Replies

I base it on life experience. Do you not think it intuitive that married people have fewer sex partners than single people? Do you not think that some people take marriage vows seriously?

You keep bringing up whether or not people are born gay. I have said nothing on the subject and it is not related to my argument. I don't know why you repeatedly bring it up?

Did you understand my comment as to why it doesn't matter? If you chose your religion, you have that right. If you're naturally born you have other rights. The nature, nurture issue is not related to what I am saying.

In order to recognize the right of people to pursue happiness then Cal may have to change. But given the court decision, it is you who are advocating the change. Gay people are getting married everyday in Cal. You want to stop that.

Doesn't matter the number of votes. Rights are not subject to the vote of the majority. I think that's what the moderate to conservative Cal court was trying to tell you and what USSC decisions have indicated for 200 years. Civics 101.

Break out the Civics 101 textbooks and re-read them, and also the classic treatises on the Social Contract.

Rights, by consent of the majority, are in fact subject to the vote of the majority, whether you like it or not.

In your gay universe, the ultimate authority, or right, would otherwise be wielded by the biggest, the meanest, the ones with the tanks and automatic weapons, or access to them. Who would argue with them?

You might also consider that the USSC has ruled in contradiction to itself on several occasions over the same 200 years.

Even the ultimate authority on "rights", can't seem to get it right long term.

I keep bringing up science because there is no science to support the theory that homosexuals are born that way, despite the attempts by homosexual radicals to state otherwise. For years homosexual radicals have attempted to twist science to fit their agenda. Unfortunately for them, science is quite hostile to their claims of being born homosexual.

Simon LeVay, a scientist who also happens to be gay made an interesting observation about the emphasis on the biology of homosexuality. He noted, "...people who think that gays and lesbians are born that way are also more likely to support gay rights" (1996, p. 282)

Now remember, Simon LeVay is a scientist who also happens to be gay. The problem is, there is no scientific evidence to support the "born that way" theory, but gay activists and others have done a great job pushing an idea that simply has no basis in science.

Now, since gay marriage will be on the California ballot then shouldn't voters have all the available information before they vote?

Also, there is a growing ex-gay population. That is a fact that people have to deal with. Two people who were very involved in gay magazines have walked away from the homosexual life. One is Michael Glatze who was co-founder of the magazine Young Gay America. The other is Charlene Cothran who is the publisher of Venus Magazine, a magazine that used to cater to gays but Cothran now uses the magazine to help homosexuals "walk out of homosexuality today." Thousands of others have also walked out of homosexuality.

Just as gays should be able to seek help with unwanted same-sex attraction, voters should have all the available information before they vote. Most thinking people would agree. But since science doesn't support the born that way theory, informed voters are less likely to support gay rights.

You can try and ignore the science, but informed voters should know the truth.

And since there is no benefit gays get with marriage that they don't already have, redefining marriage for the other 98% of the population is to force acceptance of a changeable behavior that has no basis in science.

Rights can not be limited or licensed. They can only be infringed.

There is no right to a marriage *license issued by the State,* by definition.

A judicially created right that flouts natural and divine law is no right at all. The California Supreme Court overrode the will of the people to impose a scheme which none of them wanted nor was their consent asked. It was imposed by a single vote margin. That was the most egregious act of judicial activism in American history. Voters will get the opportunity to correct it and to ensure that marriage remains beyond the ability of politicians and rogue judges to undermine.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

In order to recognize the right of people to pursue happiness then Cal may have to change. But given the court decision, it is you who are advocating the change. Gay people are getting married everyday in Cal. You want to stop that.

I see you are distorting constitutional law.