Comments on: “Happy Marriages.” – That’s so gay.

By: Adam White

Adam White — Fri, 28 May 2010 13:27:40 +0000

Sure, feel free to snag anything from here.

By: Junie Aumen

Junie Aumen — Fri, 28 May 2010 09:30:31 +0000

Howdy there,this is Junie Aumen,just found your web-site on google and i must say this blog is great.may I quote some of the article found in your weblog to my local mates?i’m not sure and what you think?in either case,Many thanks!

By: John Mitchem

John Mitchem — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 20:23:36 +0000

I’ll admit you actually have a number of valid points. It is pretty ridiculous to expect a several thousand year old religion to change it’s entire way of thinking and do a complete reversal of it’s view of morality and the nature of marriage for any reason short of devine intervention. The problem is that marriage has become, for better or worse, a government institution and even if you were to create a entirely seperate system which is virtually identical in every way, there would still be problems with the denial of gay marriage. “Separate but equal” leaves the door open to far too many opportunities for inequality and persecution merely due to perceived diferences and stigmas. The only way I see to handle the issue without creating social inequality would be to completely abolish marriage as a government institution (which, if it is a religious institution really has no pace in government anyway. Seperation of church and state), thereby making marriage a nonlegal union completely under the power of the church to permit, deny and regulate as their doctrine dictates, and (if for some reason you still feel an absolute need for government regulation) institute civil unions and prenuptial agreements to handle the legal aspect for all individuals regardless of sexual orientation. Like you said, it would just be a matter of semantics and certain religions would undoubtedly perform same sex marriages but christian marriage would be safeguarded from homosexuality.
As to the cause of homosexuality, I don’t think God made gays gay. While it might be considered plausable (although I’d think VERY unlikely) that God would give an attraction to other men (as a test of faith or some such) the decision to act on those desires would still lie entirely with the individual. From that angle, homosexuality is a choice. However, there is a great deal of evidance that suggests that in the majority of homosexuals the attraction to individuals of the same sex is not a choice and thats where things start to get tricky. First, homosexuality would probably not be ‘curable’ or even treatable. We’re still decades away from safe retroviruses that could be used to alter the ‘gay gene’, and there is no guarantee that it would be able to “fix it”. The basic structures in the brain would already be in place, which is the same reason that the theory about testostrone rejection during pregnancy works. The brain is already hardwired for gay. However, it would most likely become preventable through preventative medicine. Which brings me to the second point. The majority of people in the homosexual community don’t feel that there is anything wrong with them or with being gay, and most would find the idea of a cure for homosexuality as offencive as african americans would find the idea of a cure for being black.
I would like to take this moment to ask that even if homosexuality is caused by nurture and not nature and your theory that “everyone, gay or straight has sexual preferences and most if not all of them are direct results of childhood and adolescent experience or environment” is correct, would that really make homosexuality any more of a choice? While I stand by my assertion that the decision to act upon on one’s desires is wholely the responsibility of the individual, but the innermost desires that lead to these decisions are not so cut and dry. Regardless of whether the cause is in the hardwiring or if it is learned during our youth, the fact remains that everyone does have sexual preferences and gays can no more likely start being attracted to the opposite gender than you or I could start liking men.
And to finish off, while I would agree that we shouldn’t just start letting hockey players on the baseball field just because they show up and want to play, I also believe we shouldn’t shun the NFL just because baseball is Americas passtime. If a man and a woman truely love one another and want to spend the rest of their lives together with gods blessing, than that is something truely glorious beautiful and gay marriage can’t take that away because it’s what exists between them that makes special. And to be perfectly honest, if two people who genuinely love one another have less of a right to that than a those who are just after a greencard or financial security or to avoid having a kid out of wedlock or who will just leave each other in a few year, that what is it about marriage is really worth fighting for anyway?

By: Adam White

Adam White — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 09:03:42 +0000

thats like saying that baseball players who don’t hit home runs are not allowed to play baseball. And your saying that when the hockey team shows up in skates, padding and hockey sticks in hand, we should let them play on the base ball diamond and call it baseball. Just cause you sign up for the team, (talking about marriage here) doesn’t always mean you are going to get off the bench. But you can’t play on the team if your not sporting the right equipment. That’s probably a horrible sports analogy, but I think you get my point. You can play other games, you can even try to make up a new game, but this game of marriage has been played since the beginning of humanity. Changing the rules at this point isn’t fair to the teams who are already playing. It will only make marriage like “new coke” and “arena football”. And eventually it will be dead. That’s why people are fighting to protect it and that’s why I wrote this to help other to understand our perspective. You don’t have to agree, but at least be open minded about it.

By: Adam White

Adam White — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 08:32:59 +0000

Okay, so then we need to allow any other sexual preference to have a defense of genetics. If there was real research to show the exact cause of homosexuality, then I would be interested to hear it. And hey, if it’s a genetic mutation or a chemical imbalance in the mother, then it’s curable, right? We could rid the world of these abnormalities with the proper health care system. Parents could be tested to ensure they didn’t both carry the gay recessive gene. It’s a pretty slippery slope when you start to claim it’s genetic. Let’s be honest, EVERYONE, gay or straight has sexual preferences and most if not all of them are direct results of childhood and adolescent experience or environment.

I believe in America, you get to believe whatever crap you want. So if you want to believe that God made gays gay, then that is your freedom. But the gay’s that turn straight, they get to believe something else, and straight people who turn gay, they have their reasons too. It’s not really the governments place to get involved in these decisions, when there is no proof of who’s viewpoint is correct. And currently, there may be a load of theories, but there is no proof. If there was a good chance and finding genetic proof, I would think the gay lobby could spend the money on it. Cause honestly, it would make even a dusty old religious wacko like me take a double take on the issue.

By: Adam White

Adam White — Sun, 07 Feb 2010 08:08:58 +0000

I know my solution would ultimately mean that straight couples would need the same contracts that gay couples would need in order to be viewed by the state as a family unit, but also any group could consider themselves a family unit with complete disregard to sexual preference. It may just be a semantics issue to people who think that marriage is just a word. Like I said, I’m not against unions, just this idea that it has to be marriage to be just and fair, and anything else is an insult. And yes, you can make up your own religion and call yourself King of America, but the government doesn’t grant that title. Can you explain to me why if you can join a religious sect and have a “wedding”, and it was possible to have a civil union that took care of all legal issues, why the gay agenda is pushing so hard for the word Marriage to come from the government?

By: John Mitchem

John Mitchem — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:52:53 +0000

Alright, this is my last one… If you assume that homosexuals are unequal and undeserving of the right to marry because of a inability to procreate, wouldn’t you also have to remove the right to marry from straight individuals who are unable to have children for other reasons or atleast from the ones who choose not to procreate?

By: John Mitchem

John Mitchem — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:34:19 +0000

Oh, almost forgot… genetic homosexuallity wouldn’t neccessarily lead to the extinction of the homosexual population if any of the following were true;
1) It was a recessive genetic trait passed on by straits who carried the gene
2) It was be caused by common genetic mutations
3) Homosexuals reproduced with the oppposite gender (caused by confusion over sexuality, desire to have children, need to appear ‘normal’ to society/family, etc…)
Although there are other theories that would indicate that while its not a matter of choice its also isn’t one of genetics. For example, one theory states that it’s caused by the mother’s body building up a resistance to high testosterone levels during pregnancies, which would be supported by research showing that boys are more likely to be gay if they had older brothers. Another claims some cases may be caused by the individual being a chimera (person composed of two genetically distinct types of cells) with a brain of one gender and the body of the other. Although, truthfully I don’t think there is any one set answer and that the behaviors are more likely caused by a combination of issues including both social factor and genetic predispositions…

By: John Mitchem

John Mitchem — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 23:03:52 +0000

I would agree that the government takes far too much of a interest in our personal relations, however I think we need to consider two things;
First, a great many rights and government benefits (such as some rather hefty tax breaks, insurance issues, adoption preferances, SS for lost spouces, greencards for foreign spouces, etc…) are heaped upon married couples that are otherwise unavailable to homosexuals and singles. The obvious solution would be to remove all of these incentives from marriage so that it is simply a religous ceremony between the individuals getting married and their diety.
Second, not every religion adheres to the same values and views as christianity. Infact, there are a number of up-and-coming religions that are rather pro gay marriage so by claiming marriage as a part of the seperation of church and state you would automatically be allowing gay marriage.
Also, I feel I should point out that historically homosexuals have suffered from a great deal of persecution and hate crimes, including being ostracized by their family and community, being looked down upon by society, issues gaining employment, loss of parental and adoptive rights, being lumped in with sexual deviants and pedophiles, and even being attacked and killed…

By: Jayme Shelton

Jayme Shelton — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 09:28:11 +0000

You did a really great job on this extremely touchy subject. I agree with you almost 100%. I was especially pleased to see someone finaly point out the supreme ignorance of those who tout “seperation of church and state” as the reason christians should stay out of this matter. The opposite is so obviously true, the government needs to stay out of it.