Miss California seems to be much ado about nothing. It seems to skirt around the real issue, gay marriage and gay equality.
s there some kind of new taxonomical classification for a human that looks at the human's sexual preference? Are we no longer man or woman? Are we now gay man, hetero man, gay woman, hetero woman? And where does that nonsense stop?Human beings are not classified by sexual preference any more than they are classified by alcoholic addiction or anorexic tendencies, athletic ability, or intellectual prowess. You are simply a man or a woman.If there is some new classification, then this is a new biological teaching that has never been imposed on students of earth science until our time.A person suffering from same sex attraction is just as equal as any other human being on earth. But what is being debated is not "equality", what is taking place is a changing of the reality of marriage. To allow so called "gay marriage" would be to change what marriage is. No longer would anatomical complementarity matter (which it does). We would be rendering the sexual anatomy of an individual to be a senseless accident. It would be a departure from our real world with real order and observable biological fact.To allow so called "gay marriage" would be to hinder the person who suffers from same sex attraction. Society would be condoning homogenital acts."gay equality" as advanced by the homosexual movement is not about "equality", it is about one group trying to impose a practice on the whole of society that is at odds with truth and nature.
To anon:Sir or madam, why would you choose to call homosexuality an affliction? There is no affliction other than a social stigma imposed upon gays by people such as yourselves that goes along with homosexuality. Please educate yourself.http://www.apa.org/topics/sorientation.htmlIt is true that marriage is a religious institution. However, it is a legal institution which covers a wide-array of benefits such as insurance coverage, legal rights during dissolution, and tax breaks. As such, under legal grounds there is no reason the government should not provide these same benefits to gay couples. Even if they choose to not call it marriage, call it civil union, but in fairness it needs to be offered.
"Society would be condoning homogenital acts."And?"'gay equality' as advanced by the homosexual movement is not about 'equality', it is about one group trying to impose a practice on the whole of society that is at odds with truth and nature."First off, many animals are gay in nature.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animalshttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.htmlSecond off, no one is forcing this on you. No one is going to put a gun to your head and force you to marry another member of the same sex. Allowing gays to get married in no feasibly significant way affects your life. The arguments you presented here today are of the same ilk as the racist arguments used to stop blacks from marrying whites 60 years ago. Perhaps you should ponder that before posting again.