protection under the law that they do not.

    And though I disagree with your assumptions of homosexuality being a choice, even if you are correct in that, our constitution recognizes and protects choices in many ways. Your religion, for example.

    We would all be a lot better off, and make much better decisions, if we were realistic about what we did not know - as opposed to just picking up a bigger microphone to shout what we make up - and placed on a higher pedestal the notion that liberty and a productive, lasting society are dependent on one another.

    Instead of finding reason to marginalize this or that group of people because of this or that faulty assumption or personal belief, find ways to include them on a level equal to the rights you enjoy, without giving up your own rights.

    Such an approach would be ten fold more useful than the BS you’ve just laid down for readers here.

    Comment by jasonthe — December 2, 2008 @ 10:43 am

  2. Jason…but what you and the others have failed to answer if the question: what are the benefits to society of gay marriage? We know what they are for heterosexual actions that lead to marriage and children (or adoption or foster care) within the complementarity of a man and a woman.

    But what about the choices that lead to actions involving gay marriage…and its benefit to society?

    Contrary to leftist and feminist ideology, the choice to exercise religion in America benefits society based on the principles we live by.

    Some choices are better for society than others…no?

    So, Jason, please immediately disabuse us of our ignorance. What are the benefits to society from gay marriage?

    Comment by Paul Mero — December 2, 2008 @ 12:31 pm

  3. Jason:

    Yes, my assumption is that homosexual behavior, even when in a faithful, loving relationship, is inferior to a healthy heterosexual relationship. But one point of my post is that no group of people who engage in a specific behavior should be a protected class, whether homo- or heterosexual. Heterosexuals are not in a protected class, government just encourages that behavior because people generally believe it’s good for society.

    As for religion, yes, government does protect the freedom to practice religion. The difference is that government is not encouraging or endorsing any specific religion, it just allows people to practice as they wish, the same way that it doesn’t endorse homosexuality but allows people to have such relationships privately if they wish. The Founders could have created an amendment that says government cannot establish its own form of marriage or prohibit the free exercise of any intimate relationship, but they did not.

    Finally, rather than call my arguments “BS,” please stick to making your points.

    Comment by Matthew C. Piccolo — December 2, 2008 @ 2:25 pm

  4. By “BS,” Matt…Jason means “brilliant summary.”

    Comment by Paul Mero — December 2, 2008 @ 2:45 pm

  5. Oh, well, in that case, thanks for the compliment Jason :)

    Comment by Matthew C. Piccolo — December 2, 2008 @ 3:11 pm

  6. “To my knowledge, a black person cannot make their skin white. People are also born male or female and can’t change their gender. A person’s color and gender is just part of who they are.”

    How wrong you are, and I have one example for both statements. MICHAEL JACKSON

    Comment by Benny The Master Debater — December 2, 2008 @ 6:21 pm

  7. Good one, Benny. I think it’s important to point out that people who try to change the color of their skin or get a sex change don’t actually change who they are, just the way they appear.

    Comment by Matthew C. Piccolo — December 2, 2008 @ 6:24 pm

  8. but what you and the others have failed to answer if the question: what are the benefits to society of gay marriage?

    That’s easy! It’s out of the news and my kids stop asking, what’s a gay? Married gays are more less likely to be depressed, and stay with one partner. More housing for straight single people who can’t get married because they are ugly. And, most importantly, it always LGBT people the opportunity to pursue happiness.

    Comment by Benny The Master Debater — December 2, 2008 @ 6:27 pm

  9. I think I meant allows, but that’s what happens when you are rushing to use a PC that belongs to a business and they have no idea you are using it.

    Comment by Benny The Master Debater — December 2, 2008 @ 6:30 pm

  10. Your argument is flawed, uninformed and bordering on bigoted. Just a few days ago, an article entitled “Growing research suggests being gay is not ‘a choice’” was published. In part, it states “Researchers are finding common biological traits among gay men, feeding a growing consensus that sexual orientation is an inborn combination of genetic and environmental factors that largely decide a person’s sexual attractions before they are born.”

    Additionally, what difference does it make to you if gay people marry? More than you might think, but in a positive way. A professor at Texas Tech wrote an article about why it is important to let gay people marry - yes, same-sex marriage. I wrote about it in a piece titled “Possibly The Best Argument For Gay Marriage” on my blog.

    Feel free to let me know your thoughts.
    Thanks.

    Comment by David Badash — December 2, 2008 @ 10:25 pm

  11. David,

    Thanks for your comment, even though you called me a borderline bigot. Yes, one can find or create just about any research to back up their opinion. I’m not saying it might not be true, but I’d have to dig into the research myself to see if it was done correctly. Even if research shows that same-sex attraction is genetic, that doesn’t mean a person can’t decide what to do with that natural attraction. Heterosexuals feel attracted to people of the opposite sex when they’re married and have to choose to be faithful to their spouse. Also, homosexuals can marry privately, so it’s only a question of public approbation, not rights.

    As for your post on your site, of course, I don’t want gays to marry my sister or to have to be celibate or promiscuous…is anyone preventing you them from marrying privately?

    Comment by Matthew C. Piccolo — December 2, 2008 @ 11:21 pm

  12. Matthew,
    I appreciate your response. I have to ask you a few questions.

    First, why do you if I get married to another man? In my quest to understand this issue better, I have yet to be able to understand why anyone, unless they are friends or family, happy for me, why anyone would care if I get married. What difference does it make to you? If anything, it enables two more people to go through life together as society prefers, as a loving, caring, supportive couple.

    Second, what is this concept of “private marriage”? Is that like a birthday party? Anyone can create a ceremony, just have it not be officially recognized? That is insufficient. In 1997, the year after the Defense of Marriage act went into effect, the federal Government Accounting Office was tasked with creating a report identifying what rights and benefits were excluded from people who are not married. There are 1049 rights and benefits I am not entitled to because I cannot marry. That in and of itself puts me in a separate class of people. It is not something I have done that sets me apart. It is something I am. How is that fair, or equal? If you’re interested in reading the 58 page report, you can find it on the US Government’s website:

    http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf

    Thanks.

    David

    Comment by David Badash — December 3, 2008 @ 8:38 am

  13. Matthew,

    Would you oppose an institution separate from marriage but equal to it in the legal rights it gives people who want to form civil unions? If something like this were available to anyone couldn’t it go a long way toward solving this issue?

    Just curious.

    I supported Prop 8 and the idea that by definition marriage between two people of the same sex isn’t marriage. I also support granting couples who don’t want to get married but want the legal rights and benefits of marriage a way of obtaining them. Is that wrong?

    Comment by Jeremy — December 3, 2008 @ 9:04 am

  14. David:

    Thanks for raising some important questions.

    1. It doesn’t matter to me if you have a relationship with a man or marry him privately. That’s your choice.
    2. Private marriage is a mutual agreement, contract, and commitment between two people who want to spend their life together. Private marriage can be done in one’s own home or made “official” through a religious organization or other group. Setting aside the benefits for now, I’ll answer that part when I respond to Jeremy, why do you need or want government and society to approve your commitment to your spouse? If you really love someone and want to share your life with them, then isn’t a special relationship with that person enough for you? Why do you need public approbation?

    Jeremy:

    Great question. I’m no expert on which legal rights exist or don’t for marriage or civil unions (the report from GAO that David posted is interesting, though it’s 11 years old), but following my line of reasoning this is what makes sense to me.

    If the purpose of defining marriage as only between a man and a woman is for society and government to encourage and endorse that specific type of behavior, then it seems to me that giving government benefits typically attached to heterosexual marriage to homosexuals is a not-so tacit endorsement of gay marriage. Government encourages heterosexual marriage and healthy families through tax policy, etc.. To me, only have the term “marriage” defined as between man and woman doesn’t do much to encourage it, it only recognizes it.

    So, I think I’m fine with saving government benefits exclusively for heterosexual marriage, but if a private company or organization wants to offer its benefits to all types of couples, then that’s great. There also might be some government benefits currently reserved for marriage that don’t necessarily need to be that way. Things like hospital visitation should probably be open to any loved one, or left for each hospital to determine. Again, I’m not an expert on the benefits, but that’s how I see it now. What do you think, Jeremy?

    Comment by Matthew C. Piccolo — December 3, 2008 @ 9:41 am

  15. Matthew,
    I truly appreciate your openness to debate, but I have to point out that your point of view is so shaded in your beliefs. You just wrote “Government encourages heterosexual marriage and healthy families through tax policy, etc.. ” While that is true, you’re implying that homosexuals cannot form healthy families, which is false. And as for the need for “public approbation”? Well, healthy relationships in part succeed through public recognition. The ability to say “this is my spouse” is one of the most fulfilling statements one can make, I have to imagine.

    Why, why do you wish to withhold what is truly one of the most natural and important aspects of being human, that of a fulfilling, recognized, legal, loving, caring, supportive relationship, yes, marriage, from two people. Again, but, why do you care? “Private marriage” does not exist. That’s at best a legal maneuver. Seriously, allowing same-sex marriage does nothing but strengthen society by saying to two people “Yes, you are human, worthwhile, can stand with us and make the world a better place. We believe in you and your commitment to one another.” How, tell me, how can that be wrong?

    Comment by David Badash — December 3, 2008 @ 12:17 pm

  16. David:

    Thanks to you as well for some good, civil debate. I’m glad we’ve gotten past debating whether or not same-sex marriage is a right and on to whether or not it would benefit society, because, as my post tries to say, that is really what this debate should be about: do Americans have any reason to endorse and encourage same-sex marriage?

    Is same-sex marriage healthy? I don’t doubt that many same-sex partners have very loving, fulfilling relationships. But what can they offer society? I believe that government endorses healthy heterosexual marriage because they are the ideal institution in which to raise children. We could show each other research all day that either supports or refutes that argument, but in the end, whether my belief in that is intuitive, religious, or anything else, that’s just how I feel. It’s difficult to prove empirically either way.

    So, again, I ask, what can a same-sex relationship offer to society and do as well or better than opposite sex relationships? I remain convinced that there is no significant evidence to endorse gay marriage.

    You can enjoy your fulfilling relationship and commitment to each other on your own, just as I would with my wife whether or not government endorsed opposite-sex marriages. I’d be just as happy without public approbation of my marriage, but I think government should endorse and encourage such marriages for the benefit of society. It’s nothing personal against you or anyone else, it’s just what makes sense.

    Comment by Matthew C. Piccolo — December 3, 2008 @ 11:12 pm

  17. My question is this: if it is truly about rights, tax benefits or other government granted abilities, why is the discussion about same-sex marriage at all? It seems like the argument would be better waged to extend each of these withheld advantages to all Americans, single, married, or otherwise.

    If there is truly a discriminatory policy here, extending it to same-sex marriage would seem to only move a segment of people from one side of the line to the other, but still leave each of the single people out. I would suspect many of the benefits to married couples are centered around two people. But it begs the question, for example, should you have to be married (same-sex or traditional) to visit loved ones in the hospital? And should the tax law be changed to allow two business partners or close friends to file jointly? Or if the definition of marriage is to be changed, should it include polygamy, or a woman marrying a dolphin? If so, why? Would it benefit society?

    Comment by Scott — December 5, 2008 @ 11:07 am

  18. Great questions, Scott. The dolphin argument (bestiality) doesn’t really work because animals aren’t humans and therefore don’t have the same legal status as us. It is helpful to ask if two brothers, a grandfather and grandson, or other similar types of relationships should be legal.

    I think you’re right about the benefits. Maybe gays should be fighting for every benefit for every person no matter their marital status.

    Comment by Matthew C. Piccolo — December 6, 2008 @ 10:07 am

  19. Matthew, you are making several missteps in logic. #1- to say that a gay person has equal rights because they can still technically marry an opposite-gender person is ridiculous. People don’t just marry anyone. They marry the person they love and wish to enter into a social contract that carries with it civil, legal, and financial obligations & benefits. Gays are denied this right because they are not allowed to marry who they love (and whether you as an independent third-party recognize that love is irrelevant as this contract does not pertain to you). Saying that gays have equal rights to marry so long as it is to an opposite-gender person is like saying there is freedom of religion in Iran so long as it’s to the State Religion: a ridiculous argument.

    Comment by Brian — December 6, 2008 @ 1:40 pm

  20. #2 Personal choices CAN be protected classes. Religion is a choice. #3 Whether you like it or not, scientific evidence suggests that there are measurable biological differences between homosexuals and heterosexuals and there are not one but several theories on how these differences are forming while the child is still in the womb. #4 Your argument about making lots of protected classes is weak. You know that “this probably won’t happen” because no member of Meals on Wheels has access to basic civil rights and benefits that are not also afforded to members of the chess club.

    Comment by Brian — December 6, 2008 @ 1:49 pm

  21. #5 Gay couples benefit society much like barren and elderly couples and even couples that consciously choose not to have children do: they form a family unit of people helping and supporting each other financially, emotionally, and together create a more stable element of society watching out for each other for richer or poorer, in sickness and in health. Perhaps they will not have children and keep the population growth in check. Perhaps they will adopt a child in need. The California Supreme Court has already determined that there is ABSOLUTELY NO scientific evidence to support the idea that homosexual couples are naturally inferior parents or that heterosexual parents are naturally superior. My roommate’s dad is gay and yet my roommate is a fully-functioning productive straight member of society who loves his dads.

    Comment by Brian — December 6, 2008 @ 1:57 pm

  22. #6 You’re finally getting to the heart of the matter of why you really believe the way you when you talk about choosing to act on a biological inclination such as substance abuse or loving someone of the same gender. Yes, on that level on humans have choice. HOWEVER, at that point the discussion becomes spiritual/religious. We must remember that there is a critical separation of church and state. If you don’t believe in gay marriage: don’t marry a gay! Restricting the civil rights and privileges of another citizen who does not belong to your belief system is completely against the principles of the Constitution. Allowing a simple majority to restrict the rights and privleges of a minority is against the principles of the Constitution. We can’t criticize the Taliban for restricting women’s rights because of our religious beliefs if we do the same thing to gays here. We cannot criticize judges and call them “activists” when they do what we do what the Founding Father’s intended: assuring equal protection under the law to all Americans even when it’s not the popular thing to do.

    Comment by Brian — December 6, 2008 @ 2:06 pm

  23. Thanks for your thoughts, Brian. I’ll respond to a few of your points.

    On #1, I wrote in my post that it is simplistic to say that gays have equal rights just because they can marry someone of the opposite sex, so we agree on that. The crux of my argument is that homosexuality, just like any form of sexuality, is a behavior unlike race, gender, or age. Any two people can form a contract or make a vow for anything, including marriage, and the government can require that the two parties live up to that contract. Government does not prohibit private contracts between homosexuals, it just encourages heterosexual marriages between two people by recognizing and attaching benefits to that specific type of contract. The purpose of civil marriage, at least in my research, is not to recognize a loving relationship between any two people but to recognize and encourage an institution that benefits society. Otherwise, why not have “certificates of friendship” or “certificates of intimate sibling partnership” for people who love each other and are committed to sharing their lives together? Civil marriage endorses an institution, not a feeling and not even necessarily just a contract.

    On #2, yes, a person’s choice of religion is a protected class. The First Amendment prohibits government from establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of it. I don’t know that religion needs to be an officially protected class since it’s spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Even if we do decide to protect certain behaviors, religion is mentioned specifically in the Constitution, whereas marriage or loving relationships are not. The Constitution doesn’t guarantee that any specific behaviors should be recognized, it just prevents government from prohibiting certain actions, including religious ones. Recognition and endorsement of behavior, which may or may not be wise, is up to the people.

    On #3, there is little consensus on research regarding homosexuality. Science is great, but it’s always up for debate, that’s why policy has to be based on other things as well, like time-tested principles and common sense. If someone can convince me that homosexuality is not a choice, then I’m all ears, but it hasn’t happened yet. Again, there may be biological differences, but in my opinion they are “physical characteristics or susceptibilities” that don’t dictate behavior.

    On #5, this is what gay rights activists should be doing more: trying to convince everyone that gays have something to offer society. Thus far, I remain unconvinced. I don’t doubt that many gays benefit each other and those around them, but I have seen little evidence that society would gain much benefit from recognizing gay marriages as a whole. By the way, I don’t view the California Supreme Court as an authority on scientific evidence or much else. It can make its decrees, to the defiance of the majority of Californians, but that doesn’t mean they’re always right.

    On #6, I’m not sure I follow your comment on how this became spiritual/religious. The debate on “legislating morality,” which morals often come from religion, is an interesting one. You can read my opinion on that here:

    http://graphic.pepperdine.edu/perspectives/2007/2007-03-22-morality.htm

    Thanks for continuing this debate. It’s a very important one.

    Comment by Matthew C. Piccolo — December 9, 2008 @ 2:27 pm

  24. Matt, i still don’t understand where you are going with Point 1. Marriage contracts are a very unique form of contract where the civil government awards certain rights, protections, and privileges to loving couples that make certain promises to each of fidelity, health care, financial support, etc, etc etc. We’re not talking about an abstract generic form of contract. Even a civil union does not award the same 1000+ benefits that marriage does and separate is not equal. #2 & #3- Whether or not you believe homosexaulity is a choice/behavior or a physical characteristic like race/gender/age is irrelevant because both behavior choices (such as religion) and physical characteristics are designated protected classes under the Civil Rights Act, not the Bill of Rights. Further, as you saw in that other discussion, I have already demonstrated that the US Supreme Court has also recognized sexual orientation as a legitimate class of citizen deserving of equal protection under the law. That matter is no longer open to debate.

    Comment by Boz — December 9, 2008 @ 5:32 pm

  25. Additionally, Matt, I find it very disconcerting that you are willing to put so much faith that the will of the majority of the population should always be enforced and considered good. I believe that anyone who uses the term ‘activist judge’ or, as you put it a judge who “defies the majority” is disregarding the very reason why we have the Senate, the Electoral College, the 2/3rds majority policies, and the Supreme Court itself. Supreme Court Justices are not elected because protecting minority rights and determining the proper interpretation of the Constitution are not things that should be left up to the whims of the majority. If this was sufficient and appropriate, the Supreme Court would not be organized the way that it is. Virtually every civil rights battle was fought first in the courts before finally being ratified by the legislature as America progresses towards more freedoms and equalities for its citizens regardless of age, gender, race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, and sexual orientation. “The arc of history is long but it bends towards justice” _Martin Luther King.

    Comment by Boz — December 9, 2008 @ 5:41 pm

  26. Matt, while the Supreme Court is not an expert in science, it is an expert in analysis and fair judgement. The Religious Right was unsuccessful in providing objective scientific proof of their claims that that either (A) homosexual parents are statistically worse parents than heterosexual parents or (B) that heterosexual parents are statistically superior parents to homosexual parents. Since this was a central part of their argument for barring homosexuals for being an (as you put it) civilly-endorsed family unit, the Court rejected their argument.

    Comment by Boz — December 9, 2008 @ 5:48 pm

  27. Finally, Matt, I suggest that you get a degrees in sociology and family law if you wish to see how families (be they elderly, barren, childless by choice, gay, interracial, interfaith, international, etc) benefit society. Regardless of how it is created, people creating emotional/financial/legal/healthcare commitments to take care of each other is a great stabilizing force in our society. There is substantial evidence of this fact and that evidence does not change just because one of those family definitions isn’t something you are spiritually comfortable with. Let me ask you this, Matt, in trying to understand how marriage may benefit a gay couple or society… how many gay friends do you have that you know intimately? how many gay co-workers do you have and how many conversations have you had with them about that relationship? how many gay marriages have you attended? I have many friends, many co-workers, and have even attended some marriages and bachelor parties. These are good people who are making commitments of love and care and are only asking for the same civil rights, protections, and privileges that we all enjoy in return. They’re not asking for our religious approval or acceptance, they are not suggesting that all of society convert to this lifestyle. They aren’t and won’t be allowed to ask to perform gay marriages in the temple. I don’t understand why it’s so hard not to allow others of different belief systems to use their agency to live and believe according to their belief system so long as it has no direct negative impact on my personal life and belief system.

    Comment by Boz — December 9, 2008 @ 6:02 pm

  28. Actually no, Matt, I have one more comment: your challenge to the gay community to “prove” (against obvious strong bias) its benefit to society before you allow it the same civil rights, privileges, and protections that you enjoy smacks of eugenics. Hitler used those same arguments (which as with the gay community were not supported by objective scientific studies but only religious and conservative propaganda) were used to convince a majority of Germans to strip gays and Jews of their livlihoods and eventually their lives. You have taken a dangerous first step down a dark path. I realize you would never advocate the extermination of gays, but neither did many Germans. You don’t know who your arguments may inspire to commit unspeakable acts. Better to live and let live. If the gays aren’t living in accordance with God’s principles that is between them and their Maker. It is not for us to judge. We should keep our concerns about the sanctity and stability of marriage focused on the sanctity and stability of the marriage we have with our own spouses. Let each man be judged for own sins, not for Adam’s transgression… and not for “Adam & Steve’s” either.

    Comment by Brian — December 9, 2008 @ 7:28 pm

  29. Hey Brian–

    Here are just a few more thoughts. I wish we could carry on the debate more, but it’s starting to get complicated and lengthy for this forum.

    True, sexual orientation may be recognized as a protected class by SCOTUS, but that doesn’t mean it made a correct decision. I don’t believe myself to be more informed or intelligent than those justices, but they’re not always on target.

    I agree that the courts need to serve as a check on infringement of the people’s civil liberties. I just don’t see this issue as a rights issue.

    I do have a few friends who are actively gay and some who have those feelings but are trying their best not to act on them. I completely agree that many, if not most, gay people are good people just like everyone else. Their strong relationships may benefit society some, but I don’t see enough evidence for government to endorse such relationships. There will have to be many more decades of experience before we can get an accurate picture of homosexuality’s effect on society, and even then, it’s almost impossible to parse that evidence out.

    Eugenics? Hitler? Wow, that’s pretty serious stuff. I sure hope you’re wrong about that comment. I have a feeling I’m not headed in that direction.

    Thanks again for your thoughts.

    Comment by Matthew C. Piccolo — December 11, 2008 @ 6:03 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>



Anti-spam measure: please retype the above text into the box provided.

Get free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome | Theme designs available here