Steve Young's family up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

Alito, Thomas, Roberts aren't going anywhere any time soon and if Scalia (72) and Kennedy (72) have good genes they'll be around for a while. Thankfully Obama will get to replace all the non-conservative judges.

Justice Kennedy will occasionally lean towards the libertarian/socially liberal side, as he did with Lawrence v. Texas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_vs._Texas) back in 2003 which struck down state laws prohibiting certain sex acts between consenting adults.

But he also sided with the majority in the dreadful Kelo v. New London, Connecticut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London) ruling, which allowed localities to use eminent domain for virtually any purpose they see fit. So he's truly the wildcard in any Supreme Court case.

To my way of thinking, the homosexual lifestyle is inherently wrong. So that's why I have no issue with children having the natural order of things "forced" upon them. That's my problem with it. I'm not forcing my views on others in that they wouldn't be able to do what they want, I'm saying children should be protected from something that immoral and wrong on a fundamental level. Everybody's got their opinions and positions, this one is mine. It's not based in hatred, it's based on my own sense of right and wrong. And for what it's worth, in the three states where it came up for vote, the majority of citizens agreed with me.

So someone should be thrown in jail because their moral beliefs differ from yours? And I've never been more convinced that a person is proven right based on the fact that there are more people who agree with him than me. If you stood for civil rights for black people in the state of Alabama in 1958 -- you'd be in the minority by far. But that doesn't mean you're wrong and the majority is right.

If you don't mind, I'd like to pick your brain a bit to find out why you think homosexuality is "inherently wrong" -- is it religous, or Biblically based? A violation of natural law?

Couldn't you say the same thing about heterosexuality?

Absolutely not. Without a doubt there is a natural and an unnatural side to this issue. I have no qualms about saying that.


And nobody is forcing views on anyone. Plenty of research has been done to show no correlation between being raised by gay parents and the child growing up to be gay.

In fact a girl I was friends with in high school, grew up with two mothers. Came out a 3.5 gpa student, heterosexual, went on to do good things with her life.

If you disagree with it from a religious standpoint, I can understand that. But just saying that being gay is an option isn't really how it works. It's not like by being around gay people you're "going to catch the gay"



I'm probably one of the least religious people on this board. But I can do nothing except vote my conscience and in this case, this is how I feel. To all of those who say that "children are born gay" I don't really know how to respond, but I do know that there are periods in the development of a child where they are vulnerable to suggestion and environmental influence. So while they may not "catch the gay" as you so eloquently put it, there's no saying that they won't be negatively impacted by the constant Pro-Gay lifestyle they will obviously be raised in.


99% of the time, being gay isn't a choice. Ask anyone who's gay. Sure there are some with bad experiences that turn for solace in the same sex. But everyone that I know, and knowing myself (since I've dabbled in a few things before), I didn't ask for this. It's just the hand that gay people were dealt. I find it a bit troubling that people like to think that people consciously make a decision whether or not to love someone of the same sex or of the different sex.

Again, I can't say how people are or are not born and I'm quite sure that nothing has been proven either way in this regard. I can only stay true to what I believe and this is something that has always strongly struck me as contrary to nature and therefore wrong. That's really the end all and be all of my argument, lacking in tangible data as it is. I would never attack anyone for their choices in this regard; but if someone, i.e. the government, asks me as a citizen to give my opinion on an issue that I feel impacts society, I will do so.

So someone should be thrown in jail because their moral beliefs differ from yours? And I've never been more convinced that a person is proven right based on the fact that there are more people who agree with him than me. If you stood for civil rights for black people in the state of Alabama in 1958 -- you'd be in the minority by far. But that doesn't mean you're wrong and the majority is right.

If you don't mind, I'd like to pick your brain a bit to find out why you think homosexuality is "inherently wrong" -- is it religous, or Biblically based? A violation of natural law?

Wow, where the hell did I say that? You see, this is somewhat amusing to me. It's always the far left leaning individuals among us that are the first to apply labels to those with opposing view points, yet the more conservative are branded the bigots. I have not once advocated any kind of "punishment" for anyone of any persuasion. Not only have I not said it, I don't feel it.

To answer your second question, my feelings are not based on any form of religion, as I personally am not a believer. To me, it is a violation of natural law.

We took a big step forward in electing an African American President, but it looks like we still have a long way to go in regard to sexuality and the ignorant thinking often involved with it. Sigh.

We took a big step forward in electing an African American President, but it looks like we still have a long way to go in regard to sexuality and the ignorant thinking often involved with it. Sigh.

Apparently dissension from the majority on this board is the sole form of evidence necessary to be called ignorant.

Apparently dissension from the majority on this board is the sole form of evidence necessary to be called ignorant.

No, not really. Ignorance is what it is. And it's pretty obvious here.

Wow, where the hell did I say that? You see, this is somewhat amusing to me. It's always the far left leaning individuals among us that are the first to apply labels to those with opposing view points, yet the more conservative are branded the bigots. I have not once advocated any kind of "punishment" for anyone of any persuasion. Not only have I not said it, I don't feel it.

To answer your second question, my feelings are not based on any form of religion, as I personally am not a believer. To me, it is a violation of natural law.


It's really quite simple: If you think gay marriage should be illegal, i.e. against the law -- than anyone who engages in that activity would be in violation of the law and could theoretically be sent to jail.

Now, on to your violation of natural law -- if a behavior, or inherent attraction is found throughout nature, in the animal kingdom, (and yes, we humans are animals) then how could it possibly be a violation of natural law?

It's really quite simple: If you think gay marriage should be illegal, i.e. against the law -- than anyone who engages in that activity would be in violation of the law and could theoretically sent to jail.

Now, on to your violation of natural law -- if a behavior, or inherent attraction is found throughout nature, in the animal kingdom, (and yes, we humans are animals) then how could it possibly be a violation of natural law?

Lock up the monkeys!

LiveScience.com | LiveScience.com - Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild (http://www.livescience.com/bestimg/index.php?cat=gayanimals)

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_displaying_homosexual_behavior)

No, not really. Ignorance is what it is. And it's pretty obvious here.

Well, we disagree. I can do so respectfully, you've proven repeatedly during the past several months that you cannot. Must be nice to win every argument by proclaiming ignorance from on high.

Apparently the concept of right and wrong is alien to most of those responding to my post. No one seems to believe that anything short of violence or robbery is "wrong." To think that morality plays no part in the overall quality of a civilization is foolish and self-centered. To me, homosexuality is immoral and wrong on a fundamental nature, therefore I can't support any view point that promotes/legitimizes that lifestyle as a viable option. To do so would be to contribute to the continued degradation of our society. Like it or not, that's a legitimate viewpoint. You don't have to agree, but to insult me for stating my opinion in this thread seems a little hypocritical.