[thinktwice]

To assert that any behavior is a right is merely to assert an anarachist viewpoint, which has nothing to do with the notion of a Constitutional Republic at Liberty to rule itself.

And conversely, to assert that a human behavior condemned by religion is wrong is merely to assert a religious viewpoint, and that too has nothing to do with the notion of a Constitutional Republic at Liberty to rule itself.

What this issue has everything to do with is individual liberty.

The First Amendment has in it that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion ..." And that tells me that no religious code, not even the Ten Commandments, can be forced upon Americans through legislation.

Crimes involving human beings such as murder, rape, robbery, etc. are well covered in American law using a reality based -- common sense -- code of ethics.

When common sense tells people that something is "wrong" -- without regard to some one or another religion code -- then common sense law will cover it.

[Regulator]

to assert that a human behavior condemned by religion is wrong is merely to assert a religious viewpoint, and that too has nothing to do with the notion of a Constitutional Republic at Liberty to rule itself

That's funny. Why not? Your subsequent argument invokes the establishment clause in the First, which says only that a state religion may not be established.

Religion as it evolved is itself a compendium of observed realities, and the social codes espoused by religion usually assert social optimality by empirical observation of their success. In other words, religion itself is "ethics based on reality". Religion merely ascribes to such realities an underlying causality, namely an abstraction known as "god".

The Constitution poses no obstruction to laws based on religious morality; it is, in fact, a document based on religious morality. The exclusion clause merely provides that the religious basis cannot be monotone.

The Enlightenment never asserted that religion was "wrong"; merely that it had been ossified and diverted from seeking natural truths. Areligious empiricism may be acceptable, and even create stable societies. But who is to say that such empiricism has not simply discovered "God's laws"?

[Laura Lee]

It is clear that the institution of marriage is as old as human beings themselves. Western civilization does not exist in a vacuum, nor did the Bible cause people to create a condition called marriage. All civilizations, past and present, east and west, establish certain social rules. The institution of civil marriage exists for many reasons, but one of the most important ones is to protect the young. The needs of children are the primary responsibility of adults. Children need to grow up with the guidance of both a father and a mother.

When any society starts to consider the "rights" of adults more precious than the NEEDS OF CHILDREN, that society is walking itself right into a garbage dump. Homosexual adults have no rights to stand up and tell the children of the world that what they do together is natural and normal and desirable. It is not. No child should be educated and encouraged in the homosexual way of life. They should be encouraged to become fully developed according to the laws of nature, which condemn homosexuality and encourage reproduction.

That may not feel good for gays to hear, but that's not my fault. The laws of nature don't care how we feel about them. They apply and we violate them at our own great peril.