Why homosexuals despise marriage

WorldNetdaily ^ | October 27, 2006 | Kevin McCullough

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

There is an axiomatic state of human reproductive biology and anything beyond that is purely a fetish, something the state should have no interest in sanctioning as codified into secular law.

No man may become a law unto himself under the guise of freedom of religion.

It was landmark U.S. Supreme Court precedent Reynolds v. United States in 1878 that made “separation of church and state” a dubiously legitimate point of case law, but more importantly; it confirmed the Constitutionality in statutory regulation of marriage practices.

[unspun]

I suggest you study the subject of "natural law." Not how the left misconstrues this now, but what it meant in the Seventeenth Century and onwards.

Marriage is between a husband and a wife because marriage is marriage.

[unspun]

Marriage is between a husband and a wife because marriage is marriage.

The union of a man and woman in a lifetime commitment in which children may be raised is what is called marriage.

If I were homosexual, I could take up with another man. If I had a thing for trees, I could drill a hole in one and hold a ceremony of lifetime commitment. But in neither case, would it be a marriage.

A bean is a bean. I could say, "I like to eat peas, not beans," but that doesn't change the fact that only a bean is a bean.

[Neoliberalnot]

Homosexuals despise themselves and in a twisted sense of mental illness, they despise anything different and in their sick minds, homophobic.