Same-sex Marriage and the New Dominionist Manifesto

By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger

“So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government.  Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”

-Gary North, “The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right,” (Christianity and Civilization: The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, Number 1, Spring, 1982)

In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S 1 (1967), the Supreme Court held that Virginia’s prohibition of interracial marriage violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “The freedom to marry,” wrote Chief Justice Warren, “has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.” 366 U.S. at 12.  Many people were hoping that the Court would formally accord that status to same-sex marriage last month.  But it did not happen.  Edith Windsor will receive hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax refunds from the federal government, but the Court did not find it necessary to address the issue of same-sex marriage as a constitutional right, and elected not to do so. United States v. Windsor, No. 12-307 (June 26, 2013).

While that central constitutional issue remains unresolved, opponents of same-sex marriage are on the move.  The Freedom Federation, a coalition of civil and religious right-wing organizations ranging from Americans for Prosperity to Wallbuilders, has issued a pre-emptive strike in the form of a signed letter declaring that “the Supreme Court has no authority to redefine marriage… .”  The letter, which can be found on the Freedom Federation website, asserts that should the Court grant legal recognition to same-sex marriage, it “will be acting beyond its proper constitutional role,” and concludes with the vaguely ominous warning that “this is the line we must draw and one we cannot and will not cross.”

We have witnessed in recent years an increasing willingness by state legislatures to adopt nullification statutes, facially unconstitutional but politically potent.  Now the religious right has determined to extend the nullification doctrine to the judicial branch, employing the language of religious freedom to hide a theocratic dominionist vision of government and society.

In 2004 and again in 2005, legislation known as the Constitution Restoration Act was introduced in both the House and the Senate.  If adopted, the act would have stripped the federal courts of jurisdiction to consider any case challenging the acknowledgment of God as a source of law by any federal, state or local governmental unit.  The act would have also mandated impeachment for any violation.  The legislation did not make it out of committee, but its intention was crystal clear: the rejection of the secularist notion of separation of church and state.

The drafting of the statute was largely the work of Herb Titus, a lawyer who served as the first dean of the law school at Regent University and who famously represented Judge Roy Moore, the Alabama jurist removed as Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court for his refusal to comply with a federal court order compelling the removal from the courthouse rotunda of a monument to the Ten Commandments.

The failure of the attempted legislative assault on established jurisprudence construing the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses, combined with the pronounced hatred of the LBGT community by many religious fundamentalists, virtually guaranteed that something resembling the Freedom Federation letter would emerge when it did.  The co-author of the letter is Mat Staver, the founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of the Liberty University School of Law.  In March of this year, Liberty Counsel welcomed the Florida Faith & Works Coalition to its member organizations.  The Coalition represents approximately 600 conservative pastors engaged in promoting universal Christian dominionism.  From its website: “Subduing and having dominion over all the earth commands responsibility over the entire animate and inanimate world including the moral values that form the basis of society.  We affirm that, historically, America was established as a Christian nation and its policies were based on biblical principles.  The guardian of those biblical principles has always been His church.  And His church, in recent history, has passively abdicated its guardianship responsibility.”

The arguments in the Freedom Federation letter are boldly theocratic.  First, it is urged that marriage solely between a man and a woman is mandated by “natural moral law,” a product of reason.  But it approaches natural law in the same manner that Justice Scalia approaches the Constitution, as a rigid and dead body of law. (It also fails to identity which system or systems of natural law it endorses, but that’s another topic.) The truth is that our understanding of natural law theory and of the Constitution have evolved precisely because reason evolves as it is informed by knowledge and experience.

The letter next asserts that natural moral law is “affirmed, fulfilled, and elevated by Christian teaching,” thus adding the biblical foundation for the treatment of marriage between a man and a woman as divinely ordained and not subject to expansion or modification by positive law.  This is not only an argument against a secular view of marriage; in accordance with dominionist theology, it is also a rejection of religious pluralism.

Finally, the letter claims that same-sex marriage, once legitimized, will inevitably lead to its compulsory recognition by Christians, thereby undermining freedom of religion and conscience.  This position is demonstrably absurd, of course, since no religious sect has ever been compelled to grant sacramental status to any marital union that conflicts with its own doctrinal requirements.  And in the eyes of the law, no marriage has ever required religious approval as a condition of legitimacy.

Fundamentalist Christians must recognize by now that they are losing the battle against the ultimate acceptance of same-sex marriage.  But they are also patient and vigilant.  The Freedom Federation letter is a reminder that the preservation of secular government and religious freedom will also require patience and vigilance.


321 thoughts on “Same-sex Marriage and the New Dominionist Manifesto”

  1. OS: I opt for “won’t,” he has too much at stake to be wrong. I imagine, like many others, he has so many mental life hours invested in his viewpoint that he has become strongly emotionally attached to it, and can’t let it go. All those many private hours of contemplating how wonderful his self-taught “logic” is have disabled his ability to engage in actual logic.

    An actual logical argument has to rely upon truths that are self-evident to the reader, not to the presenter. Or at least are recognized by the reader as valid conclusions from self-evident truths.

    Seldom do we have to detail that basis, because most readers will recognize the truths and fill in the blanks.

    But that is where David falls apart; he has never bothered to identify, in his argument, precisely what self-evident (to him) truths his argument relies upon. But it does rely on some things his sub-conscious finds self-evident, and when we make arguments that deny those things, he is flummoxed and does not know how to proceed, except (as we have seen) to simply re-iterate his argument (or engage in attack, denial, or break off the argument without conceding).

    The re-iteration is just his way of insisting upon his self-evident truths which he cannot articulate because he never thought that far. Since he does not consciously know what those self-evident truths are, he instead restates his conclusions as his indirect means of insisting upon them.

    That stubbornness is a symptom of a deeper malady; which is unexamined assumptions. I think the self-taught overlook this key but subtle point of argumentation, that they cannot convince a reader of anything unless they can build the argument with logic upon a foundation of things the reader already believes.

    Or conversely, if their argument is founded upon something the reader denies as being self-evident, their argument is simply not valid for the reader.

    In the ideal world all arguments should end in either agreement or explicit disagreement about the truth of a simple statement: Either presenter and reader share a common base of self-evident truths upon which reason can build an argument, or they do not.

    If they do not share such a foundation, then the laundry list of their uncommonality in self-evident truths is the bottom of the disagreement; the Presenter believes “X,” his argument relies on “X”, and the Reader rejects “X”. Or the Reader believes “Y” and the Presenter’s argument relies upon rejecting “Y.”

    Arguments veer off the rails into ad hominem, repetition and emotion when presenters or readers cannot put their finger on exactly what they find self-evident, thus they cannot get to such simple conclusions. Or one of them, like David, refuses to explore or debate their foundational self-evident truths, for whatever reason.

    I think that is David’s problem, he doesn’t really understand that arguments fail if not presented using the reader’s fundamental beliefs. That detail is often overlooked by the casually trained (or untrained) because it is seldom made explicit. Most famous and well-accepted arguments rely on commonly held self-evident truths, and the arguments that resonate with an individual reader obviously rest on hidden self-evident truths.

    As Gene has pointed out, the presenter can use all the logic they want, and correctly, but if their argument ultimately rests on “X” being self-evident, and the reader disagrees, the logic is worthless. In essence it begins with “Because X is obviously true…” which to the reader is an outright lie.

    1. Tony C wrote: “But that is where David falls apart; he has never bothered to identify, in his argument, precisely what self-evident (to him) truths his argument relies upon. But it does rely on some things his sub-conscious finds self-evident, and when we make arguments that deny those things, he is flummoxed and does not know how to proceed, except (as we have seen) to simply re-iterate his argument (or engage in attack, denial, or break off the argument without conceding).”

      This will probably fall on deaf ears, but I am more conscious of my own premises than you realize. I constantly identify and question my unproven premises, those premises that must be assumed for lack of evidence. As I have stated before, every logical argument has premises. Difficulties in communicating happen when one or both sides fail to be willing to examine those premises. I have listened carefully to every objection raised, sometimes conceding to points made (something none of you have done, not even once when it was obvious how wrong you were). I have dealt with evaluating my own premises and will continue to do so. The problem is that when I question the premises of you, Gene, or OS, there is always a very clear dodge. There is an unwillingness to consider the issue. The subject is always changed. The conversation turns to judging me, what is wrong with David, why David has problems, how David does not know what he is talking about, the discussion always becomes focused on David, David, David. No matter how many times I try to discuss the issue, to turn the discussion to the logical premises that guide the discussion, you guys shift to judging me. This is exactly what you do here in this latest post. A few times I have succombed to returning that style of dialogue, which only made the discussion deteriorate further.

      At this point, I am certain that if I was asked to take a test to represent your position and the reasons and justifications for them, I would pass that test easily. On the other hand, I am just as certain that if you three took a test to represent my position and the justifications I make for it, you all would fail.

      Yesterday I pointed out how Gene was arguing from the premise that if it cannot be shown how a same sex union being considered marriage would hurt my own personal marriage, then government should consider it marriage. End of story for him. I very carefully outlined in logical form the fallacy of his premise. Government is more involved than just that one issue, an issue that I had long ago conceded was on his side. I pointed out how I held to a premise that government also should be concerned about harm to the individual doing the act, and also about harm caused long term to society as a whole, such as society losing an understanding of how opposite sex marriage works to be beneficial to a strong civilized society. Did he point out an error in my premises here? No. He ignored it all. He went back to asking for a harm. I gave him a list of ten harms. It was ignored. He went back to asking for a harm again. Did he even show how one of the harms was not really a harm? No. He is like the energizer bunny, just repeating his dogma ad nauseum no matter what is said. It was as if I was talking to the wall or to a five year old who had no clue what I was talking about.

      This pattern of response goes back more than 3 months when we first talked about Natural Law Theory. I have been very straightfoward about my perspective on Natural Law Theory being most closely aligned with William Blackstone’s Law Commentaries on this subject, and that I perceive Thomas Jefferson adopted his language of “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” from Blackstone when writing our Declaration of Independence. You can read the following link for a short article that discusses this concept in more detail:

      So while I have been very detailed about my perspective on Natural Law Theory, do I get some kind of detailed instruction in return? No, I get basically just denial, with foolish vacuous statements indicating that my idea of Natural Law Theory is incorrect. I offer sources and quotes, but I get back only insults suggesting that I am ignorant and unstudied on the matter. One of the most prominent modern Natural Law Theorists living today is John Finnis, Professor of Law at University College, Oxford, and Notre Dame University. He won a Rhodes scholarship to University College, Oxford. One of his major works is a book entitled “Natural Law and Natural Rights,” considered on of the definitive works of Natural Law Theory. At this point, I cannot help but link to a paper of his found at Princeton University’s website concerning this issue of Homosexual Marriage.

      For those who will not bother to click on the link, I quote the following from his conclusion:

      The plain fact is that those who propound ‘gay’ ideology have no principled
      moral case to offer against (prudent and moderate) promiscuity, indeed the getting of
      orgasmic sexual pleasure in whatever friendly touch or welcoming orifice (human or
      otherwise) one may opportunely find it. In debate with opponents of their ideology,
      these proponents are fond of postulating an idealised (two-person, lifelong…) category
      of relationship—‘gay marriage’—and of challenging their opponents to say how such a
      relationship differs from marriage at least where husband and wife know themselves to
      be infertile. As I have argued, the principal difference is very simple and fundamental:
      the artificially delimited (two-person, lifelong…) category named ‘gay marriage’ or
      ‘same-sex marriage’ corresponds to no intrinsic reason or set of reasons at all. It has few
      presentable counterparts in the real world outside the artifice of debate. Marriage, on
      the other hand, is the category of relationships, activities, satisfactions, and
      responsibilities which can be intelligently and reasonably chosen by a man and a woman,
      and adopted as their integral commitment, because the components of the category
      respond and correspond coherently to a complex of interlocking, complementary good
      reasons: the good of marriage. True and valid sexual morality is nothing more, and
      nothing less, than an unfolding of what is involved in understanding, promoting, and
      respecting that basic human good, and of the conditions for instantiating it in a real, nonillusory
      way—in the marital act.

      So while you guys want to me accept your word on the issue simply on the basis of your authority and supposedly superior education, I have my own mind and functioning faculties to know that you have offered no argument whatsoever to refute anything that I have presented. Furthermore, greater minds than yours, professors of law with both greater contributions in history as well as greater credentials, are clearly in my camp of thinkers rather than yours.

      I could go on and on, but it really is pointless. Regardless of whether you recognize it or not, I have concluded that you, Gene H., and OS are not interested at all in discerning the truth of the subject of homosexuality or the question of whether it is better for the law to treat same sex unions as marriages or civil partnerships. You are only interested in pushing your agenda. Neither logic or discussion is important to you. There is no working together to discover truth. It is all about pushing the dogma you already know and discrediting anybody else who might take the time to discuss the problems with your logical framework. At this point, I see no honest partnership possible. I see exactly what is going on and I will continue to think clearly about this issue. Have a nice day.

  2. Tony,
    He either can’t or won’t grasp the difference between “natural law” and laws of nature. Of course, he seems to misinterpret both, so it probably doesn’t matter.

    As Mark Twain wrote in a letter to an acquaintance, “The difference between the almost right word & the right word is really a large matter–it’s the difference between the lightning bug and the lightning.”

  3. Of course, for you, David, “natural law” means whatever you want it to mean, it doesn’t really have anything to do with what happens in nature at all. Including homosexuality.

    For you, “natural law” just means however you and your ilk want things to be; it is a classic deflection of responsibility.

    “Oh, don’t blame me, these aren’t my rules, I just enforce nature’s rules (that I know infallibly and you don’t).”

  4. DavidM: A certain proportion of our population are pedophiles. Do we discriminate against their sexual orientation? What about incestual relationships between adults? From time to time I read about fathers and adult daughters wanting to marry. We don’t accept sexual orientations like these on the basis of natural law just because they exist in nature.

    Pedophiles that take an action to satisfy their sexual desires do so without consent; since we have all deemed children incapable of consent. We prohibit those actions because they do children harm; not because they are against any “natural law.”

    An incest relationship is NOT a sexual orientation issue; so that is just a red herring. I will say that marriage prohibition is probably related to cultural mores and the probability of genetic problems with inbreeding, but certainly in Nature itself there is every combination of incestual relationships between animals, so claiming that we prohibit it as “unnatural” is a blatant lie. Many a rooster (and many a goat) is banging his own daughters. Bonobos commit incest, too, and routinely mate with members of their tribe before they reach sexual maturity.

    I do not think we outlaw incest marriage because it is against nature, but because we find it culturally distasteful and we worry about exploitation of something that is natural: A dominance relationship between family members.

  5. Also, I do invite Mike A. to speak about natural law more specifically.

    Because I can pretty much guarantee you won’t like what he’s got to say about the matter, David.

    Natural law does not mean what you seem to think it means.

  6. By the way, no one is pretending you don’t know what you are talking about, David.

    You really truly don’t know what you are talking about.

  7. As Tony pointed to, the science does indeed show sexual orientation is genetic but how it is expressed is shaped by society and environment. For example, in a society where homosexuality is accepted, there is no stigma and homosexuals can be open about their orientation. In a society where homosexuality is discriminated against, homosexuals have a huge pressure to deny their sexual orientation or “hide in the closet”. Just because nurture plays a role in how homosexuality is expressed does not change that it is nature.

    As for your “arguments” on natural law, all you demonstrated is that you don’t understand natural law as it applies to legal theory. This has been adequate demonstrated.


    Show a specific harm from recognizing equal rights for homosexuals.

    That is the legal hurdle you must overcome if you desire to restrict their rights and treat them as second class citizens.

  8. DavidM: It is completely inappropriate to treat homosexuality like eye color, and I think you know this.

    No, I do not know that, because what I DO know is that self-declared lifelong homosexuals of both genders have very different brain organizations compared to heterosexuals of their gender, and I DO know that brain organization has been traced to a hormonal event during development, so I believe they are born with an attraction to the same gender as themselves.

    I do not think that attraction is a “choice.” I think acting on it is obviously a choice, but I see no reason to deny adults the right to act on their mutual attraction.

    Many genes, like the BRCA gene for breast cancer, are not 100% determinative. BRCA confers a much higher chance of developing breast cancer, but it is not a 100% chance. IQ is that way; there seems to be a genetic component but it isn’t a guarantee, it is a probability. The same goes for many other genes; like grown height, or a tendency toward obesity or diabetes.

    Perhaps homosexuality is like IQ, certain combinations of genes produce a much higher chance of same-sex attraction. Perhaps the genes in question, if they do not hit their 10% chance of occurring together, do not confer a higher chance of homosexuality. Perhaps there are many such combinations of genes, so they aren’t consistent across all homosexuals (like a combination lock that opens to 100 different combinations out of the many millions that are possible).

    Why would any of that be any different?
    It would remain a born difference, based on genetics.

    You seem to think we already know everything there is to know about genetics and how genes interact and what all the genes do in all their myriad and chaotic interactions. If you do not think that, your argument certainly sounds like it and relies upon it.

    You cannot claim you know what is going on genetically, and all the evidence points at a born difference (whether reflected in the genome or not).

  9. David,
    When do you plan on responding to the questions Gene and I posed earlier? You know, the ones about how any straight people will be harmed either now or sometime in the future. I am also waiting to hear from you on whether you are a Domionist and whether you were sent to propagandize, or if you are doing on your own.

  10. David,
    “If you know this, then you are being dishonest to pretend the science says otherwise and to pretend that I don’t know what I am talking about.”

    There’s no pretense. You aren’t talking about science. We know what you’re talking about.
    You’re talking about your own prejudices and fear.
    Human laws shouldn’t reflect your prejudices and fear.They often do, but that’s stupid, and needs correction.

    1. Bob Kauten wrote: ” You aren’t talking about science.”

      I was referencing twin studies published in several scientific journals and comparing their results to studies concerning eye color in twins. The science is that the genome of individuals is predominantly responsible for eye color, whereas environmental factors are more of a contributor in regards to human sexuality.

      This has nothing to do with prejudice or fear, but about a rational consideration of human sexuality and the way the law should deal with it. If you think that my thinking and arguments have nothing to do with science, then it is your own prejudice that is getting in the way and blinding you to the truth of this matter.

  11. Davey wrote: ” Sometimes I question why I waste my time with you guys. It keeps coming up that you are dishonest, and dishonesty always leads to very disappointing conversations.”

    Hahaha!!! Too funny coming from David of all people.

  12. DavidM says: In the end, the definition of marriage we have traditionally accepted as the law most close to natural law will have been destroyed completely.

    For one, we don’t believe in natural law, so being close to something non-existent is immaterial.

    For two, what we do believe in is people, and the law should reflect the maximum amount of freedom people can have without trampling on the freedoms of others.

    I don’t care about tradition, I don’t believe in natural law, I only care about human emotions and lives: equality, freedom from oppression or coercion or exploitation regardless of birth circumstances, and the opportunity to reach one’s potential as one sees fit.

    So, within those constraints, I hope your traditional definition of marriage is entirely destroyed because it is inherently unfair, discriminatory, and causes unnecessary anguish and hardship.

    1. Tony C wrote: “For one, we don’t believe in natural law,…”

      It is my understanding that Mike Appleton who posted the article to which we are commenting believes in Natural Law Theory, and also that Gene H accepts Natural Law Theory. I remember Gene H making the comment that our government is founded upon Natural Law Theory. That comment encouraged me to make arguments based upon Natural Law Theory.

      Tony C wrote: “I don’t care about tradition, I don’t believe in natural law, I only care about human emotions and lives…”

      Then we have a major difference between us in how to approach law making. I believe in learning from history, and that means being cautious about turning away from tradition without some good reasons. I believe in Natural Law Theory as a valid working model for establishing laws that will result in the optimal balance of liberty and happiness of everyone. I’m sorry for having wasted so much time assuming that you accepted these basic legal premises.

  13. raff,
    Once when I was car shopping, I stopped by the bank to see the manager handling our office account. He wanted an update on my negotiations with the car dealer, which had been going on a month or more. After I gave him the update, he just shook his head and said, “Remind me to never try selling you a car. You have the patience of a pipe smoker.”

  14. davidm2575,

    What is “natural law”? Where is this law written? Who wrote it?
    Is it in the Constitution?
    Wasn’t slavery considered part of “natural law”?
    Wasn’t British imperialism part of “natural law”?

    I think the only things you can possibly nominate for “natural law” consist of some of Newton’s principles, maybe also Einstein’s “proven” theories. Any of those, since they were written by fallible humans, could be changed at any time.
    “Natural law” belongs in the 19th century, and should stay there.
    Nature, outside of humans, has no laws at all. Nature is just the way stuff is. Humans change the way stuff is, all the time.

    None of this stuff has any connection to sticking your nose in other people’s business (literally).

  15. Tony,
    That group marriage thing is just another of his red herrings based in dogma and propaganda, not law or psychology.

    I have just been reading up on the psychology of conspiracy theorists and the people whom Eric Hoffer called, “true believers.” Fascinating stuff, and much too complex to put in a comment. Might be worth a guest blog story though.

  16. David,
    You should know by now that calling me names or even a liar affects me not one whit. I repeat. You have been shown numerous ways that laws preventing LBGT marriages harms the affected class. Legal, medical, economically and psychological. These anti-civil rights laws and rules even affect immigration and resident alien status negatively.

    You have yet to show us one single credible way in which such unions harms you, Larry the Cable Guy, or anyone else. We are waiting for a concrete example, not some pseudo-legal mumbo jumbo.

    I have been reading up on the Domionist agenda and the various organizations the movement has spawned. It has dawned on me, albeit slowly, that you are coming across increasingly as a Domionist. Is that true? Have you bought into the Domionist agenda, as David Lane and others of his ilk have? When do the car bombings start if you don’t get your way?

    Is this your agenda? Are you a plant sent by the Domionists or one of their subgroups to propagandize us and wear us down. If it is, that has been tried before several times. It has not worked yet, and will not work for you.

  17. DavidM says: No, that is NOT a scientific fact. All the science contradicts you. If what you say were true, then identical twins would all be born homosexual.

    No, you are wrong. Your claim is only true if Gene’s claim is that homosexuality is 100% determined by genetic makeup with absolutely zero contribution from the rest of the environment or exposure to hormones, stress or other variations in development, AND if identical twins really have identical genes, when they do not. The are called “identical” because of their looks, not because of their genes.

    A quote from this article.
    Although monozygotic twins are genetically very similar, a study of 92 pairs of monozygotic twins, carried out in November of 2012, has found that monozygotic twins acquire hundreds of genetic differences early in fetal development, due to mutations (or copy errors) taking place in the DNA of each twin after the splitting of the embryo. It is estimated that, on average, a set of monozygotic twins will have about 360 genetic differences that occurred early in fetal development.

    Another cause of difference between monozygotic twins is epigenetic modification, caused by differing environmental influences throughout their lives, which affects which genes are switched on or off.

    ——-end quote——–

    Once again, you do not know what you are talking about.

    1. Tony C wrote: “Your claim is only true if Gene’s claim is that homosexuality is 100% determined by genetic makeup with absolutely zero contribution from the rest of the environment or exposure to hormones, stress or other variations in development…”

      I don’t know about 100%, but 90% or 95% is just as effective toward my point. It clearly was Gene’s claim that homosexuality is genetically determined. He likened it to skin or eye color, the phenotype of which is clearly determined primarily by the genetic makeup of the individual.

      In regards to “identical twins,” their genes are for the most part identical because they result from a split of the embryo shortly after fertilization. They even share the same placenta during development. The term monozygotic twin is used for identical twins because they come from the same zygote. Monozygotic twins look similar because they are for the most part considered genetically identical. They have different fingerprints, however, due to environmental differences during development. For the same reason they differ in moles and birthmarks on the skin. There are some minor genetic differences in certain somatic cells caused by errors in genetic copying during mitosis.

      Identical twins generally will have the same eye color and skin color. Concordance is measured at something like 98% or higher depending on their age and methods of measuring color. Concordance for homosexuality, however, varies from 5% to 52%, depending upon the studies. It is completely inappropriate to treat homosexuality like eye color, and I think you know this. If you know this, then you are being dishonest to pretend the science says otherwise and to pretend that I don’t know what I am talking about. Sometimes I question why I waste my time with you guys. It keeps coming up that you are dishonest, and dishonesty always leads to very disappointing conversations.

  18. DavidM: He makes it clear that group marriage is next on their agenda.

    So what? Passing one law does not mean a group can automatically pass another. People can have any objectives they want, that doesn’t mean a thing. We do not refuse to do what is right based on who wants it done; we do not choose to continue an injustice because it gives a win to people we do not like.

    Political agendas do not matter, individual demands can be judged as worthy or unworthy as they are presented.

    1. Tony C wrote: “So what? Passing one law does not mean a group can automatically pass another. People can have any objectives they want, that doesn’t mean a thing.”

      I have been scorned in this forum for speaking of the “homosexual agenda” because nobody likes to come to the realization that their current views are a product of their indoctrination. When a leader outlines his plan to first get people to accept same sex partnerships in civil law, then gay marriage, and the next step is group marriage, etc. … well, it should give us pause to contemplate whether we are rationally thinking through an issue or simply accepting an issue without clear rational thinking. Sometimes simple peer pressure, repeating something often enough, is sufficient to change minds.

      It has been argued here that gay marriage will not lead us toward accepting polygamy, even though rational reasoning has been put forward by Randy that the same reasoning based upon the 14th Amendment extends to ideas like polygamy. Well, here you have a significant activist for human rights plainly stating that it has been their plan all along to get society to rethink these sexual issues, and so over the next years after they succeed with gay marriage, they will argue for group marriage. In the end, the definition of marriage we have traditionally accepted as the law most close to natural law will have been destroyed completely.

  19. “Wrong. The extension of their reasoning is not automatic because great differences exist between race and sexual orientation.”

    Once again ignoring the science of the matter. The extension of the Loving logic is exactly the same based on the 14th Amendment. Why? Because sexual orientation is no more at the discretion of the individual than are skin or eye color. Homosexuality is not “a lifestyle choice”. It’s a biological genetic natural variance of phenotype expression. That is scientific fact. There is no difference between race and sexual orientation from a biological perspective. There is no difference in the logic that laws that discriminate based on such natural variations are a violation of the 14th Amendments Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

    Name. A. Specific. Harm.

    1. Gene H wrote: “Because sexual orientation is no more at the discretion of the individual as skin or eye color. Homosexuality is not “a lifestyle choice”. It’s a biological genetic natural variance of phenotype expression. That is scientific fact.”

      No, that is NOT a scientific fact. All the science contradicts you. If what you say were true, then identical twins would all be born homosexual. There would be 100% concordance for homosexuality in identical twins. You might as well flip a coin to predict which twin will be homosexual and which one will not be homosexual.

      Furthermore, nobody could suddenly become homosexual later in life, nor could a homosexual person be happy switching to heterosexuality later in life. Nobody has ever changed their race, but many have changed their sexual behavior from homosexual to heterosexual and from heterorsexual to homosexual.

      Homosexual orientation comes from a psychological state based on a number of factors, social environment and choice being part of that equation.

Comments are closed.