Answers to Homosexual Civil Marriage or Civil Unions

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Fallacy: True homosexual nature is immutable because some people are just "born that way", and is genetic.

Friday, August 12, 2011

From a law graduate: Allegedly, "Liberty means freedom from government oppression, regulation, or tyranny. Here, we have a discrete minority population that has been singled out and excluded from a favorable status. Because they cannot marry, they lose health care rights, visitation rights, immigration rights, tax benefits, etc. If the Constitution broadly means that you have a right to send your kids to private school, teach them German, or to marry a person of a different race than you, how do you claim it doesn't also mean that you have a right to marry someone of a similar sex? "

Wednesday, August 10, 2011

What does it matter to you if the couple "down the street" are married or not? Allegedly, if the couple is of homosexual behavior, it doesn't matter to anyone but them.

Allegedly everyone SHOULD have the right to marry whom they chose.

Friday, July 15, 2011

Allegedly, people of homosexual behavior are just as capable in forming partnerships which contribute to the local, State and Federal economies, as any other type of couple, and therefore should be recognized by the government as a unit cell of society.

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

INTRODUCTION:

We wouldn't know about "homosexuals", unless they told us about it.

Couples of homosexual behavior are two individual citizens who can enjoy their right to privacy in the USA. When they decide they have a right to civil marriage they might start the discussion by saying they are "different", but then demand to be treated "equally" and allowed to enter the State or Federal institution of marriage, though that was developed to support and control opposite-sex relationships, through a long history of Congressional consideration. They don't qualify, but believe it is possible to simply add themselves. They will say, it doesn't really affect anyone else.

But wait! What we see is not the singling out of homosexual relationships, but indeed all adult same-sex relationships added to the definition of marriage in some States, at the State level. From there, they now question why they are not given Federal recognition, and the old debate regarding the Constitutional powers to the State vs. Federal government rises up again.

Whether at the State level or at the Federal level, it is not logical to add them to the definition of marriage, for it invalidates that definition. It substitutes their viewpoint, leaving the idea of natural civil marriage obsolete.

People of homosexual behavior commonly make the word "homosexual" word, an adjective, into a noun, when actually the concept refers to a certain type of behavior, thus an adjective. Whether the behavior is deviant or not is a matter of morality, and the US Constitution and all State Constitutions allows for freedom of religion (or morality).

The people of homosexual behavior also tell us we are an "heterosexual", a noun. We are? Who invented this division? How can it be ascertained? Can people change over time in these two categories? Is it caused by trauma, rather than choice, or genetics?

These questions would be limited to psychological studies, were it not that they've become political. Now, couples of homosexual persuasion require us to believe them - that there's this alleged natural separation of people into heterosexual and homosexual, as nouns. But they don't tell you there are other ways of looking at the scientific data. We are actually all capable of homosexual behavior, because it is a behavior, and there are few rules against friendship.

That theoretical separation is a paradigm, and paradigms in society change with time. This paradigm will always try to become the rule; and in this case it attempts to become the rule of law. At the State level, it has gained ideological converts, as modest people are easily confused about something which cannot be a topic of open conversation at the dinner table, and because they are naturally compassionate, or permissive. But compassion and permissiveness should not override logic.

(Continued in the Footer:)