The Marriage Equality Myth

Gay Pride God

Always the marriage equality argument. This is, of course, a big fat lie.

Marriage equality has always existed. The law never said gay people can’t get married. It said men had to marry women, and it applied equally to ALL men regardless of sexual orientation. That’s equality.

But, but, gay men couldn’t marry whoever they wanted!

Neither could straight men! Straight men couldn’t marry their mother, sister, brother, male neighbor, dog… whatever. The same restrictions that applied to gay men, applied to straight men. That’s equality.

The laws said a man has to marry a woman. Is a gay man a man? Is he different from a straight man? I imagine most gay men consider themselves to be men. And if a gay man is a man, like any other man, the laws will apply equally to him. That’s equality.

Changing the law to allow men to marry men, does not change the equality aspect unless the law is rewritten to say: gay men can only marry gay men, and straight men can only marry straight women. Obviously, it will/does not. So, new laws, or allowances, or rights, under the law will remain equal. If men are allowed to marry men, it will apply equally to straight men. Because that’s equality.

Why would a straight man want to marry another man? The only reason I can think of are economics, but the point is, they would be legally, and equally, be able to do so.

The equality issue is a false argument. It’s a myth. It’s a distraction from the real issue, and the real issue is that they want to redefine marriage.

Heterosexuality Rears Its Ugly Head In a Same-Sex “Marriage”

Santos said, "Because [she] is not her daughter; [she] is our daughter."

Manuel Santos is patently wrong. When he refers to her, he is referring to the baby’s biological mother, Patidta Kusongsaang, and when he refers to our, he is referring to him and his husband, Gordon Lake.

Let me point out the obvious. Santos and his husband can not have children. It’s impossible, by nature1. Therefore, the baby, Carmen, is not biologically theirs. From a legal standpoint, she may be, but not biologically. No court decision can change that.

Children, by nature, have a biological mother and a biological father. Again, this is something that a court can’t change. A court decision doesn’t change the child’s DNA. The child will forever be the biological child of Manuel Santos and Patidta Kusongsaang, no matter how Santos and his partner feel about it. To think otherwise is a denial of reality; a delusion you might say.

But it seems to me, that this same-sex "marriage" is exactly that, a denial. While the argument is posed as an equality, and love, measure, it leaves out the family measure.

It’s at this point the unnaturalness of the union becomes apparent. A same-sex couple can’t procreate. They must receive assistance from an outside individual; an individual of the opposite sex.

And it’s here that reality must be confronted: In order to have biological children, at least one member of the same-sex couple must embrace heterosexually in order to procreate. And only one of them can be the biological parent.

There is no hate in that statement. There is no bigotry. Only truth.

The bottom line is this: homosexuality is a social construct, not a biological one, and they must choose to put homosexuality aside in order to create a family in which one parent is still left out biologically.

  1. This seems to me to be the very definition of an unnatural relationship.

Discriminating Between People and Events

There’s a lot of screaming about anti-gay discrimination from Christian shop owners, but are they really discriminating against gays?

You hear a common theme from the shop owners: they will provide services for gay people, but they won’t provide services for a same-sex “marriage.” The outraged response shows that people clearly don’t understand the difference between the two. To not provide services for gay people, such as someone’s birthday cake, would be to discriminate against a person–an individual. That would be a legitimate complaint; that would not be loving your neighbor. But a wedding ceremony is not a human being, it is an event. And for a Christian owner to not want to provide services for an event that he does not believe in, is not just acceptable, it should be expected.

Many people miss the fact that we are talking about two different cases here, but respond the same for both. In one case we’re talking about individual human beings, and in the other we are talking about an event. They want the same protection for each, but in order to be fair to everyone, we must violate the beliefs of many, not just a few that we are angry with at the moment. The whims of the law can’t change with the whims of the people.

If we’re going to force people to support, or appear to support, ideas and events that violate their conscience, than in the name of equality, the government must:

  • force Christian cake shop owners to create cakes that support same-sex “marriage”
  • force gay bake shop owners to create cakes that support “God Hates Fags” messages
  • force black cake shop owners to create cakes that support KKK events (if there is such a thing)
  • force Christian cake shop owners to create cakes with “God Hates Fags” messages
  • force any cake shop owner to create cakes with pornographic images

Of course, I can’t see a KKK member soliciting a cake shop owned by black people for a cake. In which–I can’t believe I’m thinking this–in this case, I suppose the KKK member actually has a better sense of reality than the LGBT Nazis. Why wouldn’t you just take your business elsewhere? Why create a stink?

Sometimes discrimination is good. For example, if you Google “definition discrimination” you are presented with two definitions. The second one reads: recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another. The usage in a sentence example is: “discrimination between right and wrong.”

Another example of discrimination is this article. I’m discriminating between a gay individual and a gay event. See how that works? We are talking about the difference between and individual and an event. And this is good. The two are not the same, should not be treated the same, and should not have the same protection under law.

So, to answer the question, are Christian shop owners discriminating against gays? No. They are discriminating against an event.

Note: the vast majority of Christians do no believe “God Hates Fags.” Those that do are a vocal minority, and not representative of the greater majority. Hmm. Sound familiar?