Argument against gay “marriage”

Justice is often depicted as a lady with a blindfold over her eyes holding balancing scales.

That indicates that, in order to be truly just, one must, when deciding who should prevail in a

controversy, balance those scales by objectively determining WHICH party has the greater right,

when both sides have merit to their claims, and also WHICH side would suffer the greatest

wrong or hardship, if the requested relief was not granted.

On the issue of same-sex couples wanting to be allowed to marry, these things have been

overlooked by most folks:

1. "Marriage," as defined, is only between a man and a woman. If not, then it is

something other than marriage. I'm an atheist, so I have no religious axe to grind. I seek only

truth and fairness tempered with compassion and common sense.

2. This issue is actually NOT about any "right." It is a SEMANTICAL one. Homosexuals

want to change the definition of "marriage." And many heterosexuals are resentful of that to the

point that backlash surfaces that makes things harder for homosexuals in other areas, often

provoking "gay-bashing." In some ways it is counter-productive to the gay-agenda's hope to gain

acceptance in society.

3. When it comes to analyzing any right a homosexual could be said to possess to change

the definition of "marriage," it needs to be considered that:

 A.) Homosexuals already have the right to civil unions with the same legal obligations as

marriage.

B.) A homosexual man already has THE EXACT SAME RIGHT as a heterosexual man

does to marry a woman, as does a homosexual woman has the exact same right as a heterosexual

woman to marry a man. So there is no question that ANY man or woman, heterosexual or

homosexual, has the right to marry, as "marriage" is defined.

4. Is it fair to heterosexuals to allow homosexuals to change the definition of marriage

between heterosexuals, thereby encroaching upon their domain, so to speak, simply for a

semantical reason not essential as a right? I think not. For why should a heterosexual man need

to explain himself each time thereafter someone asks if he is married, if he says yes, then a

subsequent question would be: "To a woman or to a man?" When, as marriage is currently

defined, when a man says he is married, that automatically implies that his spouse is female.

5. Further, when analyzing the impetus for WHY a homosexual feels the need to label his

or her relationship as a "marriage," even though marriage, as defined, renders that an

impossibility, I have to ponder if that is the symptom of a psychological need by homosexuals to

mimic heterosexuals to overcome feelings of inferiority deep within them. Whereas, I believe it

would be healthier psychologically for homosexuals to simply ACCEPT THEMSELVES,

different as they are.

 In summation, I don't see any overriding reason for allowing homosexuals to change the

definition of marriage. And it is knee-jerk shallow thinking to accord it more merit than it

deserves.

On a related issue, allowing homosexual couples to mimic heterosexuals by adopting

young impressionable children, or to have babies "via the wonders of science," that brings into

the equation something no "gay-rights" advocate will admit: That the RIGHT OF THE CHILD

to become normal has been allowed to become secondary to the LESSER right of a homosexual

to adopt or have kids.

This goes back to what I was saying earlier, that justice demands that, when two or more

parties are involved, it must be determined WHICH party has the stronger claim to "right." That

is also required by the U.S. Constitution, and the Supreme Court has already affirmed that

criteria for administering justice.

While I do not suggest that there is anything morally wrong with homosexual behavior,

nor do I blame homosexuals for being homosexuals, as do many who believe in God, I attribute

it to a blend of genetic disposition, over which a homosexual had no choice in the matter, and

learned behavior.

Also, I think that very few people were "stamped" as homosexuals-to-be when they were

born. For most homosexuals, or heterosexuals, I believe their sexual orientations did not firmly
establish till after puberty. And in many other cases [bisexuals] they remained "sexually

undetermined" even as adults.

But it has already been established that a young impressionable child indeed can be

strongly influenced behaviorably by role models, whether they be parental role models or some

other authority figure.

What "gay-rights" advocates are unwilling to admit is the fact that, as even most

homosexuals will concede, if one has a choice in the matter, he or she would be better off

choosing to be a heterosexual. Added to the fact that the human race would have become extinct

millenia ago if everyone had been homosexual, that in itself asserts that homosexuality is NOT

the preferred or most optimal choice, if one had that choice. And homosexuality is NOT

"normal" from that perspective, but an aberration occurring naturally or by induced behavior.

So why should someone who already has, if only "by fate," become homosexual be

allowed to CONTROL the destiny of a young impressionable child, not yet fixed in sexual

orientation?

A child HAS THE RIGHT to the best chance he or she can have to become a

heterosexual. If he or she ultimately winds up as a homosexual, despite being given the best

chance of becoming otherwise, then that's just the way it was destined to be, and the individual

must make the best of what fate has bestowed.

 No one can blame a child for being a "Mongoloid" [Downs syndrome]. But I am sure that

the child, if he or she had been given a choice in the matter, would have opted to be born

"normal." But, unlike homosexual behavior, which can be acquired "monkey see monkey do" by

young impressionable children, Downs syndrome is "engraved in stone" at the time of birth.

I've seen firsthand the CHILD ABUSE caused by two lesbians having a lovely baby girl

via "the wonders of science," who they have been forcing to wear boy clothes and a "butch"

haircut. And it seems that they are always yelling at the little girl if she behaves normally.

In this particular case, homosexuals having control over the little girl are trying "force-

fed" homosexual behavior on this child. And it's not right or just to allow this little girl to be

subjected to "military-like" discipline attempting to indoctrinate her. Unless this little girl has

been genetically predisposed very strongly heterosexually, she will acquire homosexual traits.

And even if her nature is strongly heterosexual, she may suffer severe psychological trauma

impairing her as an adult.

So I think that is one area where the rights of children should supersede any supposed

"right" for homosexuals to adopt children or have them by artificial means.

As you may have noted in my foregoing dissertation-analysis, I tried to refrain, as much

as possible, from using the term "gay." That was mainly because I am sensitive to the HISTORY

of that word, which I think homosexuals should reject as a slur, since it derived from the

Victorian Age saying of calling a homosexual "queer or A BIT FUNNY [a word closely related
to how "gay" was defined at the time]. So I opted to avoid that conflict by adhering to the non-

subjective terminology of "homosexual" and "heterosexual."

I ask everyone to try to be MORE OPEN-MINDED on the issues of the rights of

children, and be mindful that differences sometimes do require different-but-equal

considerations. And true progressives need to resist the impulse to jump on anyone's bandwagon,

without first analyzing the "larger picture." Especially when, by allowing homosexuals to change

the definition of something like "marriage," that will pave the way for CHILD ABUSE.

Being advocates for young children is the duty of all who advocate justice and fairness to

all.