I have some problems with your reference to a 9th Amendment right to privacy, but I'll let it go as it's not germane to the present discussion about Romer and gay "marriage".
However, your discussion of homosexuality itself, particularly whether or not its genetic, contains some theological errors regarding Christianity.
From a Christian standpoint, it doesn't make a bit of difference if homosexuality is genetic. If it is genetic, then it's an error. Ditto if it's hormonal.
Theologically, the fall of Adam & Eve led to error entering the world, and that would include genetic error. We all have sinful desires of some sort. We just don't all have the same ones. And those desires may be genetic. But it's our responsibility as Christians to resist those desires.
If John has a desire to steal, he should resist it. If Joan has a desire to lie, she should resist it. If Jim has a desire to be heterosexually promiscuous, he should resist it. If Jamie has a tendency to become an addict, she should resist it. And if Joe has a desire to engage in sex with another man, he should resist it.
Everyone has a desire to sin in some way or another. Where do those desires come from? Are they sociological, genetic, spiritual, or a combination of the three? We may never fully know, but wherever they come from, we are to do our best to resist them. We aren't to say, hey, this sin might be genetic, so let's enshrine it as a right and shut down any opposition to this sin.
All sins might have a genetic component.
You wrote that many people comdemn homosexuals for spreading AIDS but condemn even more homosexuals who try to stay monogamous. Sorry, but that's the rhetoric of a gay "marriage" activist. It's also untrue. I've heard Christians object to ALL homosexual sex, as they should, but I've never heard of one who opposes homosexual monogamy more than homosexual promiscuity. The allegation that they do is a phony argument put forward by gay "marriage" proponents.
It goes like this: You Christians scream about how promiscuous gays are, but then you oppose gay "marriage", which would allow them to be monogamous!
The problem with that lame argument is that gays can be monogamous without being married. Period. Are you arguing that gays are wildly promiscuous and engage in wanton, anonymous sex in bath houses only because we lack gay "marriage" in America?
Gays will always be promiscuous, but their promiscuity was at least restrained somewhat back when homosexuality was in the closet. Once it was unleashed, that's when AIDS spread like wildfire. Those people such as yourself who are "tolerant" of the gay lifestyle killed thousands of times more homosexuals than so-called "gay bashers" ever did, through your misguided sympathies for their perversion.
From a Christian standpoint, it doesn't make a bit of difference if homosexuality is genetic. If it is genetic, then it's an error. Ditto if it's hormonal.
You're correct. My reference was to fundamentalists, not Christianity as a whole. Christians don't have to agree with homosexuality to understand that it's obviously more than a simple choice. But that enlightenment does not exist on this thread nor on any of those posted by the "Ping List". That reference I gave you was given to me by a fundamentalist here on FR. He is not alone. Explain why the "choice" theory is the only one pushed so heavily here, almost as a fundamental truth, and any one who recommends studies showing other causes is immediately cause for the "abuse button". I would never have thought of it before.
Theologically, the fall of Adam & Eve led to error entering the world, and that would include genetic error. We all have sinful desires of some sort. We just don't all have the same ones. And those desires may be genetic. But it's our responsibility as Christians to resist those desires.
I don't argue with that at all, but one difference you had better not explain as genetic here on these threads is homosexuality. As long as its only a choice, God cannot be a party; If it's more than a choice, then issues of acceptance, normality and comparisons with physically handicapped come into play. Don't be misled.
If John has a desire to steal, he should resist it. If Joan has a desire to lie, she should resist it. If Jim has a desire to be heterosexually promiscuous, he should resist it. If Jamie has a tendency to become an addict, she should resist it. And if Joe has a desire to engage in sex with another man, he should resist it.
And if Joe has a desire to engage in sex with Jane, not his wife? Or with Ethyl, a prostitute?, or sex other than intercourse with his wife? How do those fit in?
We aren't to say, hey, this sin might be genetic, so let's enshrine it as a right and shut down any opposition to this sin.
No, but clearly all sins depending on your faith, have no business being codified one way or the other simply because they are sins. We are a nation of Christians, but we are not a Christian nation. We are a republic. The Bible is not the supreme law of the land, the Constitution is. The freedoms and rights we have which are contained within the Constitution and its amendments apply to everyone. Singling out any demographic group to deny some of those rights clearly requires a compelling state interest in doing so. The 11th Circuit decision demonstrates that this can be done. But it must not be abused.
You wrote that many people comdemn homosexuals for spreading AIDS but condemn even more homosexuals who try to stay monogamous. Sorry, but that's the rhetoric of a gay "marriage" activist. It's also untrue.
Go back about 5 years of homosexual issues on this forum. Heck, just go back to the Mary Cheney threads. These folks fear the growing number of monogamous homosexual relationships far more than they do the San Francisco bathhouses.
It goes like this: You Christians scream about how promiscuous gays are, but then you oppose gay "marriage", which would allow them to be monogamous!
Are you arguing that gays are wildly promiscuous and engage in wanton, anonymous sex in bath houses only because we lack gay "marriage" in America?
Gay marriage is not the issue. The issue is simple monogamous relationships. I oppose gay marriage in my state. But I would much rather see 2 gays or lesbians settling down together, than running around spreading aids or other STDs, just as heterosexuals do.
Gays will always be promiscuous, but their promiscuity was at least restrained somewhat back when homosexuality was in the closet. Once it was unleashed, that's when AIDS spread like wildfire
I won't bother trying to tell you that 75 percent of new infections in women are heterosexually transmitted, or that 54 percent of new infections are in the Black communities. Even though most AIDS cases are heterosexually transmitted, to read the posts on this topic here, one would think homosexuals are the only cause of AIDS. It is simply disingenuous to either deny or ignore the major cause of it. AIDS is the most preventable serious disease on the face of the earth today. I would certainly think that those who are so concerned would want to start with the major demographic cases first, and would embrace all preventive measures.
Those people such as yourself who are "tolerant" of the gay lifestyle killed thousands of times more homosexuals than so-called "gay bashers" ever did, through your misguided sympathies for their perversion.
Those who have worked with homosexuals in attempting to curb the AIDs epidemic have helped tremendously in reducing it among homosexuals. I don't have to like the gay lifestyle, or even pretend to understand it. But I do know that homosexuality exists, has always existed, exists in most species of the animal kingdom, and is not going to be eliminated by religious fundamentalists. Homosexuals have the same rights as you or I as far as the US Constitution is concerned. That does not mean that states must give them legal privileges such as adoption or marriage. Nor does it mean that a state can't. We have gone a long way from the subject of this thread. I am only interested in ensuring that this amendment does not further erode the just powers of the various states.
Take care.