Top 10 Homosexual Marriage False ‘facts’

Good laws discriminate against behavior. They do not discriminate against people.

Having certain sexual desires – whether you were “born” with them or acquired them sometime in life – does not mean that you are being discriminated against if the law doesn’t allow the behavior you desire. Good laws discriminate against behavior. They do not discriminate against people. If Walker’s false “fact” was a real fact, we’d have to redefine marriage to include not just same-sex couples, but also relatives, multiple partners, children or any other sexual relationship people desire. After all, those are “sexual orientations” too.

Read more

4 Comments

  1. Wow! The article you link to is one of the best examples of spin that I’ve seen in quite a while! If I were either ignorant or just unduly tied to the closed-mindedness of the 19th Century, I might almost be willing to buy into it. However, on reading it more carefully, I really noticed how much emphasis there is on total nonsense – like “activist judge”, “ex-gay”, etc.; not to mention that “sexual desire” DOES NOT define a homosexual person any more than it does a heterosexual person. It may be a characteristic, but not a definition. Shame on anyone who is so hell-bent on discriminating against gays that he can’t (or won’t) see that!

    Oh…and that bit about desire and behavior, disrimination against people versus discrimination against behavior – that was classic! I will give the author credit – he’s right, “good laws” don’t discriminate against people; bad laws do! One need only look back at women’s suffrage, racial integration, anti-hate crime laws, etc. to see that bad laws need to be struck down and good laws enacted in their place.

  2. […] See original here: Top 10 Homosexual Marriage False 'facts' « Doug Lawrence's Weblog […]

  3. Please forgive me, I don’t have any particular disdain for the 19th Century. I just used that phrase (in lieu of “archaic”, “Victorian”, or any number of others) to get across a meaning which is commonly understood. I could have chosen my wording more carefully.

    My point was that the article was needlessly (perhaps even dangerously) slanted in one direction as opposed to being more objective. A judge who makes a ruling that you don’t agree with is not necessarily an activist. Perhaps he is, perhaps he isn’t. Neither you nor I nor the author of the article is really qualified to make that determination unless we are personally involved to the point where we’ve observed “activism” on the judge’s part.

    By the way, a good deal of current objective research indicates that homosexuality is a function of genetic makeup. Undoubtedly there is contrary research as well and I would be happy to follow any link you post that points to same. Nevertheless, to take up the position that you have indicates pretty plainly that you’re missing the point. I am a heterosexual male. I have never had even an inkling that I am anything other than heterosexual. This tells you nothing at all about the choices I’ve made in my life regarding sexual behavior. Conversely, if you were to observe only my behavior, you’d have no special insight into my orientation. Even if I were to reveal to you intimate details of my desire, that doesn’t “define” me.

    It’s not unlike the common misconception that knowledge is the same as intelligence. It is not. I could go on ad infinitum but I’ll spare you.

    The reason I went off on a bit of a rant is that I’m getting really frustrated at the closed mindedness that is so rampant with regard to gay people. This is the 21st Century after all. They may be gay but they’re still people! And, yes, I read the article you linked above and I was already aware of the radically different attitudes toward sexual behavior in the ancient world. I am also aware of the Christian view and the “objective morality” that the faithful have been trying to impose since the early part of the Common Era. Morality evolves, however; just as societies do. Perhaps you view me as the closed minded one but I’d rather be open to what’s happening now than what’s purported to have happened two thousand years ago.


Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s