Boy shuns Pledge of Allegiance for Gay Rights

He actually said that gay marriage would increase crime, teen pregnancy, and abortion.Gay marriage. Abortion.No wonder they usually don't specify how gay marriage will harm society.EDIT --Not to mention he's basing this on the idea that "marriages that are in trouble cause an increase in social ills." Wait...who says that gay marriages will mean that marriages will be in trouble?Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.

Evidence? Do you actually believe that the "pray the gay away" nonsense is true?Would you be able to make yourself attracted to men instead of women if you tried really hard? Was there a morning you woke up and "decided" that you'd be sexually attracted to the opposite gender instead of the same?Modern psychology sees sexual orientation as an intrinsic part of personal identity.Note that religion is definitely able to be changed, and yet it's not legal to bar a couple from marrying simply because their religious beliefs are different.Also worthy of note: DOMA has not yet been challenged in court, simply because until very recently there were no couples who had grounds to sue over it. DOMA itself is similar to Prop 8 in that it specifically excludes a subset of the population from equal treatment under the law...except that equal treatment is part of the Constitution, and so overrides DOMA. I expect the Prop 8 case to be a litmus test on how to expect an eventual DOMA lawsuit to turn out. If it ever gets that far - there are congresscritters who want to repeal DOMA, which would make court cases moot.

CS, you're smarter than that.The miscegenation laws struck down in Loving v. Virginia were the same thing. Granted, a Hispanic person could marry a black person but not a Caucasian; however, everyone was able to marry within the confines of the law - blacks could marry, as long as their chosen partner was not white.So too with gay marriage - under Prop h8, everyone is able to get married...as long as their chosen partner is not of the same gender.Look at the decision for Loving v. Virginia.

quote:

---

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

---

Tell me that doesn't carry direct parallels to the issue of homosexual marriage today.The Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that the State has no compelling interest in restricting which consenting adults may or may not be married, and that the choice of whom to marry is reserved exclusively for the individuals.Homosexuals are being denied the right to marry the person of their choice by the State for no compelling reason at all. Even if it were granted that the application of the Loving v. Virginia decision to homosexuals were flimsy (and it's not), the State still has no compelling interest to deny gays the right to marry the partner of their choice. At all. None. Zip. Zilch.

...so you're telling me you've never heard of bisexuality?CS, some people are sexually attracted to people of the opposite gender. SOme are attracted to people of the same gender. Some people are attracted to both genders.The question is whether that actual orientation can be changed. I am not sexually attracted to men. Do you think that's somehow a "choice" on my part? Then you're an idiot, CS. The definition itself is discriminatory on religious grounds. You may as well say that identifying a drinking fountain as the "black drinking fountain" isn't discriminatory because of the definition of the "black drinking fountain." That exact same argument was used in Loving v. Virginia, CS. It was wrong and bigoted then. It still is now.

It sounds to me like CS's friend is just biexual,and feels sexually attracted to members of both genders. I think CS just associates someone in a monogamous relationship with a person of the opposite sex as "purely heterosexual," and a person in a monogamous relationship with a person of teh same gender as "purely gay."I have known and dated several girls who have had exclusive relationships with other women. Bisexuality doesn't just mean "has sex with everybody." A person who is attracted to both genders is still bisexual even while they're in a monogamous relationship with an individual.The question CS is dodging (poorly) is whether the actual orientation of a person is a choice. I never decided whether I would be attracted to men, women, or both. I don;t know anyone who has ever made that choice, and I wager that CS has never met anyone who has either.