It's not anti-gay; he's right. It *is* anti-intelligence, however.
"...but merely an attempt to affirm and defend what has always been true in all cultures, societies, nations, races and in all eras." Vis: Amsterdam, Canada. I know at least these two cultures, societies, nations in this era have said that marriage is a union between two people, homo or hetero sexual.
"Natural law, state law and federal law clearly state that marriage is between one man and one woman." First of all, if state and federal law so clearly state this fact, then Measure 36 is entirely unnecessary; it's like introducing a measure, "Yes, we have free speech. No, really, it's there in the Constitution." It's ridiculous. Second: where is natural law written down? If you mean the procreation of the species, yes, homosexual union is against natural law. If you mean survival of the species, homosexual union is a damn fucking good idea. Have you realized how stupidly overcrowded and underfed the population of our planet is? I hope you have, or that you do soon. Homosexual union in a legal sense - ie., marriage - will prevent further procreation, instead taking orphaned children and raising them with love and care.
all the laws agauinst gay marriage are being challanged by the aclu and other orgs thats the reason behind the amendment. it prevents it. though i think you can challange the amendment in state supreme court. but if the National amendment goes through, it wont matter. Even vermonts civil unions will be abolished.
"...but merely an attempt to affirm and defend what has always been true in all cultures, societies, nations, races and in all eras." Vis: Amsterdam, Canada. I know at least these two cultures, societies, nations in this era have said that marriage is a union between two people, homo or hetero sexual.
"Natural law, state law and federal law clearly state that marriage is between one man and one woman." First of all, if state and federal law so clearly state this fact, then Measure 36 is entirely unnecessary; it's like introducing a measure, "Yes, we have free speech. No, really, it's there in the Constitution." It's ridiculous. Second: where is natural law written down? If you mean the procreation of the species, yes, homosexual union is against natural law. If you mean survival of the species, homosexual union is a damn fucking good idea. Have you realized how stupidly overcrowded and underfed the population of our planet is? I hope you have, or that you do soon. Homosexual union in a legal sense - ie., marriage - will prevent further procreation, instead taking orphaned children and raising them with love and care.
Bah.
That's my argument on the matter, at least.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment