Johnny, Whaddya Make Out of This? Seven Principles of Government in the Delcaration of Independence Part 1

Over 300 million Americans are in peril because we as a country aren’t quite sure what to make out of the supreme law of the land. Some say it’s important to protect women’s rights while others say it’s important to save the life of the unborn. Some say it’s important to the poor with entitlements while others say it’s important to help the poor with opportunity. And here’s the kick in the pants: both sides use the Constitution to bolster their case. So who’s right? Conservatives? Liberals? Both? None of the above? Or perhaps the Constitution itself is suffering from schizophrenia…

Well, believe it or not, there is a way to properly interpret the Constitution. I welcome you read my Facebook Note on this this. Hope you enjoy.

The Reasons Against Same-Sex Marriage (and for Traditional Marriage)

[This blog was originally part of my Facebook Notes when California’s Proposition 8 (the state constituional amendment affirming marriage as between a man and a woman) was being debated. I’ve updated it since then]

Why don’t you just let gays live in peace? They’re not bothering you. What’s done in the privacy of their own home isn’t any of your business.

That’s the essence of an argument I heard last night on TV. And although I’ve heard the argument before, I thought to myself, “How would I respond to that? After all, it’s not as if gays are pounding on my door personally demanding of me they have their rights.”

And this is only one of several arguments seeking to justify gay marriage. Because I’m slow on the uptake, I’ve realized that this issue will not go away, therefore I figured that it’d be important to better understand the reasons why gay marriage is not good for society.

And here is where I need to stop and make my disclaimer–

While I do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle, I also understand that gays have the right to freely live as they choose under the Constitution. They’re not second class citizens; they’re not horrible monsters. I know some (many?) will read this and automatically see me as a bigoted, backwards, religious homophobe wanting to squash the rights of others and impose my imbecilic religion on them.

None of that is true.

For those of you who disagree with my position, I hope that you’ll at least read the information below; whether it gives you pause to think about the opposing perspective for at least a little bit, that’s up to you. Hopefully, this can begin honest and respectful dialogue.

For those of you who agree with my position, I hope this information will provide good solid reasons why remaining firm on our government affirming only the traditional institution of marriage is beneficial for our society. We can’t just spew Bible verses; we need to intelligently and respectfully engage our friends and neighbors with sound answers.

Below are links to websites that provide clear and cogent answers to the same-sex marriage debate:

1. The Redefinition of Marriage: An Exercise in Moral and Cultural Suicide
   This is the foundation of the reason why gay marriage ought not be sanctioned by the state. Aside from all the evidence and reasons provided by the articles below, they all ultimately stem from the understanding of “right and wrong” founded on Judeo-Christian principles. But Judeo-Christian values aren’t simply wild, ecstatic, religious utterances that have no basis in reality. If there is a God, and if He made everything (including reason), then certainly reason ought to support what God has allowed and what He has prohibited.
   For those of you, however, who don’t like God, I encourage you to examine the links below.
   a
2. Top Ten Gay Marriage False Facts Part 1
   Top Ten Gay Marriage False Facts Part 2
   Judge Walker’s Prop 8 ruling was based on 80 “findings of fact” used as evidence to overrule Prop 8.  Frank Turek addresses the top 10 findings
   a
3. Gay Marriage Myths and Truth
   While Frank Turek addresses the ruling itself, Michael Medved looks at the more “popular” arguments for gay marriage and explains the fallacies of each.
   a
4. Judge Walker’s Clinic in the Power of Words to Deceive
   a
5. Marriage and the Constitution
   Do gays have the right to marry? Are they demanding a new right? Or are these the wrong questions being asked? Ken Blackwell and David Limbaugh assert that the first two questions are not the point of the gay marriage controversy and then they address the real question.
   a
6. How Does Gay Marriage Affect Me? and How Does Homosexual Marriage Affect Me Personally?
   I was asked this question recently and I believe the above sites offer a brief, but compelling argument demonstrating how gay marriage can have a negative impact on society.
   a
7. Engaging the Same-Sex Marriage Debate
   Here is a video presentation given by Greg Koukl that gives information on this subject from both a biblical and a cultural/secular perspective. You won’t see any Bible thumping or sweaty preachers here — just good information regarding the same-sex marriage debate.
   a
8. False Equation: Opposing Same-Sex Marriage and Opposing Interracial Marriage
   Is opposing same-sex marriage the same as opposing interracial marriage? Not at all. Here’s why.

Again, to those of you who are like-minded, take heart: there are good reasons to stand for traditional marriage. To my friends on the other side of the issue, I encourage you to read an article or two and please let me know why these arguments (or an argument in particular) is invalid.

And one last point (it will be even more politically incorrect, so please avert your eyes if you must): Homosexuality, according to the Bible, is a sin; as is pre-marital sex, adultery, beastiality, incest, rape, orgies, and all other sexual relationships outside of the biblical context of marriage. Yet the same Bible also says that an authentic (not religious) restored relationship with the Almighty God is possible through simple, committed faith in His Son, Jesus. That sounds bigoted. That sounds intolerant. That sounds homophobic. Well, I’d agree with you if there was evidence within the scriptures supporting the bigoted/intolerant/homophobic positions.

You see, I really do believe there is a God as He’s revealed Himself through the Bible. Because of that, all of us (His creation) are obligated to follow His design for our lives. Of course, if “God” is simply a figment of my hopeful, but misguided, imagination, or if He is grossly misrepresented in the Bible, then I need to be corrected.

But if I’m right…

The Non-Biblical Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage

[This post was updated on June 29, 2015, shortly after the Supreme Court ruled that same sex marriage was constitutional.]

While we know there are biblical reasons the Supreme Court shouldn’t have recognized same sex marriage, are there any non-biblical reasons?

Yep, there are.

And once again, I want to make it abundantly clear that the points I present aren’t meant to demean gays or even outlaw the homosexual lifestyle. We’re all Americans and I hope we all can not only peacefully and respectfully dialogue on this matter, but live together with good will toward one another in spite of our differences. That’s my heart as I write this.

Here’re the Quick Points to consider if you don’t have the time to read the entire blog:

• We only want what’s fair: Actually, some heterosexuals are not treated “fairly,” being prohibited by the state to get married. Some marriage relationships (e.g., parent-child, sibling-sibling, adult-child, polygamy, etc.) are discriminated against by the state, regardless of whether the people who want to be married love each other.
• We’re being discriminated: if there are entitlement and benefit distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual couples that legitimately need to be resolved, is legalizing same-sex marriage the only way of doing so?
• We have a constitutional right to be married: The constitutional foundation for same sex marriage is based on the 14th amendment. The problem is, the 14th amendment wasn’t intended to support gay marriage.
• What is marriage? Marriage is a biologically natural, long term pairing between a man and a woman that is protected, privileged and celebrated by culture because of the unique and vital role it plays in civilization (note the lack of any reference to a government sanction or affirmation of marriage)
• Objections to what is marriage:
  Who says the above definition is the right one?  If we allow marriage to be defined according to people’s preferences, it loses all definition – marriage becomes meaningless (i.e., without meaning, definition, or description).
  Marriage Has Always Been Changing While it’s true there are variations on the marriage theme (age of consent, number of spouses, marrying for love/marrying out of contract, etc.), that doesn’t mean the theme itself is invalid. All of these variations still hold true to the description of a biologically natural, long term pairing of a man and a woman (not a man and a man).
  We Can Make Marriage However We Want  A society can’t redefine marriage because it’s inherently defined — societies are essentially groups of families, and families are formed through procreation, and procreation comes about through men and women getting married and having children.
  What’s the Harm in Redefining Marriage? Personal freedom and beliefs are being eroded in the following areas:
  1) personal liberty; 2) parental rights; 3) religious freedom; 4) protection from government coercion; 5) political/legal representation, and; 6) social morality

With that said– (this’ll be lengthy, so thank you for your careful and honest attention)

We Only Want What’s Fair

One argument given by same-sex marriage proponents is that gay couples only want what’s fair; they only want what heterosexual couples already have. This is a compelling argument. Who here in America doesn’t want what’s fair for his fellow Americans?

But the fact is, not all heterosexuals have the right to get married (yet?). For example, the state forbids adult siblings from getting married, or parents and their adult children, or polygamists. Is it fair that these individuals be barred from getting married, regardless how much they love each other? (Actually, I kinda shudder as I ask this question; I think the time is coming soon when the “incestgamists” and polygamists will want their day in court, too — and win.)

We’re Being Discriminated Against By Not Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage

Another argument given is that same-sex couples are discriminated against because they don’t receive the same entitlements as straight couples.

On this I agree that same-sex couples do not receive all the entitlements/benefits as straight couples. I concede that point. However, whatever entitlement and benefit discrepancies that need to be resolved between heterosexual and homosexual couples, I would ask, is legalizing same-sex marriage the only way of doing so?

We Have a Constitutional Right to be Married

My thanks to Dr. Frank Turek who addresses the constitutionality of same sex marriage in his article. Here are two of his main points:

• Intent – The purpose of the 14th Amendment was 1) to give citizenship and rights to the newly freed slaves; 2) provide for full representation of former slaves; 3) prevent states from discriminating against them; 4) prevent former Confederates from holding civil or military office, and; 5) validate and honor the Union war debt but not Confederate war debt. Not one of the five sections of the 14th Amendment was intended to address same sex marriage.
• The Constitution is silent on marriage – Actually, it’s not silent. This is what it says: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (the 10th Amendment). Quite simply, the Constitution gave the federal government limited and enumerated powers. All other government powers (including laws regarding marriage) belonged to the states and the people.
  To quote Turek, “While the Supreme Court did overturn Virginia’s ban on inter-racial marriage, it did so because Virginia discriminated on the basis of race, which is precisely what the 14^th Amendment was intended to prevent. There is no rational reason to discriminate on the basis of race because race is irrelevant to marriage. However, gender is essential to it. Even the 2013 Windsor decision, which partially struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, recognized that marriage is a state, not a federal issue. Since there is no 14^th Amendment issue here, the Court must leave marriage to the states.” Obviously, it didn’t.
  For additional commentary on the Constitution and same sex marriage, I recommend Herbert Titus and William Olson’s article “Why the 14th Amendment is no Mandate for Same-Sex Marriage.”

What Is Marriage?

These and other arguments, however, don’t answer the fundamental question: what is marriage? To answer that from a “non-biblical” perspective, I submit the following:

Marriage is a natural, long term pairing between a man and a woman that is protected, privileged and celebrated by culture because of the unique and vital role it plays in civilization (note the lack of any reference to a government sanction or affirmation of marriage)

As a rule, as a group, and by nature, marriage produces the next generation of a society – that’s why cultures, communities, and governments have actively supported this pairing more than any other social pairing. It’s because it’s a natural institution that it cannot be redefined; thus, the whole argument about redefining marriage really is a moot point.

Objections to What Is Marriage

1. Who Said You’re Right!? You might argue, “Just because you say that’s the definition doesn’t make it so.”

I agree, and let’s run with that argument for a bit – if the definition I presented isn’t the most accurate definition of marriage, what is?  Is it your definition? Is it based on majority rule? This line of argument leads to the inevitable conclusion that marriage can be defined and redefined any number of ways – which leads to the problem that once to you define marriage according to people’s preferences, it loses all definition – marriage becomes meaningless (i.e., without meaning, definition, or description). So now that same-sex relationships are legal, why shouldn’t we legalize multiple-partner relationships? Or close relative relationships? Or adult-child relationships? Or human-animal relationships? (I know some of you are going to go absolutely bananas over my last two hypotheticals…) Marriage must mean something specific. However, if there is a better definition than the one provided, I’d love to hear it.

2. Marriage Has Always Been Changing “Wait a minute! Marriage has forever been redefined. How can you say there’s only one definition for marriage?”

You’re right that there are variations on the marriage theme (age of consent, number of spouses, marrying for love/marrying out of contract, etc.), but that doesn’t mean the theme itself is invalid. All of these variations still hold true to the description of a natural, long term pairing of a man and a woman (not a man and a man).

3. We Make Marriage However We Want Some argue that marriage is a social construction – that is, marriage is made by society. Therefore, if it’s made by a society, it can also be changed by a society.  While  this seems to make sense, there’s a logical problem with this line of reasoning. The problem is before we can create a social construction, we have to have a society, and societies come about when people procreate; procreation requires men and women, and it’s the union of men and women that constitute marriages. So before you can get a society to construct anything, you first need men and women to get married and make the families that are the foundation of societies.

Now this doesn’t mean that childless couples aren’t married, please don’t misunderstand the point. The exception (couples that cannot procreate) doesn’t disqualify the rule (couples who procreate). As I wrote earlier: as a rule, as a group, and by nature, marriage produces the next generation of a society.

4. So What? What’s the harm? With same-sex marriage legalized, how is that going to hurt me? I see six areas where personal freedom and beliefs are being eroded:

• Eroding personal liberty – The internet dating site eHarmony (a privately-owned business) was sued because it didn’t allow gays to utilize their primary site (even though a secondary site was provided)
  –A Christian photographer was sued when he refused to photograph a gay couple’s wedding
  –A restaurant owner was sued for backing out of a gay wedding
  —Innkeepers were sued for refusing to host a wedding reception
• Eroding parental rights – David Parker did not want his 5-year-old son to be exposed to same-sex family education at school; this became a full-blown legal battle (see also: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165253,00.html)
• Eroding religious freedom – Because Illinois (and other states) have mandated that the Catholic Church allow adoptions to same-sex couples, the church has pulled out of adoption services in those states
• Eroding protection from government coercion  – Chicago Mayor Rahm Emmanuel blasted Chick-Fil-A for their support of traditional marriage and opposition to same-sex marriage; additionally, a Chicago alderman said he would oppose Chick-Fil-A’s plan to expand in Chicago
• Eroding political/legal representation – When the government affirms gay marriage, it’s affirming something I completely disagree with, thus eroding my political and legal representation. Now obviously SSM proponents will argue that because the government doesn’t affirm gay marriage, the government is eroding their political/legal representation. That’s true. However, my point here isn’t whose position ought to be affirmed by the government, but the fact that gay marriage affects me personally by affecting my representation.
• Eroding social morality – Maybe the biggest response I can give to the “so what?” question is that government affirmation of SSM erodes our social morals. Now I understand those who disagree with me would argue on the contrary; in fact, they’ll say this will strengthen our social morality because it’s promoting truer equality. I can understand where they’re coming from, but my point right now isn’t to defend my position, but simply to lay out the fact that I really do, in my heart of hearts, have this belief.
  So with SSM now officially sanctioned by the Supreme Court here, quite honestly, is how I’ve been affected:
  — I felt defeated and frustrated
  — I feel grief over the wrong direction I believe this country is taking
  — I’m even more concerned about the kind of world my children will live in
  — I’ve spent more time on Facebook discussing this issue
  — I’ve turned even more to the Bible for consolation and encouragement
  I can hear some responding, “Really, Chris? Is that all you got? That’s just a bunch of emotionalism!” Well, I have to admit, in a way, you’re right. Same sex marriage hasn’t given me shingles or made me homeless or made my food taste bland. There’s nothing I can point to physically to show the negative effects of SSM on me. But if you’ll indulge me, may I ask: how would you feel if you believed the government affirmed something you thought was morally wrong? This is, what I believe, the reason why both sides are hootin’ n’ hollerin’ so much:  one side sees this as justice realized and the other sees this as state-sanctioned immorality.
  This leads to the ultimate question regarding this issue: whose morality ought we as a society follow?

Conclusion

Not a single Bible verse was referenced, not a single mention of Jesus was pronounced (except for now), not a single word of condemnation was heaped on the homosexual lifestyle. And no, this blog isn’t advocating that those supporting same-sex marriage ought to locked up or kicked out of the country or harassed or demeaned. Not at all!

It does mean there are good reasons (apart from the Bible) to support traditional marriage as the only type of marriage affirmed and acknowledged by the state. Can gays go to a church or other center of faith and get “married”?  Sure, if they want to do that, they already have the freedom to do so.

But must it be a matter of state affirmation?

[Much of the above comes from Greg Koukl’s presentation “Engaging the Same-Sex Marriage Debate“]

Non-Biblical Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage: A Response

January 7, 2013

As a result of my post, The Non-Biblical Arguments Against Same-Sex Marriage, my friend Zach presented some honest and thought-provoking questions on my Facebook page. I thought I’d reprint his post along with my answers to his questions. Please read my original post if you haven’t already so you understand what Zach is asking.
And again, thank you, Zach – you’ve really helped me think this issue through…

Here’s my input; I’d like to know what you think of my critique and what your responses would be (apologies for the length):

1. I think your first argument is… trivial, for lack of a better term. It’s irrelevant as far as I see it. Or maybe it’s just really, really obvious. When legislation is crafted, I guess the writers will have to be extra precise in making sure straight men can marry straight men, straight men can marry gay men, straight men can marry straight women, straight men can marry gay women, gay men can marry straight men, gay men can marry gay men, and gay men can marry straight women, gay men can marry gay women. I don’t think that changed anything in the debate. If I’m not understanding correctly, please let me know.

Well, Zach, you say my first argument doesn’t change anything in the debate; I guess my question then would be: do you see a constitutional right for same-sex marriage? If it’s there, I’d be glad to be directed to it, but if it’s not in the Constitution, then can gays legitimately say their constitutional rights are being infringed? If this is a trivial argument, then perhaps those supporting same-sex marriage ought to stop saying their constitutional rights are being denied. So sure, I’ll stop bringing up this trivial point as soon as they do… 🙂

2. Your “love argument” seems to be a red herring. The argument also assumes that everybody obviously thinks that your other examples are immoral (or, at least, shouldn’t be recognized by government). These generalizations simply shouldn’t be made.

Sorry, I’m not following you on this one. Can you clarify, please?

3. Can you really compare LOVE and MARRIAGE to restrooms? Really? An analogy is only as strong as it is similar… and I don’t see the similarity. Also, the question “Is legalizing same-sex marriage the only way of doing so?” gets off topic and completely disregards the questions that matter.

I agree, comparing love and marriage to restrooms is a poor analogy.
But that’s not what I was comparing.
Actually, I’m comparing appropriate or fair distinctions (discrimination, if you will) to restrooms. My point in this is that distinctions/discriminations aren’t inherently wrong. In the same way, making a distinction between heterosexual and homosexual marriage doesn’t automatically mean that the distinction is wrong. As I said, “[…]if there are entitlement and benefit distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual couples that legitimately need to be resolved [(i.e., hospital visitation, inheritance laws, etc.)], is legalizing same-sex marriage the only way of doing so?”

4. Is it really MARRIAGE that produces the next generation? I thought it was sex and pregnancy. That obviously doesn’t require marriage (although I would agree that it functions better under marriage… different argument). I think what’s NATURAL is attraction, love, etcetera. Marriage is just the word we use to identify the long-term commitment (or at least the promise of it) between two people—two heterosexuals, specifically.

Agreed, reproduction functions better under marriage.

You wrote, “Marriage is just the word we use to identify the long-term commitment (or at least the promise of it) between two people—two heterosexuals, specifically.” But, if “marriage” is just a word, why do same-sex marriage proponents want to use the same word? Why not use the word “union” or “commitment” or “breakfast cereal”? They’re just words, after all. If the concern you raise is that of semantics, perhaps it would be better to suggest another, less controversial word, to the proponents of SSM.

And while we’re on the subject of semantics, please indulge me as I also think it’s importatnt to take a quick peek at the word “natural” – I completely agree with you that it is natural to be attracted to another and to feel love (although I don’t believe the foundation of marital love ought to be feeling, but that’s another semantics story for another time…). But isn’t it also natural to lust and hate and plot evil? No, I’m not saying these are attributes solely held by homosexuals; I’m saying that not all that is “natural” is beneficial. Perhaps I should’ve included the word “biologically” in the marriage definition to more clearly get my point across. Thus–

“Marriage is a biologically natural, long term pairing between a man and a woman that is protected, privileged and celebrated by culture because of the unique and vital role it plays in civilization”

Hopefully this clears up any confusion in the marriage definition – it’s the idea that male and female biology and anatomy naturally work in unison not only for sexual pleasure, but for reproduction as well. This is a fact that same-sex relationships simply cannot claim.

4.5. But yes, I agree with you; this whole “what is marriage” thing is moot. Irrelevant, really. That doesn’t change any questions pertaining to ethics and political philosophy.

Hmm…I’m not sure what ethical and political philosophy questions you’re referring to. Help me on this one.

5. If you’ll allow for variations in age-of-consent, number of spouses, and the method by which marriage is contrived, why don’t you allow for variations in orientation?

Actually, I simply acknowledged that there were variations on the definition of marriage; I didn’t necessarily allow or approve of any of them. In addition, to quote myself (how vain of me…), “All of [the above] variations still hold true to the description of a [biologically] natural, long term pairing of a man and a woman (not a man and a man).”

6. “Successful reproduction requires stable families.” What is your definition of “stable?” If we’re using what most people think “stable” is, then I know plenty of successful reproductions that didn’t come from stable families. Your statement simply isn’t true, if I am understanding your proposition correctly.

Actually, Zach, the point of my statement is to demonstrate the logical fallacy of social construction.  One argument SSM proponents offer is that “marriage” is a social construct, so we can change it however we’d like. But that simply isn’t true because, “before you can get a society to construct anything, you first have to have marriages [cf. the “marriage definition” given above] that make families [through reproduction] that are the foundation of societies.”

So to say society can construct what it means to be married misses the bigger point: society is constructed through the institution of marriage between a man and woman. Marriage came first, not society, so then how can society then “construct” marriage?

On the subject of what “stable” means, I think we can all come up with various definitions. In addition, we can come up with multiple examples of what a “family” is, but I’m not so sure we can fudge as much with the idea of what reproduction is. Reproduction requires a man and a woman. It is impossible between same-sex couples. Even in vitro, sperm injection, surrogacy, etc. all require a man and a woman to provide the needed material for conception – and ultimately the continuation of society.

Again, the whole point of here is that society cannot legitimately construct what marriage is because marriage, via reproduction, is what constructs society.

7. You raise the dichotomy of married couples who CANNOT reproduce and married couples who CAN reproduce. What about the couples that CAN but DON’T/WON’T?

Ooops! If I’m not mistaken, this sounds like a red herring, my friend. The rebuttal that those who can reproduce but don’t/won’t doesn’t affect the argument I presented. Remember, exceptions don’t nullify the rule.

8. In response to “Eroding Personal Liberty.” These cases were debatably wrong, yes, but they aren’t relevant to legalizing homosexual marriage. These cases [no matter how illegitimate, etcetera] were brought up by people who just happened to be homosexual, and they were concerning homosexual topics. Whether or not homosexual marriage is legal won’t change these things.

On this I agree with you, Zach. The examples I presented weren’t about SSM, per se. So with this in mind, may I offer the following websites that address this issue:

How Does Homosexual Marriage Affect Me Personally?
How Does Gay Marriage Affect Me?

Disclaimer — I admit both websites offer little in terms of how SSM will personally affect an individual.  However, there is information on these sites I think is worth considering: primarily the idea that even if something doesn’t personally affect me, does it mean I should ignore it or allow it?

In addition, I think all of us want our government to uphold the moral convictions we have through the laws it passes. Thus when the government follows my moral convictions, I personally feel more confident about the direction our country is heading; likewise, when the government doesn’t follow my moral convictions, I personally feel more concerned about the direction our country is heading. I think this is true for all of us — whether we’re on the left or the right, whether we’re religious or non-religious, whether we’re gay or straight. I think also this is no small point. If it were, I don’t think we’d be having this conversation.

9. “Eroding parental rights.” Is it my parental right to not want my child to be exposed to evolution? How about Creationism? Certain economic theories? Political philosophy? For you to say that homosexuals are eroding specifically David Parker’s parental rights (or any parental rights) is nothing short of demonizing homosexuals.

Yes, Zach, you do have the right not to want your child to be exposed to evolution or creationism or certain economic theories or political philosophies. You (not the church or the state or Sesame Street) are ultimately responsible for the education of your children.

But that doesn’t mean you would be demonizing evolution or creationism or anything else if you choose to keep your child from certain topics. So why is it that when Mr. Parker or myself don’t want our children being taught homosexually themed material, you say we’re demonizing gays? Being a libertarian yourself, I would imagine you’d support my right to have my children educated as I see fit. Does my right to regulate what my child is taught hurt anyone?

10. “Eroding religious freedom” & “Protection…” This also has nothing to do with marriage. It’s more fit for the question, “What is the role and power of government?”

Hmm… I thought that was what we were talking about, namely: What is the role and power of government…when it comes to same-sex marriage?

11. “If any of us simply turn a blind eye to constitutional rights being taken away from others, we risk those rights being taken away from us as well.” Isn’t that exactly what we’re doing with homosexuals? In a few decades, I hope someone continues the quote to say “Then the came for the homosexuals, but I did not speak out— / Because I was not a homosexual.” I suppose you’re just going to say that homosexual couples aren’t being denied rights…

The fact is, homosexual couples aren’t being denied– oh, you already said it for me 🙂

Finally, 12. “Must it be a matter of state affirmation?” As long as heterosexuality is, then homosexuality should be. We can’t just ignore homosexuals like that. As my wife, Ayn Rand, once said, “You can avoid reality, but you can’t avoid the consequences of avoiding reality.”

You made the statement, “As long as heterosexuality is [affirmed by the state], then homosexuality should be [as well]. We can’t just ignore homosexuals like that.”

While I certainly appreciate the inherent compassion and sense of justice laden within your statement, I must admit I fail to see any logical reasons supporting this position.

As is obvious, I’ve provided multiple reasons why SSM ought not be legalized; however, are there other SSM arguments I’ve not addressed that that you know of that make a more powerful argument for SSM?

Again, sorry for the length. I probably rambled in the latter half, because I’m tired and watching t.v. Thanks!

Don’t worry, Zach. Again, I truly appreciate your time in thoughtfully and respectfully addressing the issue. You’ve given me a couple of points I needed to clarify and for that I’m grateful. I hope my response has been equally respectful and enlightening. Take care, my friend.