Science-- social science--too bad we can´t nix this "inevitable outcome" on moral grounds, since the LAW is based on morality.

Since when is God "shaky science"?

Lev. 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13 "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1Cor. 6:9-10 "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28 "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

I have no idea what the Quran says nor do I care, but the Muslims will not be as kind as Americans are to homosexuals law or no law.

Amen #2!!

I do not know precisely what the Quran says but there is a Hidith from the prophet Muhammad which goes something like:

´Let the sodomite, and the one who allows himself to be sodomized, be killed.´

I guess Barky just loves to mock the prophet Muhammad which, incidentally, should be shouted from the highest yardarms!

Same sex "marriage" is only the law of a few states but we´re already seeing calls for polygamist marriage, group "parents" for children and seminars at places like Yale urging "tolerance" for incest and bestiality. Remember way back when - the homosexual activists claimed they only wanted "tolerance".

Now they want, instead of "Heather has two Mommies", "Heather has two Mommies and a Daddy" or Heather has Mommy and her brother, Uncle Andy, or Heather has Daddy and his Sheep. It´s coming and if we don´t stop it now that´s where we´ll end up. And they´ll demand that we pay for all of it. Goodbye society, hello chaos.

If government was not in the business of playing favorites in your relationships this issue would die on the vine the very next day.

How about we conservatives stick with that line rather than thowing Old Testament verses around? Only a church can "marry". The government can then punish or reward the relationship based on how the participants are treated via taxes and government benefits. Sounds a lot like TARP and the GM bailout, doesn´t it?

Homosexuals (male and female) have made up about 3% of every society in recorded history. Any laws the states enforce regarding SSM won´t make one more of less gay person or gay couple.

If you´re worried about traditional marriage, most of recorded history (including the Old Testament) included polygamy. First Kings 11:1-3 indicates that King Solomon had 700 hundred wives and 300 hundred concubines. He was considered wise.

If you advocate for liberty and limited government, this issue can never be used by the statists and Socialists to divide and defeat patriotic, Constitutional conservatives and little "r" republicans.

The biggest issue with traditional marriage is the lack of two-parent parenting in the black community. Some idiot Kardashian has a $10M wedding that lasts 77 days, nearly half of "church" weddings end in divorce, and you´re worried about a tiny fraction of society. Go figure.

I am against gay marriage for religious reasons. The Bible is clear that one man and one woman coming together as one is the definition of marriage and society has adopted this definition for centuries. It is troubling to think that man now wants to change this definition which would leave it open to further tweaking in the future. Once the government can define what is essentially a religious sacrament, there is no regress for those of us who do not accept it. It will be "law" and therefore, all will be forced to obey. Two questions beg to be asked: (1) If gays were given the exact same standing legally as a married couple under another name, would that be acceptable or is their goal not actually equality under the law, but enforcement of society to sacrifice their religious beliefs on the altar of tolerance. (2) What other religious sacraments can the government redefine.

I´m sure you remember the saying, once the camel has his nose in the tent, it will not be long until the whole camel is inside? #4, you are spot on!

#2, there is no such word as "homosexual" in the Bible. That is a recent interpretation.

Why is one sin any worse than another? How many heterosexuals engage in sodomy & oral sex? Many more than there are homosexuals in the world. And most takes place among married couples too! But it doesn´t matter. The Bible is a good book but it was still written by men--true, inspired by God, but still fallible men writing for a different time. How many of you cover your heads when in the house of the Lord? How many of you eat shellfish and pork?--also an abomination in Leviticus. To me, the most important words from God are the 10 Commandments, which everyone breaks. They´re the only words that can truly be attributed to God, himself. While the Bible is still great, it was compiled, edited & parts chosen as they saw fit to ensure consistency by the Universal Church. Ok, the slings & arrows are coming. But I can´t sit by & watch people malign others as if their sin was somehow "worse" than any other "sin".

#5, thank you!!!!

Joseph Smith was also really good at interpreting God´s word in the 19th century, and he decided God wanted him and his key followers to have multiple sex partners via religious "marriage". Just ask the last GOP candidate for POTUS about his great-grandfather Miles Park Romney and why he moved to Mexico. Hint: it was to avoid one of the US government´s early attempts to define and reward/punish religious relationships.

I am far less concerned about what polygamysts do and whom they marry than I am about their abuse of male off-spring and their exloitation of government benefit programs (me, the taxpayer) to pay for their lifestyle choices.

Choose your battles wisely. Tossing around Bible quotes doesn´t help our cause. The Bible is conflicted on the "traditional" marriage issue to say the least.

Thank you #5, #8 and #11!

....and while we are discussing this, ask yourself this: how did Solomon afford all those 1000 babes and build a huge temple? On the backs of the Israelite taxpayers and slaves a well as military conquests.

Do you think Solomon´s people would have voted to pay taxes to support his astronomical number of sexual play toys? To be at war constantly putting your life on the line so he could live in such style?

We don´t have Earthly kings in our Constitution.

I don´t need the supremes to rule on this "same-sex" thingy......

Since the supremes have given up their moral high ground in favor of "popular political" rulings -- I´ve given them no credibility...

God´s law rules in my house and my Pope Francis speaks for me and mine...

There is NO such thing as "same-sex" marriage. So go ahead and have your civil unions as you wish....

Your business is NOT with the supremes -- but -- someday with God when you stand before him.... It is NOT my business. It is between you and God....

LZK

If Bible quotes O-fend, how about logic?

1. Marriage existed before governments.
2. Religion existed before governments.
3. Human societies for millennia severely discouraged homosexual behavior.
4. Governments glommed onto marriage to control behaviors.
5. Marriage is a societal construct for the production and welfare of children.
6. Natural Law indicates that homosexual behavior does not promote procreation.
7. No procreation, no more humans.
8. ´Gay marriage´ is a perverse new social construct born of economic greed to cash in on the constructs in societal law that benefit married couples.

Resultantly, marriage is a religious institution, existing for the benefit of children, and ´gay marriage´ is an oxymoron and has no place in a society that values its children.

#1 is right. "Science" has nothing to do with this matter.

What it´s really about is this:

1. Whether we must be forced to capitulate to a tiny group demanding that we change the very meaning of the word, "marriage."

2. And then, whether that tiny group may impose its radical redefinition on the entire nation, forcing us all to recognize the absurd and oxymoronic concept of "gay marriage" as the new "law of the land."

Like #5 said, it is the government funding and tax incentives that ought to be correct. I don´t care what people do in private, if they have ´ministers´ who pronounce them ´married´ I am find with that as long as they don´t therefor get a tax break or other funds.

It is gay adoption that bothers me, but apparently I am too late to protest that, it already appears to be a ´right´.

The only way to reduce this is education and you can see how successful that is. Have I mentioned (and I have) that I am opposed to ALL government funding of education at all levels?

What we really want is not to encourage behavior that is damaging to children: adults are free to do damage to each other.

Read all about it: http://www.schoolandstate.org/home.htm

We are a constitutional republic with a religiously diverse population. In this context religious belief is something consenting adults engage in, in their homes and churches.

Sorry, folks... The Bible is not conflicted or unclear about marriage.

It has an Old Testament and a New Testament for a reason.

Suggest you read it cover to cover... then get back to us who do believe it is God-breathed and a beautiful Love Story... His inerrant, infallible Word.
On which I put my life ... and death.

#15 - your points #3 and #7 are laughable. One presumes that for "millenia", homosexual relationships have been discouraged by "governments". Most governments through those millena have been monarchies and/or dictatorships. Read about the Greeks and Romans and their approach to homosexuality.

I can guarantee you the Muslim world discourages homosexuality, however. They use their religious teachings to even murder homosexuals.

#7 presumes that simply acceting a gay relationship means the entire society "goes gay", and we have no more kids. Highly unlikely. Thoughout recorded history, the gay population makes up about 3% of all socieies.

Nothing makes me look at another man in the gym locker room and think, "Wow, I gotta get me some of THAT!" My wife prefers me and admiring other males to women as well.

As another poster astutely pointed out, as a constitutional republic with diverse religious traditions and practices, government cannot redefine your religious view of what is and isn´t "marriage". It can only try to control with tax and benefits what punishments and rewards it hands on on various behaviors - like extra taxes on cigarettes and alcohol.

In the state where I live, it is illegal for me to buy alchol before noon today (Sunday)and it´s illegal to go hunting. The church didn´t want competition, so they pressured government to pass laws to provide them a supposed monopoly on my time this morning.

Professor Will is well educated, an ABC television "celebrity" and esteemed columnist for The Washington Post.

That said, it certainly doesn´t take a Ph.D from Princeton University to realize acts of sodomy have no correlation to "science."

It is my hope conservatives come up with a simple way to support gay people and recognize there are many views on it. The media makes this a distraction from bigger issues. The gays I´ve known are kind, wonderful, hard working taxpayers who just want acceptance to live their lives without being labeled freaks. I don´t want to be associated with a party who is unkind to them but I can´t go to the liberal side. I´m fiscally conservative and socially - if it´s not illegal it´s none of my business. What party is most like that? Libertarian? That´s imperfect too.

If you leftoids think that traditional marriage is about shackin-up I got news for you.

Marriage=progeny, since time immemorial.

No progeny=no more people period.

The antics of Brokeback Mountain should have NO influence on the people of any civilisation who are engaged in the procreation of our species. Those people deserve support for populating our planet. Thats why we normally agree that tax breaks for raising children is a good and sound concept. If you don´t want the awesome responsibilty and joy of raising children, fine; do what you want. JUST LEAVE MARRIAGE ALONE. The fact that this concept is ignored by some people to justify their weirdness just proves their selfishness and short-sightedness.

Survival is a merit-based activity. There are no trophies for second place. Breed or die.

There is NO science to the fact that man/man or woman/woman can´t naturally have children so there is NO marriage, it is a sham.

But of course this isn´t about law or social science or the welfare of the children. It´s about what might or might not gratify the adults involved. Gratification and choice have become the summum bonum. Thou shalt not deny the narcissistic self-indulgent their pleasures and thou shalt not hurt their feelings.

Historically, "marriage" has been the union of opposites. Changing the word to mean any union deprives the historic arrangement of a unique term to describe it. A "pair" of shoes means a left shoe and a right shoe.
A "pie" means a crust and filling. A "suit" means a jacket and pants. If we change those terms to include two right shoes, two scoops of filling, two jackets, we would need to come up with new words to describe a combination of left and right shoes, crust and filling and pants and jacket. And that is the whole point. By redefining marriage society says that the historic union is neither special nor unique, deserving of its own term. That is why it is said that this movement is "an assault on traditional marriage."

#26 - gratifition and choice are problems?

Yeah,God forbid we encourage any of that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness garbage around here!

s/off

My, my, my. Lot´s of pontificating bombast in this thread. Guess a little talk of gay marriage will do that to people. What I don´t understand is, if we all agree that gays make up about 3% of the population, why are we being held hostage to the demands of such a small group of people? I believe the focus here is misplaced. It´s not why gays should not be allowed to be married, but why shouldn´t society promote and nuture an institution devoted to the continuation of the species? I have no problem with civil unions. In fact, I think that if a heterosexual couple has no intention of having children, they have no business getting married. Let them live in civil union. We could offer contracts: one year, two, five, etc. All legalities are covered with shared benefits, etc., but the definition of marriage would then remain intact, and it´s purpose unchanged. And, mark my words, if gay marriage is completely accepted by society, and legal in all 57 states, the next demand will be for science to figure out a way for gays to reproduce. Before you ask me if I´m joking, remember this: the slippery slope may be a supposed example of uncritical thinking, but when it comes to liberalism, it is always fulfilled. Always.

#15, and 16 speak for me...

#22 says it very well. I do understand what the religious posters are saying, but our law does not come from the Bible. It comes from the Constitution. The federal government has no authority to do anything that is not specifically enumerated there. I have seen nothing about marriage in any interpretation, no matter how twisted. Therefore, it is none of the government´s business, federal or state.
It is the business of the individuals involved and the churches that may want to (or not want to) perform the ceremonies or recognize the union.
If it is wrong for libs to force their policies on people who object, why is it ok for us to force our beliefs on others? Either we cherish freedom or we dont.

Should there therefore be a timeline in which a married heterosexual couple will have to produce children or their marriage will be considered null and void? Will they automatically then be in a civil union or will they have to apply for a civil contract? Will a couple have to declare they intend to have children before they can marry and if they end up not being able to have children their marriage is voided?

So many complications to running everyone´s personal lives. Maybe we should just mind our own business?

While historically gays makeup 3% of the population they touch lives of many more(parents, siblings, co-workers etc.) I think there should be a big tent for a political party who wants to focus on the Constitution. Otherwise should there be political parties where everyone agrees on social issues? Good luck with winning elections. This thread shows that reasonable people can disagree but most of us agree on the Constitution.

The Pope has it right: Same Sex marriage is straight from the Father of Lies in his effort to destroy marriage and us.

Since the government loves to meddle so much, why not eliminate the marriage tax and make it advantageous to marry? Instead it now costs people, and you even see the elderly who should be examples for young people shacking up.

Unmarried parents are taking the easy way. No marriage=more money, benefits, easy dissolution. They can´t afford to get off the gravy train of food stamps, earned income credit, and higher standard deductions. So we pay.

When did it become MY job to pay for the procreation of others??

Good questions, #32, but the pain of wanting children and not being able to conceive is its own special anguish. I wouldn´t require those people to do anything else. Besides, they may choose to adopt.

It´s amazing that there are so many here who don´t get it. Only the useful idiots think that this is a campaign to bring fairness and equality for people to commit and love one another.

The real purpose is ´fundamental transformation´. Leftists have always understood that words have a greater power to communicate and encapsulate broad concepts than any other social mechanism. Marriage is a fundamental, universally understood concept. From Marx onward, it has stood as a bullwark against true social transformation.

When you redefine a word that stands for a fundamental concept, you destroy it´s meaning and render the concept unexpressible in clear, unambiguous terms.

This battle is clearly a out the never ending war to destroy the burgoise.

Seems like Will takes a strong position to bash the conservatives and only a very small effort against the liberals. The conservatives worst enemies are those that purport to be conservatives but frequently join the other side in their attempt to show how fair and open minded they are.

#15 makes the case for marriage, a bedrock institution of civilization, simply. Since the dawn of man, it was a societal impulse driven by the need to socialize children and voluntarily self regulate sexual activity. Its religious trappings came millennia later and are unneeded to make a self evident case discouraging homosexuality. All this noise is indicative of the insidious effect of moral relativism on modern culture which insists that freedom is the paramount attribute. This canard is advanced by libertarian cranks who insist that the self transcends the soul and therefore, the universe rotates around the individual. We´d still be in caves if that mentality prevailed through history.

#8 and others, the New Testament does condemn same sex relationships--see Paul´s letter to the Romans. Leviticus was written for the Jews at that time. It doesn´t apply now that salvation has been made available to all: "first to the Jew, then to the Greek (ie, Gentile)."

Wow, 40 comments. At national review they had over 1000 on the very subject.


Strange how this site has not upgraded to Discuss or other such software. It feels so 2000.

#20, before boasting that your liberal views on homosexuality comport with Thomas Jefferson´s, I think you should first look into Jefferson´s actually said about homosexual behavior. He believed it was a criminal offense, akin to rape, punishable by castration.

There is no science at all, but there are shaky libtard social scientists.

Even the best science needs to be understood and interpreted, almost nobody says that in any way shape or form that science ever directly dictates law. A few wackos might, but generally they are lying when they say so, or writing the "science" backwards from the results they want to find. That´s not really science, in case that´s not clear to you.

If "Science" is dependable, replicable and universal, the term "Social Science" is an
oxymoron.

All this bickering!

I have a cartoon on my refridgerator that shows a person at the pearly gates and St. Peter looking through The Book Of Life. The caption reads "Ah. Here you are. On the S*** List". Interpret it as you may. Only The Big Guy gets to judge.

#37 Thank you for seeing through the "progressive" BS that at its core is to "fundamentally transform" society. Being against "gay marriage" does not translate to being against homosexuals or lesbians. Some are fine people, some are stinkers; just like all of humanity.

The purpose of marriage in society is providing a stable home for the rearing of children. Even if a couple cannot conceive or cannot adopt, their stable marriage offers an example as they become beloved aunts and uncles fulfilling the extended family role of a stable environment for children.

Since the 19060’s marriage has been under attack. It began with “no fault” divorce when the “progressives” claimed that children would be better off if parents in a “bad marriage” split up. The ravages of divorce on generations of children led to “shacking up”, which led to casual “hooking up” and the promiscuity that has had deleterious effects upon our society as a whole. Our entertainment media purposely portrays traditional marriage as lame and ineffectual while it trumpets deviant behavior. Yet, the argument now put forth by many is that because married people divorce easily, have adulterous affairs, and engage in questionable sexual practices that “gay marriage” is OK. It takes the consequences of the “war on marriage” as proof that marriage is wanting. Just like the “progressives” planned.

If homosexuals and lesbians wish the legal and tax benefits of a “union”, I’m fine with a civil union, but don’t call it a marriage. In my faith, Catholicism, marriage is a sacrament between the man, the woman and God. Marriage requires that it be unitive and complementary. If “gay marriage” becomes a right with “equal protection under the law”, will the law compel Catholic and other Christian faiths to marry same-sex couples? “Gay marriage” is ultimately an attack on religious freedom, as is the mandate to provide contraception, abortion inducing drugs, and elective sterilization. This all comes from the Father of Lies, just as Pope Frances has proclaimed. Do not be fooled by the “feel good” language of the “progressive” Marxists.

Re: the format of this site . . . I am very happy with this format, and find it far superior to sites that indent responses to posts. And I especially like the fact that this site puts the oldest comments at the top of the page. Fie on the sites that make you go to the end and read backward if you wish to follow the drift of the comments.

Thank you to the Lucianne team for all the years that we have enjoyed and learned from our fellow Ldotters. You make it easy.

I have to laugh at those who point to the Ancient Greeks and Romans and their tolerance of homosexuality. Where are those societies today? Extinct. Rome was particularly depraved in terms of libertine sexual behavior, cruelty and disregard for human life. It was into this world that Jesus appeared. How fitting, and how needed.

Dear #8 and others like you: the Bible is God´s word, i.e. inspired by the Holy Spirit. It is not suspect because it was written by men who lived in historical times. God is not limited by time or culture, and his word holds true today. And there is NO way you can study the word and believe that God wants men to have sex with men or women with women. (Nor did God ever hold up polygamy as the ideal.) You´re desperately trying to justify sin.

Something people forget and it would be well to remember : the Levitical law was given to Jews, not Gentiles. We should be quoting the new testament admonition against homosexuality.

There are alot of good points and views on this. My question is how does this relate to politics? For those so sure about society collapsing if gays marry - I get it. Who are you going to vote for? When you alienate a segment of people who would vote like you -is that going to save society? Look what we´re stuck with. For those like me that don´t want to be rude and hurtful to good people and think it´s not really my business as long as they´re law abiding - who can I vote for? I think there´s a great opportunity for a fiscally conservative - socially neutral political party. I don´t want to vote on religion. My views are my own through my life experience as are yours. We all get one vote. I respect your views and hope you respect that I´m entititled to my opinion too.

I find it interesting that leftists believe absolutely in evolution but also believe that the human race will continue on forever once we start calling two men or two women ´married.´

Just another one of their glaring contradictions.

This is all a red herring - the slippery slope here is if gay marriage is made public policy or the law of the land, then churches stand to lose their non-profit status if they preach against it. Five, ten years down the line, our churches will have to decide to compromise biblical principles versus their tax exempt status - which they depend upon to help keep their doors open. As our economy worsens under socialism, the less people give. This may mean some churches will be forced to shut their doors because they will be taxed out of existence.

This is an assault on our freedom of religion, not about giving gays equal rights. Why don´t they create civil unions that would give them the same benefits as marriage, but keep it out of the realm of the church. Marriage is a sacrament, civil unions are not.

#51 – It would be well to remember that the Old Testament is not irrelevant, it is the Law; the New Testament is the Gospel.

Old Testament: Genesis 19:5, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 7:20, Leviticus 7:21, Leviticus 18:22, Leviticus 20:13, Deuteronomy 22:5. Deuteronomy 23:18, Judges 19:22-23

New Testament: Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 2 Peter 6-11, Jude 6-8, Revelation 21: 5-8, Revelation 22:14-15

(Note: Chapter 22 is the last chapter in Revelation and it contains 21 verses; in Verse 15 it is again written that the sexually immoral are among those who will not go through the gates into the city.)

I now pronounce you "Wan and Mife." There, that´s solved.

Oh wait, "Mife and Wan."

Oh shoot, it just won´t work.

#40 – The admonition and condemnation of homosexuality in Scripture is as relevant now as it was then and applies to all time, for Jews and Gentiles. The Ten Commandments were given to the Jews, but apply to Gentiles as well; all people are to live by the Law and the Gospel. It is the means of grace, forgiveness, that has changed; no longer through animal sacrifices, but through the blood of Jesus, the Messiah.

#5 (aka #20)makes absurd arguments about homosexuality and society. Homosexuality is either positive, negative, or neutral in its effects on homosexuals and the rest of society. That is, positive, negative, or neutral in its physical, social, and moral effects. Only someone who can convincingly argue that the effects are positive or neutral can make a case for same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, the teaching of homosexual sexual practices, and so on. The evidence that homosexuality (and sorry, but only about 1.5% of any population is homosexual)is negative is overwhelming.

And yet militant homosexuals keep pushing their perversion on the rest of us--especially on children in the public schools, usually under the pretext of protecting some youngsters from harm.

I find it fascinating that those who were once considered to be suffering a psychological ailment now have convinced many that it is the rest of us, the "homophobes," who are ill. I also find it fascinating that militant homosexuals practically foam at the mouth if you mention the fact that they have never condemned NAMBLA, the North American Man-Boy Love Association, or if you remind them of the landmark work of a famous American psychologist who said that he had never met a homosexual male who had had a good relationship with his father.

The current push by Obama and other liberals as advocates of same sex marriage is another chorus of "It´s all about ME."

I liked the (former?) site rule of only one, (perhaps with apologies two) post per thread. If one has put up four long-winded posts on the same thread it appears selfish to me.

There is reference in the New Testament to keeping the commandments and "the law." But it is clear that the specifically Jewish law--such as circumcision--was rejected by the apostles as something that applied to Gentiles. Peter even had a dream that told him to eat whatever he wanted. Leviticus sets out things that specifically applied to Jews at that time--things that set them apart as a people. Those rules don´t apply anymore since Christ has come for all mankind--in Galatians it says, there is no Jew or Greek; slave or free; male or female-all one in Christ. Surely, no one wants to kill homosexuals because Leviticus commands it and no one claims that the Bible forbids Christians from eating shellfish or pork.

#50, several different "books" were written by different men (inspired by God) over several different time periods. Like it or not, they were still men who are not infallible and who have their own personal prejudices as all people do. Some books were written shortly after things happened and others were written hundreds of years later. There were also sections removed by the Universal Church just as some books were chosen and others (that may have given a conflicting message) were left out on purpose.
You can claim what you want about the choices made as being the proper choices. But remember, the church, like most other political entities was interested in amassing power and wealth...even back then. Why do you think they tried to destroy the gnostics?

And I did not say that homosexuality was not addressed in the New Testament at all...I said the actual word "homosexual" was not used. That is a recent interpretation.

By the way, the biggest mistake that conservatives make is using the word "ban". If you don´t want the state to recognize a marriage (which can be performed by any church that wishes to), then say that. Say it should not be legally recognized by the state. But to say you are for "banning" same sex marriage, you are essentially telling people they have no freedom of religion. And then you end up sounding like a close-minded bigot control-freak who doesn´t believe in freedom. Let people marry as they see fit since it happens anyway. Just vote to not recognize it. Yes, there is a leftist agenda, but they grabbed onto a real concern that some people feel should be addressed. They want recognition of the marriage so they can take care of their loved one if he/she gets sick. They don´t want to go through the extra requirement of having to create a legal contract or living trust to have the same benefits (and penalties) as a heterosexual married couple.

When science and the Laws of Physics are able to prove that two nuts on their own or two screws on their own can fulfil the functions of a bolt in the way only ONE nut and ONE screw can, only then can the validity of gay marriage be open for consideration. In the meantime no state legislation has the right to legislate what is against the fundamental natural designs and order, the laws of anatomy and of biology, It offends against Science itself which has a nasty habit of kicking back hard when it is offended, be it in the short or long term.

#61 –Leviticus was written to teach the priests how to act and teach the people; to care for people who are in sin. Romans is purest gospel and briefly sums up Christian and evangelical doctrine while showing the light and power of the Old Testament. Timothy wrote, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness…” (2 Timothy 3:16-17) Leviticus is among “ALL Scripture” and, therefore, the teaching, admonition, and condemnation are for all time; the ultimate judgment remains the same—then with banishment or execution, now on Judgment Day.