Sorry, but when someone supports the systematic oppression of an entire group of people born a certain way beyond their control, I'm going to "give them shit" about it...
Near-sighted people of the world unite! We have been forced to wear eye-shackles for too long! People say that Diver's Licenses = 20/20 vision, I say that that is nothing but ignorance and hate spe-
Oh wait, you were talking about homosexuals.
Systematic oppression of an entire group of people born a certain way beyond their control is fairly standard. The question ought to be if that gene expression could be harmful to the individual and others if left unregulated.
It is acceptable to force near sighted individuals to wear corrective lenses when driving because, though they were born a certain way beyond their control, they are potentially dangerous to themselves and others if left unregulated.
Given that homosexuals are not a danger to themselves or others (well, no more than any given human), they ought not have specific regulations applied to them.
Point being, genetics is a red herring.
Exactly the type of thing I would expect to see on Faux (Fox) News.
It's only a clever play on words if you don't have to explain it.
1: Marriage is a Biblical, Judaic, and Islamic principle that has been stated to be between a man and a woman.
Marriage has existed in other cultures too. Romans and Greeks also practiced marriage and while the gods were consulted to see if a union was auspicious, it wasn't inherently a religious ceremony.
While Western society evolved from the Medieval Society, which had Christian overtones, that society evolved from Roman tradition before it (and that from Greek tradition). Indeed, the Justinian Code still forms the backbone of the modern legal system.
Additionally, Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all have conflicting beliefs about marriage; which should be held above the others? Does a divorce only require I throw a sandal at my wife? Can I take three more? If I die without producing an heir, should my brothers be forced to sleep with my wife in order to produce one?
While it is perfectly valid for individuals to vote based on their belief systems, as a society of individuals from a myriad of backgrounds, we cannot apply a single cultures definition of marriage to government laws.
2: Being something of religion, the law should have no hand in this.
No hand in religious marriage ceremonies, I agree. However, insofar as any legal benefits are a part of marriage, the law must have a hand in it. You can't have it both ways. Either, legally, no marriage can be recognized or, legally, every marriage must be recognized. I'd be largely happy either way.
So either remove the legal rights that a heterosexual spouse has, or grant those legal rights to a homosexual spouse.
It may have been "proven" that people are born homosexual, but many other things have been so-called "proven" and then proven otherwise.
As said above, genetics is a red herring. Let us assume, for a moment, that homosexuality is entirely a choice; so what? Being a Republican is entirely a choice, being an Atheist is entirely a choice, seeing the new Star Trek movie is entirely a choice. If we allow freedom in what religious, political, or entertainmental beliefs a person might have, why not in sexual practices as well?
To note, at least some forms of homosexuality are genetic (there are, at the least, different genetic variations that can manifest as homosexuality). A recent study, for example, linked male homosexuality to a gene that increases either the fertility or sexual drive in women (their aunts, specifically). And by recent, I mean in the last year. And by last year I mean “I can’t remember yesterday with details, I doubt I can provide any more information on this.”
Religiously, homosexual marriage is wrong.
Actually, I'd argue that, as a Christian, you should be a supporter of homosexual marriage. As a Christian, you should be imitating Jesus, yes?
Do you recall the Sermon on the Mount? If someone strikes you on your right cheek, offer the left. If they force you to go with them one mile, go with them two. And I take from that: if someone tries to "infringe" on what you say sex should be, give them what you say marriage is as well.
Do you recall the disparaging remarks made about Jesus? That he was a friend of "sinners and tax collectors"? Christians should be the friends of homosexuals (regardless of if homosexuality is a sin or not). However, Christian opposition to homosexual marriage has become a barrier to this possibility. And, if you are Christian, and believe that homosexuality is a sin, then you should want these people to be saved? Excessive Christian opposition to homosexual marriage (and indeed, homosexuals in general) forms a barrier to the very potential. If a homosexual hears "God hates fags" from the mouth of a "Christian," why should they listen to anything else they have to say? Christians, then, are a barrier to homosexuals accepting Christian beliefs.
Christians should be the best friends homosexuals have; that we aren't is a sin (poetically speaking).
