Proposition 8 - Preserving The Sanctity Of Marriage
In light of the controversy surrounding California Proposition 8 (elimination of same-gender marriage), I wanted to share my perspective and anticipate the opinions of my readership.
Being a conservative and science major, I generally tend to frown upon same-gender marriage. To me, it’s a very simple issue of asking myself: “Why are there two genders to begin with?” Though gays and lesbians constitute a very small minority in the general population, it seems like they are amidst their own, modern day “civil rights” movement.
The last time I was in Victoria, British Columbia, I recall being greeted by a ridiculously large gay/lesbian pride rally through the streets in front of the Empress Hotel. I know these “pride parades” are legal, but if you’re going to express the depth of your opinions, at least put some clothes on. Half those participants should have been arrested on the spot for indecent exposure. Then again, this is Canada I’m talking about, eh? 
Anyways, back to my point.
The overwhelming majority of life has two sides - a “male” and “female”, if you will. This is a self-evident truth, not to be attributed to coincidence. The only reason the human race (or life, for that matter) has survived over time is due to our innate need to reproduce. The union of a man and woman to produce fertile offspring is the sole factor which has propelled humanity into the next generation.
Now consider the alternative. If gays/lesbians were the majority, the integrity of humanity’s inherent “survival instinct” would quickly dissolve. Some may say that individuals are predisposed to be gay/lesbian due to genetics, but this really is an imperfect theory due to a lack of statistically significant correlations in identical twin studies. Regardless of why a person chooses such a lifestyle, one has to accept the fact that based on my aforementioned “survival” premise, gays/lesbians have little to contribute to the survival of the human race.
So in summary, gays/lesbians can exist as happy couples, but leave it at that. I don’t have a problem with same-gender “relationships”, but to me, the term “marriage” implies a sanctity which brings together religious overtones with the survival of humanity.
Similar Posts:
- How Do You Define Life?
- Random Thoughts: Round 2
- Religion and Extremism
- Random Thoughts
- Personalized Medicine - Are We Too Smart?
God created Adam and Eve, not Eve and Evette or Adam and Michael (Lol and I am not even religious). I TOTALLY agree with you and frown upon gay couples and especially “marriages”. I do not want to raise my kids thinking that type of thing is perfectly normal when it is not. Humans reproduce, that is all we do, and boy does it feel good to do it. Whether people become gay due to stimulation of their prostate, or are “born” gay is not reason to celebrate and for us to applaud them. Sure, I have no problem if they are happy with their lifestyle, as long as it doesn’t affect me and he isn’t hitting on me, then whatever. Respect is key. As you say, in terms of survival, they would be the first to go extinct. I personally believe there is a gay gene in the genome, as even monkeys and other animals exhibit homosexual behavior, but we are a long way from finding it. Marriage should be a sacred word for the union of a man and a woman, heck, I even have the diamond ring already, I just need to find someone to propose to. And about the Canada thing, you better hope Jonathan Tran doesn’t read that. LOL
Jonathan knows that I love British Columbia, so I’m safe.
As far as a “gay gene”, though its been hypothesized, it must be a lot more complicated than that. Identical twin studies show very little correlation among male twins (and even less among female twins) when it comes down to their predisposition to be gay/lesbian. Of course, this doesn’t invalidate the possibility of genetics being involved, but it makes scientists look elsewhere for the reasoning behind the lifestyle.
lifestyle is something that is chosen and can be changed. it is not certain, though, that homosexuality is an option that some flaunt while others avoid.
if you, a heterosexual, were forced to become homosexual, do you think it would be successful?
What really shocking to new is people willing to give million of dollars to support gay marriage. Now this money could easily be given for a better cause like cancer research and AIDS research, but to keep the gay marriage amendment is beyond STUPID!!!! Like I said the public is so stupid. I hope I am not to mean
I think they should be gay rights along with benefit. But gay marriage is stupid. Yes, I am Catholic, and I think it is crazy that some Christian think it is right to have gay ceremony perform at church. Many argued that God love everyone equally, and he does, but is our action that he frown upon. It is love the sinner, hate the sin motto. Now I don’t know if people were born gay or is it gay by choice, but as human we have contol over our actions. Many argued that they were born gay, I agree with you, but just because it is in your genes does not mean you have to exhibit it and expect people to have sympathy for your situation. Many people are born prone to alochol and drugs, but they do not indulges they self in it. Saying I am a alcoholic and a drug addict because it was in my gene does not give you an excuse to abuse alcohol or drug then expect sympathy from people because you have no control over your impulse. You do have control, we all have control over our action. And IF you want to be gay, why get God involved. God forbid it in the Bible.
I’m totally against it!!! I don’t think it’s the government’s job to interfere with such personal issues. Everyone has a right to make their own decision and the government has no right to tell someone who they can or cannot marry. Rishi, how would you like it if the government told you that you couldn’t marry a girl you really loved? That’s exactly what they are doing with Prop 8. Besides, you really think a law is gonna stop gay/lesbian people from getting married? No, they will find another place to get married so you’re just causing more problems instead of solving them. I’m sorry Rishi but I totally disagree with u. The next thing you know the government will be telling you what religion to follow or banning certain religions just because that religion is minority. Everyone has a right to marry who they desire whether it is a man or a woman as long as they’re not hurting anyone. In a generation where we have elected a black president, I thought that people would be more open-minded. Besides, being a future doctor, how are u going to deal with patients that are gay/lesbian? or even classmates that are? colleagues? Coming from personal experience, you will have to be very very open minded if you want to go into the medical field. By the way, I was also a science major and being a science major should have nothing to do wit ur view on same-sex marriage (by saying that in your blog you’re causing stereotypes). As you can tell I feel very passionate about this and that’s why i’m writing this long comment instead of studying. I would love to get a response to this.
Thank you for bringing the opposing viewpoint to the table, Sadiya! I’m sorry if I offended you (please don’t call the admissions committees before I even get any letters).
But I’ll try to address each point you brought up.
I don’t need the government to prevent me from falling in love; that’s what brown parents are for. XD. And there’s no need to apologize for disagreeing with me. You have no idea how much I value you being so passionate about your viewpoint. Trust me, I am well aware of the number of gays/lesbians I’ll come across in the future, as I’ve already come across many in business and education. But you have to realize, as a doctor, the fact that my patient may be gay/lesbian is irrelevant to my treatment (unless there’s a medical concern like STD transmission, etc); that’s like saying that Rishi, a hardcore Republican, will refuse to medically treat his patient because he/she is a Democrat. It’s completely irrelevant to the situation at hand - the patient’s well being. I have gay friends and appreciate them for their intellectual abilities, compassionate nature, and a vast number of other reasons; however, you can’t expect me to love every characteristic about everyone. I’m not perfect, and I don’t expect people to treat me like I am. I’m aware that many of my friends differ with me on political views, religion, values, etc, but those differences are completely irrelevant in civil conversation. Analyzing those differences, like in this case, stirs up some good debate.
Going back to the science thing, I view our existence as a mere scientific consequence of successive reproduction cycles. Therefore, again, this is a personal opinion which isn’t intended to infringe on yours, I hold marriage between the responsible parties (a man and a woman) to be sacred, for it has allowed our race to survive. To put gay/lesbian marriages on the same level, well, something just doesn’t feel right about that to me. Please don’t hate me. I don’t mind offending my pre-med peers, but having offended a role model is different.
Rishi, u haven’t offended me. My point is that I don’t want the government telling me how to live my personal life that really doesn’t affect the rest of the public, so wut gives them the right to tell homosexuals how to live their life? I think u misunderstood my point so let me clarify it, how would u like it if u fell in love and the government told u that u couldn’t marry that person? I’m sure u wouldn’t take that, so why should the government tell homosexuals that they can’t marry the person they love? I agree with u that marriage is sacred, but I also believe that for a marriage to be sacred both parties have to love each other. If two homosexuals love each other, enough to spend the rest of their lives together, that’s a sacred marriage. I don’t want to be treated any differently just because I’m brown and I’m sure u don’t either. My point is that homosexuals shouldn’t be treated any differently from u and me, by doing that you’re not being any less than a racist. On a side note, going to HBU has sheltered us. When u go out into the real world you will realize how much is out there and that how everyone is different and it will open your mind (hopefully).
I agree with Sadiya..I already wrote my view on FB. But a law won’t stop homo’s, nor will it promote them. A homo will stay a homo, and a hetero a hetero. Therefore, humanity won’t be wiped out, since its a personal issue, and no law can make a hetero turn into homo, etc..
As far as “marriage” and the institution and sanctifying it, its subjective.
I mean as a Muslim, where in the Qu’ran it forbids being in a same-gender relationship, it also forbids living together before marriage, or being in a relationship with someone of another religion, should we make a law against that too?
I truly believe these laws are from a religious perspective, despite everyone saying “politics and religion are seperate” they aren’t! The only people who push for these laws, are most often the conservative, religious types. Before you point fingers at others, look at yourself. Thats my view. If laws were made off a religious pespective, no offense Rishi, but I don’t think you and Riya would be allowed to marry. (If a Christian could marry only a Christian, or convert)
And Fyfy, I pose the same question to you, you talked about being Catholic and performing ceremonies at Church. I do remember you being in a relationship with a Jew. What if people hated on you for that, and told you to go to a synagogue for your relationship?
This is random, but I’m starving..lol…Be back to write more!
Racism is completely different. The fact that different races exist is just a simple consequence of evolving in different parts of the world as we adapted to our respective lifestyles. Until research can prove that being gay/lesbian is partly genetic, I’ll always consider it a product of the individual’s own prerogative. And plus, if gays/lesbians really had the interest of their significant other at heart, rather than trying to become a rebel in society, they would just keep quiet and live with virtually the same benefits of marriage under a civil union. Some of the most important figures in my small business ventures are gay. We’ve had several employees who we later found out were lesbian. Did we discriminate? No, because they’re great at their job. I’m not being close-minded, because if I was, I really would discriminate, and I really would judge a person’s character by their orientation. I think life is much simpler than that. No one has every trait that we approve of; however, as compassionate members of society, we can look past all that and focus on the issue at hand (treating our patients, hiring employees who are good at a certain trade, etc.) If tomorrow I found out that my best friend was gay, I could care less. His orientation was not the basis of our friendship to begin with, so why should anything change? Now I may frown upon his decision, but I would never attempt to alter his decision or view him negatively.
My whole point is that in the pursuit of preserving the sanctity of marriage, gays/lesbians have to realize that a civil union is just as favorable (if loving their significant other really is their sole objective). A “civil union” is their dream situation, but maybe not their dream title (”marriage.”) They’re not being treated differently, but simply living under a different status. That, if you ask me, is a very small price to pay to be with the one you love and to make the appease the overwhelming majority of the hetero-population’s preoccupation with preserving the connotation of “marriage.”
Thankyou Rishi. Jew and Christian could alway reproduce together. Two gay man can not reproduce together and two gay woman can not reproduce. Comparing interfaith marriage to gay marriage is not a good arguement. Super liberal will tell you that. Super liberal who are athesis will tell you that. Where is Oscar when you need him?
The reproducing thing has fine lines. Because you must further define that. What if a man can’t reproduce, or woman. Should they never get married, just because of a biological problem? No.
As far as adopting (someone i think brought this up on FB) adopting is good deed in general. There should be no restrictions against that. There so many homeless, poor, malnourished kids in the world, if you have the means to adopt, please do. Who cares about your sexual orientation.
Rishi, I wasn’t talking about racism,and I apologize if it seemed so. I was just posing a question, about how would you feel if the church/ and or hindu temple didnt let you and riya marry? (Although I’m sure the government would…) But do you understand what I’m saying. You would be offended. And you would think its none of their buss. if you choose to be in an inter-religious relationship. Its a personal issue.
Just like being homo and hetero is.
I agree with Rishi. They should have civil union I Know China ia not allowing gay to adopt, so I guess that is out of the picture.
Like I said, this has nothing to do with reproducing. The world will not cease if gay marriage is allowed. There will always be hetero’s around!
So this point within itself is illogical to begin with!
The interfaith thing is comparable in the sense that, as you think gay marriage is wrong, others might think interfaith marriage is wrong. To each their own! Thats was my point!
No, I think its okay if the Church or religious institutions dont want to marry them, BUT they should be allowed to get married somewhere!
That what I am saying Rizwana. It was miscommunication. They should have gay civil union along with the gay benefilt meaning life insurance, the same thing as a straight couple. I for gay civil union. Go to city hall and get a marriage license I bring the champange (LOL)
Rishi, your blog talking about reproduction and gay/lesbians being majority has nothing to do with proposition 8. A law won’t turn people homo, or hetero thereby affecting reproduction. To me, i see no relevance.
If california continues to marry gay couples, that doesnt mean all of a sudden hetero’s will begin coming out.
And if california gets rid of gay marriage, that doesnt mean homo’s will turn back into hetero’s. The relationship will still exist. If it makes them happy that they are “married” instead of “civil” union, let it! I can see why they would be offended if prop. 8 got passed. The government shouldnt interfere with their personal choice of what kind of life they choose to live!
You’re making it seem that if states began allowing homo marriage, they might become the majority, and there would obviously be no reproduction.
That doesnt make sense. They might become majority even without states allowing them to marry.
Lets say, they became majority while having “civil union” or majority in “marriage” what the difference? According to you they have little to contibute to the world in sense of survival since they can’t reproduce.
The reproduction thing ties in to a certain extent (they cant reproduce) but doesnt tie in to the fact that you support prop. 8…Because, hetero’s will still be around to reproduce. Prop. 8 will not cause a sudden spike in gay couples.
Oh no Rizwana, the racism thing was referring to Sadiya’s comment.
But okay, you’re not comparing inter-religion marriage properly to gay/lesbian couples. They are allowed to get civil unions (which practically endows them with the same rights as marriage), so they should just take advantage of that. If the church/temple didn’t allow inter-religion “marriage”, but there was a plan B (like a civil union), I’d be all for it without even feeling like I pulled the short straw. In the end, you still end up with whoever you love. I really think it’s that simple. The gays/lesbians who are adamant about being considered a “married couple” need to grow up and realize that they’re the minority. If they can’t take what the majority is giving them in civil unions, they should just keep quiet and be miserable. Can’t have the cake and eat it too when you’re not the majority. But the cake alone should suffice.
LOL..fyfy, you’re too funny!
That’s really my oversight Rizwana. The issues surrounding Prop 8 made me write this, but I dwelled more on gay/lesbian marriage rather than the actual politics outlined in the state amendment. Oh well, it’s still some good conversation!
Ok, I see where you’re getting at Rishi. But you’re only for prop. 8 because of repro. but once again, like I said, that doesnt tie into prop. 8 too much…from where I see it…
Its like saying a homo has nothing to give to society as far as offspring, so they shouldnt be married, yet a hetero couple in which the man is sterile should be married?
Wow…I feel like I didn’t even learn this much in alot of my classes.LOL…
I really do enjoy your website! It gives me things to think about, and helps me learn. Which is essential these days, since I watch TV all day….the life of a post grad bum..lol
Oh my gosh..i noticed something…I thought every other comment was blue, but now I realize only Rishi’s comments are…lol
I’m going to back off from Prop 8 and be as general as I can while I write my next controversial post.
“Marriage”, to me, is a term based on religion, history, and evolution.
A “civil union” promises virtually the same facets of a “marriage”, so gays/lesbians should be content with that.
I cannot hold hetero relationships and homo relationships on the same level, and therefore cannot associate the same word with both of them. But that’s just me. I completely understand where everyone else is coming, so your points are being well heard and appreciated.
But I think the fact is also that, alot of gays/lesbians do consider themselves religious, and practice religion which is why I think they want to be married, in the eyes of God.
Well, I will be waiting for your next post!
Again, another fantastic point. I’m not too informed about Islam or Christianity, but if that were the case, wouldn’t those religious individuals note that their holy books don’t advocate same-gender relationships?
Its true, I would think the same..but apparently, they feel that one “sin” shouldnt label them as religious rebels, because all of us are sinners in way or another.
Haha I just came home from reading for school n ya’ll gave me a lot more to read!!! My brain is currently dead rite now so when I cum up wit a witty comment I shall post it. It was nice to hear from ya’ll by the way. =)
What I am about to say may drastically differ from your point of view, still the point here is not to offend but rather to see where people stand on the issue of gay/lesbian marriage. Nothing more, nothing less. I am 24 years and I have been exposed to the real world. I have worked numerous jobs, I have traveled, and I have come across people from all avenues of life. I am not saying I am wise on everything, only that I have seen more than an 18 year old that is boxed in HBU or at mommy dearest’s home. Purposely volunteering at hospitals and joining college organizations is not what I am counting on the most in my Med School interviews, but rather life experiences. All that I have seen is a world that is hugely imperfect, and man’s futile attempt at perfecting it. We all see the world with different eyes, and what is normal to some is madness to others. Yet, as I posted elsewhere, in each person’s mind, that person believes he or she is in the RIGHT, that their view is the correct one. However, when that view is the view of the majority, then we are getting somewhere. Currently, the majority view gay/lesbian marriages relationships and marriages as wrong. One thing is showing respect for such people, and I regard them as indifferent. If they do not bother me, then fine. What bothers me is that they want society to acknowledge their not so normal lifestyle. They want applause for their gracious acts and to be considered on the same page with heterosexual couples, and that is really bothersome. The norm is that a man falls in love with a woman. Not a woman with a woman, or a man with a man. The people that engage in homosexual behavior usually claim they were born gay or became gay. I hence see it as a genetic disease, if indeed a gay gene was turned on. The people that “become” gay is only due to the fact that they became inexorably attracted to members of the same sex and are victims of sexual lust. Should we, as a society, reward such individuals with the sacred idea of marriage due to this avant-garde lust? No. There are morals to be upheld in society. If we give them the ability to marry anywhere, they would be encouraged to kiss in public and show the world their “love”. One consequence that comes to mind is that if children were constantly exposed to homosexuals holding hands everywhere and kissing, they would grow up with this idea that falling in love with someone of the same sex is perfectly “normal”. I do not want that for my children, and in the long run, society would be even more disgusting than it is now. Nobody is talking about racism here, I see them on the street, and to each their own, but the personal should not always be mixed with politics. The important laws ARE based of religious backbones, but something as minimal as gays desire for marriage shouldn’t even be considered in congress. They can live together fine, but being able to marry and adopt, is stupid. You cannot have the whole cow in one taco. Rizwana: you say you are a practicing Muslim and do not eat meat from dirty animals (which I totally respect) because it is written in the Quran, moreover you posted that same sex marriage and homosexual behavior is also forbidden (as well as interfaith marriage), why are you more lenient toward homosexuals? They are sinful, according to the holy books, and that is why the government should not reward them, don’t you think? As Rishi says, civil unions are more than enough. Interfaith relationships abound at HBU, I come to ask myself, are those people ”phonies” for pretending to follow their religion (Islam especially frowns hooking up with a Christian), while at the same time lusting for a person of a different religion? Does this affect people? Well, not really. However, people still do it, and are still religiously devoted…even though scripture says no. The co-founder of DNA structure (kind of not ignorant, since he won a Nobel Prize), James D. Watson, has an interesting point of view on the subject of homosexuality: “If you could find the gene which determines sexuality and a woman decides she doesn’t want a homosexual child, well, let her.”
Oscar, if I came across as lenient, than obviously you got the wrong idea. Here’s one thing that stands true, in mine or any religious persons life, you CANNOT force ANYONE to do ANYTHING, and doing so is wrong. And number two, sin is sin.
To me, homosexuality, eating pork, drinking alcohol, interfaith relationships, sex before marriage, etc.. all are wrong. I know that its against the Qu’ran to do so. I know I won’t do it, but I most certainly won’t jump down someones back for doing it. If that how you percieve religion, than so be it. Thats not how I percieve religion.
If religion itself allows us to form a personal relationship with God, on our own time, without force, who are we to impose a law on people?
Because, since you brought up Islam, I will say, if this were the case, and I was for this law, I would add a law against every sin. LOL…
My whole point is, alot of things are against God, why don’t we make a law against it all? Sex before marriage, interfaith rela. etc….You can’t just pick and chose things you want to make a law against, and others you don’t for your benefit.
And Islam frowns upon hooking up with ANY OTHER RELIGION (not just Christianity)…I want to know who your muslim friends are, because apparently they and you are putting out false information regarding Islam. I hold them more responsible than you though
The passion you have when putting up your arguement against gay marriage, one might have for something you do.
This situation can go on with everyone pointing fingers against each other, since we all are sinners.
So as far as the government “rewarding them” if you have this point of view Oscar, why are you only applying it to one sin, and not the rest? Why not say the government shouldnt reward same gender marriage, interfaith marriage, etc….
And honestly, from where I see, The problem of all these issues, gay marriage, interfaith marriage, having sex out of wedlock, and even as some say, the first sin comes out of “love.” I remember going to a wedding where the priest began speaking about the first sin and the gist of it was “A man committed his first sin for the love of woman…” So, Oscar, let me ask you..If you have ever fallen in love, (i haven’t..) its passionate..and its this passion that causes people to sin. Perhaps, its this simple. Perhaps you can now put yourself in their shoes, knowing how love can affect ones concious.
And as for your comment about “majority” didnt you ever hear growing up “just because someone else is doing it, doesn’t mean you should too..” I don’t think one should base their views off of the majority..
And the sad fact of it all is….we only go with the “majority” when its beneficial to us…
Come tomm. you may be doing something majority is against,and you will totally disregard them. So that within itself isn’t a indicator of right and wrong. Occasionally it can be.
Whats wrong with them adopting? Thats a good deed. If they have the means than why not? Its better than a child going through several foster homes, or starve in a third world country. I’m shocked you would even say that.
There are so many hetero couples that are HORRIBLE parents..sexual orientation is not a gauge for if you can be a good parent or not.
To me Oscar, you seem to be liberal. I find it strange you are so fierce when it comes to gay marriage.
Perhaps there are things you do, which people don’t appreciate, or see as sinful.
Let me ask you this, if it ever happened that one of your children had “lust” for their same gender, what would you do than?
You have now clearly explained yourself! =)
I HAVE fallen in love a couple of times, and it is the greatest feeling on earth, maybe the universe. Usually, the girl isn’t reciprocal because many do not know what they want, which is screwy. Girls after age 25, they usually know what they want and are ready to settle down. The thing is, love is even greater than religion at times, and that is why we have interfaith relationships. Love is just too strong, and unpredictable. Someone could be a practicing Muslim or Christian and when love strikes, there is little to do but to succumb to love despite religious principles. Eventually, you will fall in love, and there is always a chance that the person might not practice your religion. Of, course, you may disregard that as nonsense, but I have seen it happen. This, as you know, still is sinful according to the holy books. Also, there are liberals and then there are liberals. Gay marriage is something I would never approve of, and especially ADOPTING. That is where I stand. I read a lot of philosophy which has helped mold my view to the way it is now. I recommend you Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche. As for if I were to have a gay child, I would love him or her to death and never talk to him or her ever again. lol
As for adopting, what morals can a child get from two “sinful” (according tho the holy books) same sex parents? A child exposed to gayness and homosexual behavior will have the tendency to also become homosexual. Kind of like if a child has a parents that are doctors, there is a high probability that he would also become a doctor. The behavior and lifestyle of parents are passed down to their children, who are always trying to mimic daddy or mommy. There are some same sex couples that might do a great job at teaching an infant good morals, but it would never be the same as an infant raised in a heterosexual home.
Well, we need stats for that…cause alot of straight couple parents have homosexual children and vice versa, and alot of hetero kids parents might end up wild atheists, where as homo children might be religous. we need more “numbers” than opinions.
But like you said, you’re against it thats your opinion.
And yes I totally agree with the “love” thing…apparently for ages, its been Man loves God, Man loves Woman more..LOL…
Personally, for me, I luckily havent had a hard time with this issue, so much to the fact that I havent been attracted to nonmuslims since the 3rd grade. If I meet a great Christian with a personality my opinion would not be “hes great. I want to be with HIM” it would be “hes great. I like his qualities. I want those in someone I’m with.”
I truly believe you cannot control your feelings, but am an avid believer you can control your actions. So perhaps its avoidable.
But thats a whole other topic.
Thanks Oscar and everyone! Great topic. Great discussion. I esp. appreciated sara tat comparison of a gay marriage to a hetero in which the spouses cheat.
As I read through all the posts, it seems to me that the subject of an individual being gay is viewed as a moral value. However, I don’t think someone’s sexual orientation should be a moral or immoral question. As a muslim, I am against gay marriages I think that it is unhealthy for children to be exposed to that kind of lifestyle. Howewver, I am against the idea that the government decides what should or should not be allowed in people’s personal lifestyle. Just because, I uphold these values, I don’t have the right to impose it on to others. That is there decision and no one has the right to interfere. For a country that is based on democracy, we focus too much on social restrictions which I believe contradicts the whole idea that we are a free country. Many view President Elect Obama as a socialist and Marxist, but it seems to me that the republican conservative base is the one that tries to control others lifestyle, such as gay rights and abortion rights. I am in no way endorsing those actions, but I am supporting the fact that everyone has their liberty to pursuit their happiness.
Asha your post make sense. That is why yiu should be a libertarian. We do not think government should dictiate people life and we also do not want the government taking our money. My motto is “as long as you are not hurting anyone, I am OK with it.
“Regardless of why a person chooses such a lifestyle, one has to accept the fact that based on my aforementioned “survival” premise, gays/lesbians have little to contribute to the survival of the human race.”
One could say the same for a male and female couple who never have children or are infertile. They aren’t contributing either to the survival of the human race at all.
“the term “marriage” implies a sanctity which brings together religious overtones with the survival of humanity.”
And that’s the problem when you mix religion and politics - when there is a clear separation of church and state.
To sum it up from Jon Steward (from the Daily Show no less) who schooled Mike Huckabee in this interview: http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=213349&title=Mike-Huckabee-Pt.-2
“Until research can prove that being gay/lesbian is partly genetic, I’ll always consider it a product of the individual’s own prerogative. And plus, if gays/lesbians really had the interest of their significant other at heart, ****rather than trying to become a rebel in society, they would just keep quiet and live**** with virtually the same benefits of marriage under a civil union.”
That statement sounds more narrowminded than anything else. You would have been great to tell that to the Civil Rights Movement and just tell MLK to stop being a rebel and just be content with “Separate but Equal” from Plessy vs. Ferguson - after all it’s virtually the same benefits in getting to drink from separate water fountains and sit at separate restaurant tables right?