SCOTUS Justices Can’t Find Science On Same-Sex Marriage

It is not possible for two people of the same sex to procreate.

Popular Science is morphing into "Popular Stupidity".

"This information has been available -- Is the problem that some members of the Court just don’t want to hear it?'

So WHEN was this information presented to the justices in supreme court? How can you claim that they don't want to hear it, if this was not presented to them in the arena that they conduct their business?

And Justice Samuel Alito was obviously commenting in the context of America and recent legal and social changes in our recent lifetime. How the ancient greeks were fornicating is completely irrelevant to American law in the year 2013.

Science to disprove a negative.... 'confirm the harmlessness of same-sex marriage to children.'

Where is the evidence that demonstrates that same-sex marriage is harmful to children?

Wouldn't the proper tack be to gather evidence that demonstrates harm to children due to having a homosexual couple as parents?

Does science work by assuming - then seek to disprove a negative, i.e., something that has no evidence to support it even exists?

Does science work by assuming something for which there is no evidence exists, actually exists, then seeking to prove that it doesn't exist?

If anyone finds my marbles, please kindly return them....

"It is not possible for two people of the same sex to procreate." It's not possible for a single person to procreate either, yet somehow a single person can still be come a single parent. It's also not possible for two people to give birth to someone who isn't their child, yet somehow couples end up parenting children who are not genetically their own. I call it "miracles", personally, since that's the only rational explanation.

Information about homosexual parenting has been around for a VERY long time. It's not a new issue, it's only new to those who have ignored it for the past couple decades. And if other cultures, including the Greeks whom we get much of our system from, accepted homosexual relationships, then it is true that this has been around since before Jesus.

There seem to be a lot of reasons to not provide marriage equality. The problem is that none of the reasons make any logical sense.

"So WHEN was this information presented to the justices in supreme court? How can you claim that they don't want to hear it, if this was not presented to them in the arena that they conduct their business?" - Mister Thomas

In response I would say that you would think the Judges might do some research into the matter prior to hearing the case. no lawyer wants to walk into the highest court and start correcting the Judges. The Judges also spend a much of their time doing research, so it is a valid point to ask how could they have missed this research.

@bobbyg

Is procreation the sole purpose of marriage? What if I am sterile, does that mean I cannot marry?

As far as the government is concerned, marriage is a contract between two adults. It has no business checking the disposition of ones sex organs.

If your religion decides to associate certain constraints on their concept of marriage, that is fine. A church can decide who they will and will not marry. You can decide for yourself who you will or will not marry. But you have no right to force others to conform to your religious beliefs.

@shutterpod: science works by asking a question and gathering evidence both for and against an assumed answer to said question. The question was "does same sex parenting negatively effect the development of a child?" The Hypothesis of many in opposition to same sex marriage is "yes" thus the research is presented in the context of contradicting the presented hypothesis.
Often in science the theory of somethings existence comes long before the evidence of it. Imagination is what drives us to question and learn, wondering over the possibilities. It also helps us to fear change, and question the dangers of things. We must always be willing to except when the evidence does not support our preconceived hypothesis though.
In this case it is time for equality to win out again. I don't assume that the judges should have read this or are ignoring it but I don't think it will be of much concern. I will be surprised if equal marriage doesn't win this one.

andrewslater,
I find your first paragraph reasonable; it is arguments like this that has to a great degree changed my attitude to laws like Proposition 8. This is in contrast to the above Op-Ed (Seriously PopSci, an Op-Ed????!!!!), which in tone seems to say, "Either agree with me or be stupid." That attitude like that in your second and third paragraphs encourages animosity and obstructs dialogue.

In my reading of The Symposium, there is a great amount of defense for homosexuality especially in the mentor-protege relationship. In my understanding of the ancient Greeks, homosexual relationships were more ignored than accepted. Speaking of The Symposium, why would there be a need for defense if there was acceptance? To help enlighten me, though, I would like to know where you found the data on parenting you say has been around for such a long time; I have not been ignoring it, I just haven't seen it.

I do not like the term "marriage equality." It implies that two marriages can be the same. I am for equal rights and equal protection under the law. I also believe that marriage is a religious matter, and that as the government is concerned, we should all have domestic partnerships - with the provisions necessary for establishing dependancy between the adults and of any potential minors.

As a question for logic, though, should a person pay for something in which that person does not believe?

I have no problems with same sex marriage and I have friends who are homosexuals. But I am ashamed to admit that I gagged the first time I saw two men kissing. If there are more people like me, I think some f us are biologically predisposed on having a negative response to it. Yet that doesn't happen when I see two women kissing. I always thought that was weird.

I

Hear the sledges with the bells -
Silver bells!
What a world of merriment their melody foretells!
How they tinkle, tinkle, tinkle,
In the icy air of night!
While the stars that oversprinkle
All the heavens seem to twinkle
With a crystalline delight;
Keeping time, time, time,
In a sort of Runic rhyme,
To the tintinnabulation that so musically wells
From the bells, bells, bells, bells,
Bells, bells, bells -
From the jingling and the tinkling of the bells.

II

Hear the mellow wedding bells -
Golden bells!
What a world of happiness their harmony foretells!
Through the balmy air of night
How they ring out their delight!
From the molten-golden notes,
And all in tune,
What a liquid ditty floats
To the turtle-dove that listens, while she gloats
On the moon!
Oh, from out the sounding cells
What a gush of euphony voluminously wells!
How it swells!
How it dwells
On the Future! -how it tells
Of the rapture that impels
To the swinging and the ringing
Of the bells, bells, bells,
Of the bells, bells, bells, bells,
Bells, bells, bells -
To the rhyming and the chiming of the bells!

III

Hear the loud alarum bells -
Brazen bells!
What a tale of terror, now, their turbulency tells!
In the startled ear of night
How they scream out their affright!
Too much horrified to speak,
They can only shriek, shriek,
Out of tune,
In a clamorous appealing to the mercy of the fire,
In a mad expostulation with the deaf and frantic fire,
Leaping higher, higher, higher,
With a desperate desire,
And a resolute endeavor
Now -now to sit or never,
By the side of the pale-faced moon.
Oh, the bells, bells, bells!
What a tale their terror tells
Of despair!
How they clang, and clash, and roar!
What a horror they outpour
On the bosom of the palpitating air!
Yet the ear it fully knows,
By the twanging
And the clanging,
How the danger ebbs and flows;
Yet the ear distinctly tells,
In the jangling
And the wrangling,
How the danger sinks and swells,
By the sinking or the swelling in the anger of the bells -
Of the bells,
Of the bells, bells, bells, bells,
Bells, bells, bells -
In the clamor and the clangor of the bells!

IV

Hear the tolling of the bells -
Iron bells!
What a world of solemn thought their monody compels!
In the silence of the night,
How we shiver with affright
At the melancholy menace of their tone!
For every sound that floats
From the rust within their throats
Is a groan.
And the people -ah, the people -
They that dwell up in the steeple,
All alone,
And who tolling, tolling, tolling,
In that muffled monotone,
Feel a glory in so rolling
On the human heart a stone -
They are neither man nor woman -
They are neither brute nor human -
They are Ghouls:
And their king it is who tolls;
And he rolls, rolls, rolls,
Rolls
A paean from the bells!
And his merry bosom swells
With the paean of the bells!
And he dances, and he yells;
Keeping time, time, time,
In a sort of Runic rhyme,
To the paean of the bells,
Of the bells -
Keeping time, time, time,
In a sort of Runic rhyme,
To the throbbing of the bells,
Of the bells, bells, bells -
To the sobbing of the bells;
Keeping time, time, time,
As he knells, knells, knells,
In a happy Runic rhyme,
To the rolling of the bells,
Of the bells, bells, bells -
To the tolling of the bells,
Of the bells, bells, bells, bells,
Bells, bells, bells -
To the moaning and the groaning of the bells.

Mark 10:6-9
"But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination. . . . If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them" (Lev. 18:22, 20:13)

hello_85

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

- First Amendment to the US Constitution.

Really? So two "supposed" educated men showed an extreme ignorance of how science works! In science you prove a positive, such as same sex couples DO do harm to children.(turns out it does not) but Saying you must consider that same sex couples harm children is valid because you can not prove it does not is the pure idiocy.

"One Nation Under God" If you don't like it, find another "Nation"

Our currency says "In God We Trust" for goodness sake.

I value the laws of God more than the "human" and often misinterpreted laws of man. The Constitution is allowed to be "amended" purely because of its inherent imperfections. God, on the other hand is perfect.

If my "religion" says it is OK to murder, and I murder, I should still be thrown in jail. Why? Because in this sense, man's laws and God's laws agree, as should all laws.

@hello_85 who's god? Not everyone's religion has the same tenets (As you are pointing out for me, thank you). That's why our government was setup not to cater to any one religion and it's very first amendment states explicitly that it cannot make any laws based on religion. My religion has no problem with gay marriage. Why should we be forced to follow the rules of your religion? Because you say so? That doesn't work very well in the long run does it.

My religion says to kill, can I kill?

By The Way: Our president sure as heck IS NOT GOD!

To Clarify: An "amendment" occurs after not during. Therefore, the Government WAS created with the intent of incorporating religion into its structure. Hence, many of the founders were Christian. The terms "One Nation Under God" and "In God We Trust" didn't create themselves...

So the argument now is, "well the Greeks did it!"? ROFL XD and look how far it got them! I didn't know Ancient Greece was to be our role model, maybe we should start throwing undesired children over cliffs next? Then we can go to the Oracle and ask her what to do next.

Actually homosexual acts in both Rome and Greece (as I understand it) were predominantly between men and one was the slave or otherwise subject to the other. It was a bloody act of dominance, lions do the same thing. The English word pederasty comes from the Greek practice between a man and a teenage male, the significance of which in Greek society is still debated. Furthermore, Athens at least didn't have rules governing consent or age in sexual relationships. Should we adopt that practice as well? The Greeks were pagan, whereas most Americans are Christian. Do I need to list more examples of why this is such a poor comparison?

As to the rest of the article, considering the fact that politics (and gay protesters) was the only reason homosexuality got taken out of the book as a mental disorder I find it hard to put any stock in the supposed 'science" behind LGBT parenting. Previous to '73 people were being successfully treated for the disorder, now they think they deserve special rights and some people are actually listening to them.

@Hello_85 Don't quote the old Law, which was directed at the Israelite tribes over 2,000 years ago. The new Law (testament) has a similar rule that actually applies to us, quote that instead if you want to make an argument.

Whether you believe Jesus was God or not is irrelevant to the fact that He is considered one of the greatest teachers in human history if not the greatest. He founded a Church the principles of which guided Europe and it's colonies for thousands of years, world history would not be the same was He not born. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph are what a family is supposed to look like according to Jesus. A mother, father, and child (or children) each with their own responsibilities within the family. Are we just going to say Jesus was wrong on this one? Even the Romans and the Greeks understood that homosexual relationships could not lend to procreation - the responsibility of which does not end after a women gives birth but continues as the child is raised.

Of course there is going to be a difference in the child's development if they are not raised in a traditional family structure - be it a single parent or gay parents. The idea that it doesn't take a mother AND father to raise a child properly is - i think- rooted in the same mentality as the idea that women can do anything men can do and vice versa. As soon as you fail to acknowledge the difference in responsibilities between a man and a woman you expose the entire foundation to corrosion. There is no good way or right way to flip a house on its head - things are going to break.

The American Academy of Pediatrics didn't even do a study. They just amalgamated their favorite ones into policy statement. That's not science; that's cherry-picking.

I'm also somewhat confused as to whether I'm on popsci.com/science or huffingtonpost.com/politics

Haha. There goes the Slinky of perversion jarring us down the stairs again. The capacity to justify filthy behavior never ceases to amaze. "The King has no clothes", no matter how you spin it. Sorry to say but sodomy cloaked as a noble cause is still sodomy.
Reality check, Your great-grandparents would shake their heads at you... "You're tell me a guy can get free health care from a roommate if he has anal sex with him?" I doubt JFK or MLK would have been amused either.

Prediction:
As our "right & wrong" generation dies off and more & more publicly taught kids grow up, bestiality rights will be the next big cause. This is inevitable since there will be no moral authority or voice arguing against it.
In the next 10 years, Beastie Rights Groups should be represented in the Democratic Party. I can hear the rally chants now... "Free Health-Care and Treats! When Do We Want It, Now!" :)

You are right. And the first ten amendments (including the first which precludes laws based on religion) were passed by the first congress made up primarily of the same people who wrote the constitution. The constitution itself was setup as framework delineating the various parts of and functions of the branches of government. Placing those amendments in the constitution would have gone against the way it was being designed. They were created as amendments because that is how they planned it. Separation of church and state was discussed heavily during the creation of the constitution and greatly desired by the majority of founding fathers.

If you want to actually educate yourself on the matter I suggest you do some research.

I'm a Christian who is also very patriotic and agree with the founding fathers notion of freedom of religion. The first amendment is and always will be there to protect religion from government and also prevent government from accepting an official religion of the country.

What is difficult about this discussion is not just whether or not gays should have the "right" to marry or not, because no one has the "right" to marry. Marriage is a union of man and wife under God. Whether society has decided to accept homosexuality as no longer a sin or not doesn't mean every other religion has to. The act of marriage is combine husband and wife into a partnership. Gays already have said partnership whether or not the government gives them permission. I don't condone gay marriage, or recognize it. It's my choice.

The fact that the government gets involved so much should worry heterosexual couples just as much as homosexual partners. Think about it, it's not a right guaranteed by the constitution. So why is it a law? If by chance, could they in years to come ban heterosexual marriage? It's only law now, because my religion felt it was sinful which was the general consensus and probably never expected such a drastic change in moral compass over the years.

Just because we want something to be true doesn't mean it is, or should be. Pedaphiles want child porn to be legal, but it isn't. It isn't because most of America feels it is wrong. But they don't, or they don't want it to be true. I'm sure in time our society will change that as well. My religious morality may differ from other religions but there still has to be a standard to derive laws from.

In time, our country's moral compass will shift as more people want their aberrant lifestyles to be accepted. Just don't ask me to accept it, it's my "right" to disagree with you.

"maybe we should start throwing undesired children over cliffs next?"

It's called "Family Planning," and there are approximately 1.21 million abortions in America each year. That's a lot of babies at the bottom of that cliff. Seems like we are 'winning' at infanticide compared to the ancient greeks. And at the rate we are deficit spending, we'll 'win' the contest to see what country can destroy itself against those pesky greeks as well. Cheers!

@hello_85

"In God We Trust" was first introduced to our currency in 1861, after all the founding fathers were dead and buried. "Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954.

The constitution itself (without its amendments) offers no protections or guarantees to the citizens. Why they were added later, they were my no means an afterthought. The constitution was signed with the understanding that the bill of rights was forthcoming.

This country was founded on secularism, hence the very first sentence in the bill of rights prohibiting the establishment of a state religion. It is not that difficult to understand why considering how many people came to America to escape religious persecution in Europe.

The constitution is a legally binding document. Those other things you mentioned are not. You don't like it, try to repeal the first amendment, and you will find out how few people in this country, my country, believe as you do.

All the people against same-sex marriage are on the wrong side of history and your archaic way of thinking is going the way of the dinosaur. :)

Good riddance!

hello_85,
Your arguments are invalid here. They are statements of YOUR belief; they are opinion. Though, I very likely share opinions with you; the point of the 1st amendment is that you and I cannot FORCE our opinions on others as they cannot FORCE theirs on us - this is in the practical and literal sense. Since we cannot, we also should not (this is a road that leads to despotism).

Also, neither "under God" was not added to the Pledge of Allegiance nor was "In God We Trust" on our money until the '50s when we differentiated ourselves from the Communists.

It is legal to leave estates from the human owner to the human owners pets.

Now we have same sex marriage.

Seems the last step will be marriage of humans and their pets.

I am sure a great many goats and sheep are really becoming nervous, lol.

AirshipGirl,
How is your argument any different than hello_85's? "I'm right, you're stupid" arguments have little place or validity on a grade-school playground, less anywhere else!

-What I meant to say.: "While they were added later, they were by no means an afterthought."

Can we get an edit feature PopSci? Pretty please?

@AnyIcon

"Seems the last step will be marriage of humans and their pets."

That will be a concern the day an animal can enter itself into a legally binding contract.

I think this is a stupid argument,and the government is wasting time and resources on this.Our founding fathers wanted no religion to be held above the others.I understand that close-minded crazed church people want to stop it,but the government.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore

You don't see researchers trying to disprove the 'fact' that Santa Claus exists...

Science is based on observations. Observations are evidence. What evidence is there that homosexual parents harm their children in any way? Only heterosexual parents give birth and raise homosexuals, and that's kind of ha hahahaaa if ya ask me

Surely someone has some evidence....?

Marriage.... I don't understand the people who don't seem to understand the fact that a legal, civil *-marriage license-* is required to be legally married, regardless of whether your marriage is valid before what you believe is God or not. Christian scripture admonishes the faithful to subject themselves to the higher authorities and to obey the laws of the land in which they find themselves. The United States is a secular country based on civil law, not a theocracy based on any kind of scripture.

Your religious beliefs are not a dog in this race, at all. Believe what you wish, behave how you feel you should, but don't fail to recognize the freedoms of others that you would never allow anyone to deny you; freedoms that you're so proud and 'grateful' to others for having fought and died for, freedoms you might even give your own life for were it to come down to it.

You and your life and your ideals are not superior to me or mine in any way such that I should subject my life and my pursuit of happiness to your sense of 'morality'.... how dare any one claim to love our 'Free Country' and with the same breath deny others freedoms you take for granted.

Seldom is there a more disgusting behavior than hypocrisy.

One such type person that I do find equally disgusting is anyone who claims to be a patriotic Christian, as if Christ would support any nation of mankind over any other, as if He is a player of favorites. A Christian is a Christian FIRST and foremost, and cares equally for the welfare of all nations, but participates in the conflicts of none, except in defense, and then only directly against an aggressor. But then again, even Jesus turned the other cheek and allowed himself to be murdered rather than defend himself. Sooo much to think and ramble on about.

Some people are good parents, some people are bad parents, to assume that a person is one or the other based on their sexual orientation is the very definition of bigotry.

I have a hard time believing that the awkwardness of having two mommies or daddies could possibly be any worse than the physical and mental abuse that so many children in the world have to endure. They should feel lucky that they have two loving adults in their life. 20 million children in the US only have one.

Why is this an issue any way? Do they really think that not being able to marry is really keeping gays from living together and raising children?

OK I have one more tidbit I would like to share, and then I will shut up.

A short clip about the scientist and hero Alan Turing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Btqro3544p8

democedes,
I understand your response and actually agree with you, " That will be a concern the day an animal can enter itself into a legally binding contract..." and yet still the law does allow a pet to receive an estate as an inheritance. Now where is the logic in that?! And since this (odd) logic has been establish legally, I am just saying, it leaves open the door for humans and pets to get married.

Really, I do agree with you and that is my point. The pet is able to legally receive an inheritance and with that said, the pet would only need a human proxy to manage the 'human\pet marriage, the same way a pet receives money, via a human proxy to manage its inheritance..

@shutterpod

What are you talking about. Being a patriotic Christian, is just that. You are patriotic, and a Christian. You believe Jesus Christ is the son of God and died for your sins. And you love and are devoted to your country. Makes sense to me. This concept that being devoted to your country somehow means you hate other countries is silly and incorrect.

And yes my religious beliefs mean something to me. Whether you think they are a dog or not in this race means little. My vote which equal to yours, is applied the same. And lets not reference other people's religious beliefs without some knowledge first, it's just a weak argument when you do that. An example is that Christ would not support any nation over another is factually incorrect, the Jews are His chosen people for a reason.

My religion places government in charge as long as it's laws don't supersede God's laws. For the most part they don't. But let's not get this twisted, my God's laws override mans laws. I am married under God's law first and then recognized by man's second. If tomorrow they decide to outlaw heterosexual marriage, that means nothing in my house or my family.

Got it?

You don't have to agree with my morality, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with your either.

@AnyIcon

I do love science but don't believe it has a place in most moral discussions. Do I think scientifically gay couples hurt their children by being gay? Nope... but morally I do think it's confusing and leads them down that path.

I think the day a country loses it's moral backbone is the same day we decay as a stable society. My thoughts.

Just a big scam to get gays more money.

Why not let people marry dogs to get more money.

Maybe 4 way marriages.

The only social benefit to giving benefits to a man and a women is to provide for the next generation. There is no use for gay people to get free stuff.

The 'Jews' are his people.... except that a 'Jew' to Jesus is anyone who accepts him, according to Paul's scripture.... I know a bit about Christendom.

LOLs, the Gentiles are non Jews. And no that is incorrect. God does not consider them the same according to any scripture.

Haha, this is great, its nice to see people actually having a discussion on the topic although a polarized one. Just to through my opinion out there though i think the whole concept of morality and right and wrong are completely man made and can be a hindrance. This is not to say i don't ascribe to a moral code which i guess makes me a bit of a hypocrite but i try and base my actions on logic (i recognize that this could be potentially very dangerous in mass because logic to one is insanity to another) and think of myself as a speciesist i am not a fan of any religion but do not try and stop others from practicing. its their choice. Although i would do away with it all if i could. But this is all a digression. our world is not one where everyone shares my opinion, thank... whoever. it would be a mess i'm sure if they did. the point i'm trying to get at is that regardless of ones beliefs we should all be able to have a simple conversation about the topic without descending into name calling and extremism.

The difference between you and me is, you demand, and work towards, subjugating other people's will and behavior to your own sense of 'morality', while I prefer to let you live your own life how you see fit. Christ never forced anyone, he entreated them and was an example through his own behavior.

Also, break a civi law and you'll pay the civil penalty for it... break a religious one an you won't spend a day in jail. So which one really has more actual authority?

what i should of said is that morality can be a hindrance because it is in a constant state of flux and in this context can have a parachute effect on the dialog... mehhh... more or less what i mean

Gal 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Gal 3:29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

It's a shame those professing faith don't have a little more actual scriptural education than they generally profess.

aaronomics101,
Since your opinion-ing and seem to want a response, here ya go.

Language, words and their definitions is what can upset people the most. Elton John said he is not making a marriage. Marriage is a religious term and this would offend many. He is making partnership and I respect his line of thought. And with that line of thought, I say live and let live. And for my second 2 cents, I am opposing to anything that leads to violence. If couple has a decent calm relationship, live and let live!

True followers of Jesus don't hold any nation as above another, they're all equally beneath God's Kingdom, towards which they work as a team. God's Kingdom is a Christian's 'country'.

Oh, just to clear, I do think it just silly pets can receive an estate\inheritance (the laws that allow it are wrong) and yes I am oppose to human\pet marriages.

What is wrong with people who think a pet can give legal consent and be a party in a legal contract with a human being?

So you folks really equate human beings with animals?

Sorry i also believe i used the term speciesist wrong i meant to convey that i believe in doing whats best for mankind not the subjugation or destruction of other species. my bad

Wow, shutterpod. You don't understand religion at all. It's not just a philosophy to people who believe it. It's real and for many of us, more real than the law of man. In Christianity, we don't believe the act of breaking God's laws have to have a sudden and direct correlation to a physical punishment. We believe that during our judgement day, God does gives out said punishments based on our actions here on earth.

Now, Christians also believe we are saved by the grace of Jesus dying for our sins. Think of that as a kind of lawyer pointing out that He paid for our crimes on the cross.

I don't demand anything of you. I never have since we met, a hour or so ago. So saying that puzzles me. Are you confusing me with every other religious person you met? I'm pretty sure none of my statements even implied that notion. I will not treat you like any "unbeliever" or "liberal" or pretty much whatever you would call youself. I am treating you like a person who misunderstands me, and the people who agree with me.

If you vote or attempt to vote your moral beliefs into civil law, you are are no different from anyone who demands, and works to force others to live according to what you believe is true.

I understand plenty about 'religion', apparently quite a bit more than you do. True religion is a way of life, each person must decide, and is only responsible for, their own behavior. The most we can do to attract others to God, is to behave according to how we believe, so that we provide an example to others of God's love in our own lives. Maybe they'll be intrigued and ask why we have the hope we do. That's the best path for a preacher. It's the way Jesus did it, it's the way the Apostles and disciples in the 1st century did it, and it's still the way it should be done now.

When Paul and Peter stood in Rome to defend the faith, they pleaded they be allowed to freely go about their business since they posed no threat to Rome or to Israel, and never once did they entreat the authorities to favor them over others, or work to deny others rights or benefits based on their own beliefs.

@aaronomics it doesn't matter what your religious beliefs are because who are you to say that your religion trumps someone else's. That very attitude is what drove our forefathers to this country. Secular law should not be based on morals but upon whether you are impinging upon someone else's freedoms or causing harm to person or property. It is not the governments responsibility of the government to dictate how you live your life. How well our government has done in the past also should not affect how we proceed going forward.

Neither one of you apparently read what I said. God's law overrides man's law is not the same as enforcement of law based on my religion. It means I follow man's law until it disagrees with God's law... get it? Hopefully you'l understand that having a moral code is not in anyway intrusion on your world. I vote my beliefs is not the same as saying that I push my religious beliefs onto anyone. I just follow that code. As a citizen you can't vote into law anything. Thats not even how our system works. I vote for representatives that echo our beliefs, and they make up laws.

True religion... really you are going to use a philosophical style argument against me when I just explained that religion and philosophy are not the same? Come on man.

I've heard this argument before, "don't push your morals on us while we push our lack of morality on you!". Its kinda sad that education has fallen so far in this country. Sorry, but we need morality, and the argument against it lacks merit and intellectual substance.

Gods law does not dictate the law of this country. You can follow his laws all you want as long as you continue to follow the laws of this country. Nor does that mean I have to follow the laws of your God. Nor does His law say that I have to either for that matter. Did He not provide man with free will? If I decide to live my life this way that is my choice and even by His law you have no say in that matter. That is between Him and myself.

No one is trying to push their "lack of morality" on you. If gay marriage is allowed does not mean you are suddenly going to start having sex with a man. No one says you have to change your beliefs only that you allow us to follow ours. The beauty of this country is that is the bedrock of our system. It protects the minority from the tyranny of the majority. It wasn't that long ago that we would be having this same conversation about whites marrying blacks, or keeping people as property. Those were 'moral' arguments as well.

Religion a human record and invention with everyone still getting their panties in a wad, just because they are having a different walk in life, oye, the nonsense!

No no no, my vision is the only vision and I am right and you are wrong, because it is written on a stone tablet some place, somewhere and this is how I read it, lol.

Marriage.Government != Marriage.Religion
Pray.Secular != Pray.Religious
GetOnYourKnees.Lover != GetOnYourKnees.ChurchGoer
Testify.Courtroom != Testify.Church

@andrewslater +1 that's great

Back on topic...

The average life expectancy of a homosexual male is 30 years less than a heterosexual male and 15 years less than a heterosexual male who smokes. That is according to this article:

Modeling the Impact of HIV Disease on Mortality in Gay and Bisexual Men, International Journal of Epidemiology, 26(3): 657-661, p. 659 (1997)

Homosexual relationships rarely make it longer than 3 years, according to this article:

Marcel T. Saghir, M.D. and Eli Robins, M.D., Male and Female Homosexuality: A Comprehensive Investigation

According to the following article, HPV is almost universal among homosexuals:

Bill Roundy, STDs Up Among Gay Men: CDC Says Rise is Due to HIV Misperceptions," The Washington Blade

Point being there is plenty of evidence that says homosexuality is a strictly unhealthy lifestyle choice - and it is a choice, unless popsci wants to do an article on that mystical gay gene they still have not found. Any Christian Muslim or Jew can tell you sinful acts have unhealthy consequences, but from a purely base and secular standpoint logic argues that if any given lifestyle was NATURAL it would not have such adverse health effects. Well homosexuality is very adverse, and like some people point out, if we accept homosexuality then what moral or logical barrier is there to bestiality, pedophilia, or any other disease of the mind?

@NoOne That is not due to being a homosexual but upon being promiscuous. There are large number of homosexual men that are very promiscuous but that doesn't mean being homosexual = promiscuity.

@NoOneYouKnow eating fast food and smoking also shortens your life should we regulate all unhealthy behavior?

@nooneyouknow: your attempt to use science to prove that being gay is unhealthy is noted, but misleading. I will only pick apart your first citation, which studied gay men between 1987 and 1992. The epidemic grew steadily until the mid 90s, so the study basically includes only data from the height of the epidemic. I would simply refute your claim that this study, or rather the fact that gay men were more likely to have HIV/aids, is evidence of an unhealthy life by suggesting living in cities was an unhealthy life during the Spanish flu epidemic. After all, I would bet that the life expectancy for those living in affected areas at that time was far less than those not.

And as being gay as a choice: that's the dumbest argument ever. Feel free to prove me wrong by choosing to be gay for the next year. Blog about it.

Lets be brutally and intellectually honest...
If all homosexual men in the world moved to Galapagos Island Club-Med, in an effort to get away from all the straights, it's obvious the colony would die off immediately. The only way their colony could ever survive is to continually obtain fresh boys from straight colonies, much like it does today. The fantasy that homosexuality would ever being a viable alternative is just silly.

Homosexuality is an alternative to overpopulation; surrogate parents for children with unfit natural parents. Not all useful members of animal societies breed, in fact, most of them do not. alphas and queens breed, the rest of the population is made of betas, or workers, who help raise the alphas'/queens' young, but have none of their own unless they become alphas young enough themselves.

I think the real point is, is, you all are control freaks, and feel like it's your God-assigned duty to repress those who do things you feel are icky or sinful, through 'persuasion', condemnation and shame, persecution, or politicly through voting your conscience.

Grow up. Mind your own business. Worry about the beam in your own eyes before worrying about the motes in others', and so forth, and so on.

Really, just piss off. This Free Nation of United States is only free for some. Nice ideal there, 'patriotic' religio-hypocrites.

I've been pro-gay-people-marrying since the mid 90s, way before it was fashionable. I've debated opponents since then. Never once have I heard an argument against gay marriage that didn't fall flat within a minute.

1. All religious arguments are void. Plain and Simple. Even if our country WAS founded by christians (it was not), we still have a separation of church and state. So if it WAS founded by christians (it was not), the only logical conclusion is that christians installed a separation of church and state even though they were christian, which means that today's christians would actually be anti-founding-fathers if they were to not continue to keep church and state separate.

2. Even if homosexuality WAS a choice (it is not), that is not a reason to ban gay marriage. We allow arranged marriages, after all, and those include one or two people who had zero choice in the process. So obviously "choice" has nothing to do with "marriage".

3. Even if homosexuality WAS unnatural (it is not), that is not a reason to ban gay marriage. We allow Genetically Modified foods which is pretty much as anti-nature as you can get, since nature specifically DID NOT produce the food.

(Side Note: You can't use both "it's a choice" and "it's unnatural" arguments together: Nature gives us choice. So if being gay is a choice, then it IS natural.)

4. Even if homosexuals WERE BAD parents (they are not, by default), that is not a reason to keep them from marrying. We allow plenty of bad people to raise kids.

5. Even if homosexuals COULD NOT procreate (they can, perhaps not with each other, yet), that is no reason to keep them from marrying. We allow lots of non-procreating couples to marry.

(Side Note: You can't use both "they're bad parents" and "they can't procreate" arguments together, since if they can't procreate, then they won't be parents.)

6. Two men kissing is gross, or anal sex is gross or similar -- even if they WERE (they aren't to many people including those who engage in the action) universally gross, that's not a reason to keep them from marrying. Gay people can kiss and have anal sex legally already. So this argument is just awkward. Plus, it's really an anti-man-gay-marriage argument, since it's never made about two women kissing or having lady-lady sex, anal or not.

7. Gay people spread disease more than straight people. (Not true) This is actually an argument against unprotected sex, since straight people can just as easily spread disease. It's also probably an argument FOR marriage, since married people are less likely to have multiple partners. (I think, not sure, but it's probably at least slightly true). Condoms aren't 100% effective at stopping STD transmission. So if we're so worried about disease spreading, we should probably ban sex altogether. Either way, marriage has nothing to do with sex. Unmarried people are allowed to have sex already.

Am I missing anything?

@andrewslater

The only argument I can think of that you may have missed is the one saying that a male and female partnership, because of their biological differences, can provide a more balanced environment for a child, and therefore create the best adult possible.

Whether gay partners or single parents could be educated to successfully provide a balanced environment is probably a good science question, but the same question could also be applied to abusive family members.

It's not an argument for outlawing "unbalanced" environments such as gay unions or single parent families, but would be used for giving preference to and encouraging what can be potentially the best option. Do we give single parents the same marriage benefits as a married couple? I'm assuming that the point of declaring a gay partnership as a marriage is to gain "marriage" benefits, so should gay parents receive the governments blessing of "marriage", or should that be reserved as an encouragement for what holds the potential of being the best child rearing environment (regardless of whether those parents succeed at being the best)?

@Andrewslater

1. "All secular arguments are void, because I'm not secular." Well that is a silly argument. How on earth is a religious argument any less viable than a secular one? Our country was founded by very religious men - protestant maybe but certainly not secular, and the First Amendment says that the Congress shall not pass a law respecting any establishment of religion. As Thomas Jefferson and George Washington (both religious men) point out this does not mean religion has no place in government.

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." - George Washington, 1st President of the United States

2. Homosexuality is a choice. Actually more correctly you are not "born this way". It is a mental disorder that can be cured. Like sexual interest in prepubescent children is diagnosed as pedophilia. Is anyone, regardless of sex, fit to raise children if they are suffering from mental illness?

3. Unnatural is, at least how I used it, in reference to natural law. A little confusing if you never read Cicero or St. Thomas Aquinas. Basically, homosexuality is in direct conflict with our natural responsibility to procreate and is detrimental to one's health. When these two things are considered (conflicting, harmful) one can arrive to the conclusion that it is unnatural.

4. But homosexuals DO make bad parents. So do single Moms and Dads, and so do autonomous robots. Anything less than a complete family is BAD for the children. You always hear about how kids who eat dinner with their parents average better grades right? Same reason. This is not a reason to bar anyone from marrying, granted. But it should be a moral self check for anyone seeking to marry. "Am I ready to marry?". Marriage is a HUGE deal and homosexuals have no respect for it. Besides, if you want to get married in a church the groom will need to present his man card.

5. This is silly. Of course homosexuals cannot procreate, unless you are suggesting they "give in" and be heterosexual for a night... which is hypocritical on their part.

6. I never presented this argument so I feel no need to address it.

7. Well, I said gays are far more likely to contrive STDs and the like but one does lead to the other and the average life expectancy is significantly less...

"I think, not sure, but it's probably at least slightly true"

Very solid. Yes married people are less likely to have multiple partners (BIG DUH) and likewise heterosexuals are less likely to have multiple partners. Heterosexuals are also less likely to participate in certain sex practices which send risk of STDs skyrocketing.

@NoOneYouKnow:

"Natural Law" was a phrase also used to 'prove' that slavery was alright, since the bigots at the time considered black people -- all non-white people actually -- to be less human.

The rest of your thoughts have been refuted time and again by people far more intelligent and eloquent and educated in their specific fields than I am.

I believe this photo will sum it all up:

https://p.twimg.com/AstEjKGCMAAvkv9.jpg

Even when confronted with the subject point blank, a heterosexual supreme court will be ruled by the heterosexual agenda, which runs deeper than mere homophobia.

It’s one thing for a heterosexual to support gay marriage, or to be indifferent to it, but a heterosexual isn’t going to ARGUE to overturn what is obviously a firmly embraced taboo in all cultures – even, evidently, a supreme court judge. To favor gay marriage may be viewed as sympathetic to gays, which in turn could be viewed as being about an inch away from being gay, and few heterosexuals will tolerate that risk. Homosexuality is, after all, a strong taboo in almost all cultures, even today – allowing gay marriage would be a stark violation of that taboo, no matter how “stylish” the idea may be to some.

The problem resides in our intellectualizing the issue. Maybe it should be approached from a more emotional perspective - and that therefore the supreme court judges aren't qualified to give an opinion.

Regarding the comment made by NoOneYouKnow
"if we accept homosexuality then what moral or logical barrier is there to bestiality, pedophilia, or any other disease of the mind?" ----

I'm always intrigued by the claim that gay is a choice, because it implies that we're therefore all born straight, and if all gay people are ultimately straight - then there is ultimately no problem! And it seems that would be a relief to homophobes, since the alternative would be even more intractible - it being one's basic nature - since one obviously can't change the basic nature of something!

To any of you who say that being gay is a choice. I have one question for you. When did you choose? Now ask that question to the person next to you. See how many people can actually give you an answer.

------------
@spark55155 >> "I'm always intrigued by the claim that gay is a choice..."
------------
Continuing your thought Spark, you must also then conclude that bestiality and pedophilia must fall under the scenerio of not having a choice. It seems you can't have it both ways if humans are truly incapable of avoiding urges & temptations.

Two great friends that live together are simply roommates. It's only when you add sex acts between the two, that is becomes a whole new animal.

@NoOne Homosexuality can be found in nature. Not just among humans. Just because you assume it doesn't to fit your world view doesn't make it true.

As for your statement that homosexuals have no respect for marriage. How do you come to this conclusion. Do you have anything to back it up other than your own opinion? I can certainly come up with some examples of heterosexuals demonstrating no respect for that august institution.

Oh and BTW secular means not religious though you are using it in your first statement as if they meant the same thing.

@Fotobum However, pedophilia and bestiality by it's nature includes a non-consenting party. We are speaking about consenting adults. Not someone forcing themselves on someone(thing) against their(it's) will. Pedophilia and Beastiality are more correctly aligned with rape and molestation than homosexuality. There are also those who are attracted to the feeling of domination you would get from rape but that doesn't mean we should condone any of that. Simply because you are causing harm to another.

Homosexuals should not be allowed to get married. Marriage is not because two people are in love. You don't need legal permission to be with someone that wants to be with you.

Marriage exists because children and their upbringing don't always turn out perfectly. You and everyone else alive owes something to the people that contributed to putting you here in the form of love, education and much more. Indeed you only have as much left to you as was provided until you could make your own life.

This can all go very wrong and often does. Families have been put in danger many times before and in many ways. We thus derive solutions like legal protection under law of the family unit and anything else we need to do or pay the price as a species.

If someone really likes another or hay, just wants to spend the night, you don't need to extend legal protection for them. You can even file to have people added to your family or adopt a child already.

No homosexuals deserve a single protective law, they need not receive recognition of any legal kind. Their entire makeup is entirely in their preferred sexual orientation. We are trying to extend laws to sexual preference! Do I get special laws if I like big boobs?

They do however deserve any and all legal recognition granted to a human being.

It seems the real question is whether or not a gay lifestyle is a mental disorder or not.

The opponents to "gay is a choice" are over simplifying the statement I think. The urge is not the choice, the choice is to follow through with it. Similar to how being violent or over eating are choices; someone with bulimia doesn't choose to have those urges, but they choose to let it harm them. The urges may be impossible to resist but we haven't created laws that enable them either. That is probably what "choice" proponents are getting at.

So, again the real question is whether the urge to be gay is a mental disorder or not. My guess is that it will be difficult to sufficiently prove or disprove with our current understanding of the brain.

On one hand you could argue that gay practices are self-destructive to a long term society since it goes against reproduction and increasing the population. On the other hand you could argue that staying single also runs against those goals. But, maybe those statements are too black and white. Maybe single-ness and gay-ness are neutral instead of destructive.

However if society is more like an army or a business then you could argue that hetero-ness is moving forward, single-ness is waiting for a chance, and gay-ness is actually going in the opposite direction. Society is not really like an army though and that is the problem with analogies and metaphors; they always break down at some point during the comparison.

@bvirga0218 Unfortunately homosexuality cannot credibly distance itself from domination and molestation. Sadly, multiple trusted studies confirm both homosexuality and pedophilia share disturbingly high percentages of childhood sexual abuse. So ignoring the domination aspects of homosexuality and early molestation seems to be a red herring. An agenda-free observer cannot ignore this phenomena.

Just because someone is gay doesn't mean that they experienced abuse as a child, nor that they were the abuser. There are homosexuals who did just like there are heterosexuals that have. One does not equal the other though. Just because there is a smaller sample set does not change that. I myself did not nor did my husband and I know lots of others that are the same. So stop perpetuating a stereotype.

@pixelstuff There are plenty of examples where homosexuals have tried to make a heterosexual lifestyle only to see it fall apart because they were miserable. Last I checked one of the beliefs everyone has in this country shares is our right to a pursuit of happiness. Yet you think that homosexuals should be unhappy their entire lives simply because you don't feel comfortable with who they love.

@pixelstuff, We don't check the mental stability of heterosexuals that wish to get married. Why question homosexual's metal stability?

If I stated that I would like to merry my cat (putting aside metal stability issues) then I could use the exact same argument pushed by pro gay marriage.

"She clearly loves me and I love her..." and many more crazy lines that add up to a massive perversion of the marriage system.

I no more need marriage rights for my cat then homosexuals need it. At no point did any argument for pro gay marriage offer even one good reason for it. How many straight people fail to get married? Not even all straight people need it.

Truth is, heterosexuals are attempting to achieve the same result if a heterosexual relationship with a non-viable mate. This alone tells you the metal stability of such a person. This is assuming the person is driven by more then the urges that get some humans to mate with goats.

@bvirga0218

Being born a certain way doesn't necessarily make it right, for example a cleft palete. Likewise does an individual with an eating disorder deserve special laws to eat the way they want just because it makes them feel better?

The issue is whether the institution of marriage should be expanded for any two people wanting to live together. Not an issue of whether someone can legally love someone else. Allowing something to exist and placing it on a pedestal as a position of honor (like marriage) are two different things.

Scientifically we will have to figure out why homosexuals prefer the same sex and why heterosexuals prefer the opposite before we can draw a scientific good/bad conclusion.

However from a theological stand point evolutionary standards would put homosexuality as a self-destructive mutation or mindset. Also by Godly standards it is considered a sin regardless of it being mental or genetics related.

It is simple to come up with reasons to allow homosexuality to exist (i.e. not be outlawed). Much harder to imagine reasons why it should be elevated and considered equal to traditional heterosexual marriage.

@scottmana

You are correct. The mental stability of someone is not the issue. I was only trying to elaborate on the "it is a choice" beliefs. Regardless of whether they are beneficial.

@pixelstuff Don't compare homosexual marriage to marrying your cat. The cat cannot consent, nor can a child. We are talking about consenting adults. Nor is it the same as a cleft palate as that leads to health issues. Nor is anyone asking for homosexual marriage to be put on some kind of pedestal. Only asking for the same rights. And if heterosexuals have such high regards for the institution explain shows like "The Littlest Groom." As for Theology it has no place in this argument. We are talking about secular laws. If you want to argue that your religion tells you to vote a certain way, let me remind you no one is voting on this. People who were appointed for life for that very reason are making this decision. They are supposed to decide whether or not the law is constitutional based on reason and existing law. Not what religion says. If you want a theocracy move to Iran. But for me I will stay here where I can choose any religion I want and mine tells me that god accepts me for who I am. And you can believe what you want. I have no right to force my beliefs on you and neither do you. That is the beauty of this country.

@bvirga0218, Surely introspective conversations with your husband and other gay friends must have touched on these issues. Childhood abuse, promiscuity, guilt, depression, and suicide seem to be inherent, nagging issues of the gay community, not just stereotypes unfortunately.
Throwing one's intellectual eggs in the "born this way" basket, and ignoring other glaring factors doesn't help those suffering from these issues, no matter how society bends over to accept it. Life would be so much simpler though if it were that easy.

Ok fine.... I feel I need to say my piece.

Adults: Homosexuality was proven to be a genetic... what? difference? variance? Don't know what YOU wanna call it but as for me, I call it a DEFECT. Because.... the way in which life became life, evolves and so on.... is through some form of procreation. Therefore, any form of genetic modification(DEFECT), that prevents or discourages, even disgusts a person from desiring the inmost, central, basic concept of life is nothing more than some odd behavioral ummm... defect.

Children: I cannot and will NEVER accept the idea that either a mother or a father can be missing in the family without some detrimental effect to a child. There are times when you just want your mom... or... your dad. And THIS is what's been PROVEN in almost every single-parent home, is that the child suffers in some way. Half of the family guidance is missing..... and would be, even with two malesor two females to take the place of a missing opposite sex partner. And NO, the dominant female in the family still has no penis for little Mikey to associate with. And a strap on or a picture just isn't the same... sorry.

To say that there is no evidence that a missing 'half of the equation' exists... is ignoring the angst America has seen through the single parent homes experiment we've been having for the past half century..... and the FUNDAMENTAL REASON why this society is accepting so many immoral acts as freedom to choose what you want. THE FAMILY as we knew it years ago is going extinct. That's why we are talking about this as if it were sane. That's why its even a discussion.

Finally, I am not the best writer or speaker so excuse m gibberish but I hope I've gotten my point across... but to sum it up: The act of homosexuality is not what was meant to be.... its like the desire to eat dirt. It may be what you like, it may be what you desire... who and what you "love' because of your PICA disorder... but that don't mean we should be having feces and dirt put on the menu at your favorite restaurant anytime soon!!!

So... as nature intended it... not god... not allah... not jesus.... not even buddah... but the natural laws of life INTENDED it... Go ahead and have your fun.... have your love.... have your rights.... BUT LEAVE THE SACRED UNION OF MARRIAGE as it was intended ALONEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!! Go call it Garriage or parriage or whatever ya want! But MY Natural, Time Honored, MARRIAGE as a man and a wife, to MY wife is not the same thing as BOB's union with TED... so sorry.

Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.

@Foto I didn't say that no homosexual has experienced abusive situations. All I am saying is that being homosexual does not mean that you must have gone through abuse. Nor am I saying that they should be ignored. Not anymore than a heterosexual with the same issues should be.

@bvirga0218

I would disagree that theology has no place in the argument. Where do you think most of the secular laws originate from? Theology may not overrule the outcome, but most secular laws stem from theological concepts.

@GGenua, you want to talk about nature. Homosexuality appears in nature most commonly in species when overpopulation begins to cause problems. Acting as another control on the size of the population.

@bvirga0218 yes, agreed.

@pixel and the line is drawn when those views begin to intrude on another's freedom or health. For example some religions condone ritual sacrifice of one's enemies. Yet the government says that is illegal. Now you are trying intrude on someone else's life based on your beliefs when what they want has no effect on anyone other than the two consenting adults.

This one thing is clear: The anti-gay crowd really really really doesn't like gay people.

Everyone else is either ok with the gay people or don't really care either way.

This will all go away soon enough, once marriage is open to homosexuals, bisexual, transexuals and heterosexuals.

The bigots among us will continue to be bigots, and will eventually resign to do so only in their head or while drunk at thanksgiving dinner.

The rest of us will look back on these days and the decades prior no differently than most of us currently look back upon the civil rights era and anti-interracial marriage bigots.

It's all the same drum beat: "I don't like xyz, so I will make stuff up and read only biased material that was made up in order to stop feeling bad about how much of a terrible person I am."

LOL, to all the negative comments.

Live and let Live!

I wish to things for all those caring hearts that what to spend a life time promise together. WELL DONE!

@bvirga0218

YES!!! 100% totally agreed! Just don't call it marriage. It is an aberration in nature that occurs when some extreme condition is placed upon a species (such as over population)... not the 'as intended' norm. Agreed. And please don't anyone go asking what exactly the norm is ok... cuz the answer to THAT is "a healthy, fruitful(without technological intervention), sustainable species.

I do not deny that two homosexuals can love each other and be in love and seek to be happy and all that.... but whatever they are is not the same as what me and my wife are... why???... simply for the same reason that you would not call a 'man' a woman nor a 'woman' a man! Because they aren't. So any same sex union by definition is not marriage...call it something else!!! I guess the only thing I am against is that they want to group us all in the same bucket and just say 'don't look at the difference' just close your eyes and see that its the same thing.... well it isn't the same thing.... just like you cant leave the 'H' out of the H2O and still call it water!!! Its different. So go ahead.... have all the rights given to a married couple.... but make up your own damn name for what you wanna call yourselves cuz you are NOT water. You may be love, you may be sweet tasting something else... but you are not water. sorry.

Today's magic is tomorrow's technology.

@GGenua The fact that it happens in nature would mean that it is natural. Nature is made up of many checks and balances. You don't get to pick and choose which are natural and which are not.

There are a lot of things in nature that we don't approve of for humans. It's probably a bad idea to use that as a justification for anything.

Glad to know everyone can argue logically with citations instead of calling people names and throwing claims up in the air without providing a hint of evidence. How does it go, "...fools, because they have to say something"?

@andrewslater By that logic anyone who supports homosexuality must really like homosexuals. Do you like homosexuals Andrew? Do you enjoy your LGBT television programs? Also, comparing this to the civil rights movement is wrong. People are born black, white, etc; and unless you can present evidence to the contrary people like myself are going to continue to understand homosexuality as a choice. Like pixelstuff explains having the urge to do something doesn't mean you have to do it or even should do it. Like Ggenua argues I think this complete and utter lack of self restraint is at least partially rooted in the lack of emphasis on strong families. There is no evidence for a gay gene, but there is evidence that mother-father families are the only healthy way to raise children.

foryourmarriage.org/married-parents-are-important-for-children/ <- cites many articles and studies in its discussion of why a mother-father family is so important. Now logically, if a child is less likely to be raised healthily in a family with only one mother or father, then a homosexual couple (which I cited earlier is even less likely to stay together) would be equally detrimental. This, again, is not to argue that homosexuals should not be allowed civil union but is to show WHY they should not seek civil union - its simply unhealthy for everyone involved. Like the cookie jar and your grandmother's place - wanting it doesn't mean diddly squat.

I keep hearing people say "homosexuality is natural" and that makes me laugh. Thanks, BTW for those citations you all provided to support such an extraordinary claim /sarcasm. Let me help:

If you wish to cite the studies showing male birds hanging out with male birds as apposed to female birds, well I do that sort of thing all the time with my male friends but that is not homosexual. You will have to argue to me otherwise.

If you wish to cite the studies/observations regarding anal sex between males in a species (lions is a common one), then by all means we can talk about homosexual acts of domination and intimidation in the animal kingdom and how that applies to humans.

If oral sex has been observed between two females of a species (i'm not sure it has) then I guess we can talk about that. At this point I really don't care what you cite just cite something. Otherwise this is going to go back and forth like an argument between two children that sounds something like this:

"homosexuality is ok"
"no its not"
"yes it is"
"no its not"
"yes it is"
"nu-uh"
"ah-hu"
"your stupid"
"no your stupid"
"Mom! She called me stupid!"

I'm not going to participate in anyone's childish rhetoric.

For myself, I tend combine religion and sexual preference in the same manner. I do understand and agree with freedom of religion in our country. Yes, some religions leave me scratching my head in wonder sometimes, but I respect the idea still of freedom of religion and a person sexual preference I consider the same.

Live and let live!

@NoOneYouKnow Great point. So getting back to a science discussion then, here is one of many studies on the subject.
Science finds homosexuals are far more likely than heterosexuals to have had distant, hostile, or rejecting childhood relationships with their fathers or father figures. A man therefore looks for emotional connectedness with his father through homosexual behavior.
Study after study finds environmental factors contributing to identifying one's self as a homosexual. No matter how loud you get, ignoring these facts won't negate the toll this lifestyle has on you, physically, emotionally, and spiritually.

reference: http://rodina.pastorbonus.sk/plugins/studie/upload/V%20seutter,%20rovers-%20emoti...ournal%20of%20psy%20and%20theology.pdf

"Unless the ancient Greeks had cell phones and wireless, he’s wrong on that"

There is no record of a homosexual marriage happening in either Greek or Roman Cultures

HET, SCOTUS!!! Guess y'all don't read yer pre-Constitution history much, or you'd know this was legally provided for--not by intent--in U.S. Common Law. A citizen must only formally choose, meaning publicly; ANYONE THEY WANT. There is no provision that I've ever heard of to dispute the the wisdom of the great-grandfathers of The Founding Fathers, nor has Common Law been discontinued today as illegal. A couple living in a state of Common Law Marriage are certainly allowed to formally wed as many times as they choose, and many have indeed been to both courthouse and church. It IS legal, because it does not say 'man and woman'. I may not like the idea much because I think these people are deviants that want everyone to be ok with the idea that they want to groom more deviants. But this isn't about me, it's about people living together as a nation. Whether there are any ex-post facto concerns? That's where your decision lies.

First to clarify things: quasi44, I mostly concur, however, this is not an issue of rights to marry, establish a committed relationship, or anything of the sort. Though I am not for homosexual marriage - there is nothing I can do about it in any practical way. Definitively, marriage, at its core, is commitment. I cannot, even if I wanted to, stop any two people from forming that commitment. Therefore, this cannot be the issue. The question then, boils down to support for these commitments from the community at large. This is a question of benefits. If you are married, and you and your spouse don't have Powers of Attorney on each other and your Wills in order, you're mad. A Medical Power of Attorney also makes your spouse a necessary person in your medical decisions - greater powers than are generally given to Next-of-Kin. Wills designate how property will be dispersed through probate, which trumps Next-of-Kin rights again. So, are there any inequities beyond health benefits and tax breaks? I personally believe that whatever a PRIVATE company WANTS to provide is THEIR business and that we should not have ANY tax deductions. That leaves Government Employees: City Employees can move to more tolerant cities (It's their loss right?!), Same for State, that leaves the only people we are worried about are Federal Employees. Really, this is an argument about acceptance and benefits. You can't FORCE acceptance, and the benefits are only a real problem for a tiny population (Homosexual, Federal Employees).

To muddy things up some: Why can't something be both natural AND a choice. Alcoholics CHOOSE to drink, but we have found a gene that links to a predisposition toward alcoholism. To blame your genes for anything beyond physical attributes (some of which we must adapt to and overcome - like bad eyesight), saying that the actions that you make are due to your genetic make-up, is ludicrous and nothing more than modern-day astrology.

With regards to this SCOTUS ruling, it does not matter whether there is any relevant "science". The SCOTUS has only one fundamental issue to consider in this case: What does the US Constitution have to say about it? And in this particular case the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution is crystal clear on the matter. The federal government has no jurisdiction in this issue, and it should be left up to each state to decide.

@ bgdavison ; The thing about being able to be recipient of family work benefits and such all follows, not leads, the issue. It's not germane unless SCOTUS finds for same sex unions. There are still sodomy laws and the like to be considered. They have to decide whether our ex post facto actually forces the decision under the laws that have been made up til now. Some have been repealed, some not. From what I can tell, most of the concerns regarding epf would end at state level, but I'm nothing close to a law scholar. I do know that when I checked the wording from centuries back regarding common law marriage it did not say man and woman. It said the CITIZEN may choose anyone. It was certainly not meant to cover homosexuals, but rather to provide for mixed race marriage like with a native because they knew that there would be a shortage of women overall, and especially in the frontier zones. So that's where their decision lies IMO. In the 'spirit of the law' and in ex-post facto determination. If they are looking at science, as it says here, then things like bipolar disorder and chronic depression, both of which are extremely common in homosexuals, are going to be weighing in too.

One of Jesus last comments on the cross were, "Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do". In other words as I understand that comment, we humans are a mess up bunch of goof balls and do not even know it.

So spend your life praising GOD, loving and caring others with forgiveness. You are NOT going to change the real world referring back to the above Jesus quote, but you will make a place for yourself in heaven.

Take care. ;)
Live and Let Live!

LOL, Original sin leading to a God sacrificing himself to himself...HAHAHA, Americans and their Christianity are so stupid. I can't believe people actually take this crap seriously. HAHAHAHAHA.

Each of the studies cited in this article used a convenience sample (i.e. their results are not valid for a general population), and additionally, they only compared children in same-sex households to children in adopted, divorced, single-parent, and step-parent situations. With no comparison to intact families with biological parents, these results are meaningless. And while I am not sure about these studies, many studies only ask the parents what the experience of the children is.

Instead, only one comprehensive, statistically valid study has been done. It also overcame methodological issues of prior studies by asking children (once 18+) about their own experiences and sampling randomly. Its results match other studies regarding families (excluding same-sex family research). This study DID find significant differences between intact biological families and same-sex families.

Sources: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000580

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

www.familystructurestudies.com/outcomes/