F4L position paper on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Bill

filipinosforlife_sogi_bill_position_paper_2016

Filipinos for Life, Family, and God, Inc. (Filipinos for Life), an organization whose members promote traditional Filipino family and cultural values and advance the culture of life and the sanctity of marriage and family, expresses grave concern over the bill filed in substitution for HB267 known as An Act Prohibiting Discrimination on the Basis of Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity (SOGI), Providing Penalties Therefor and for Other Purposes.

1. (Section 2) There is no binding international law obligation relating specifically to sexual orientation or gender identity, or as to that designated as LGBT (i.e., lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) rights.

Certainly no written international instrument that expressly mentions sexual orientation or gender identity rights constituting a binding international obligation have been entered into at the international level.

In fact, almost 100 members states of the United Nations reject or do not support what are presented as LGBT rights, and 78 states have statutes criminalizing homosexual relations.1

2. Identity of those intended to be protected by this bill cannot firmly be established since the bill relies only on the perceived claims of the complainant.

(Sections 3b and 3c) Sexual orientation and gender identity are highly subjective. There is no way for one to determine definitively and objectively the gender identity or sexual orientation of a person before him (and in fact, such determination without the person’s approval is prohibited under section 4h of this bill). And unlike race, these are not permanent, with numerous cases of individuals who have changed their orientation and/or identity, making sexual orientation something not intrinsic to a person’s identity.

Longitudinal studies of adolescents suggest that sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people, with one study estimating that as many as 80% of male adolescents who report same-sex attractions no longer do so as adults.

The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex—that a person might be a man trapped in a woman’s body or a woman trapped in a man’s body͟—is not supported by scientific evidence. 2

This is significant because in order for this draft penal law to be effective it must be able to: a) identify properly those covered by the protections it offers; and b) capable of being implemented by the police or judicial system in terms of evidence.

(Section 4h) Courts hearing a case involving discrimination could not compel the determination or verification via medical or psychological examination of a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, even though relevant to a case being tried, and will simply have to accept the word of the party involved. The same would be true of medical establishments that could be forbidden from treating a patient.

3. Section 4, and in fact, the entire bill, does not allow for any situations where defining of a specific sex is appropriate, thus government will be targeting and infringing on:

a. (4a, c, & d) Religious institutions, schools, and organizations whose precepts do not condone LGBT practices, may be forced to hire practicing LGBT applicants and allow the establishment of LGBT organizations within their institutions, and will be prohibited from imposing sanctions on employees or members for overtly practicing homosexual/bisexual acts, thus infringing on the freedom of religion of the members of these religious institutions/organizations

b. (4b) Single-sex education (girls/boys schools) will now be forced to accept opposite-sex students who identify as the gender of the school’s population. It distorts and puts at a disadvantage schools for instance sports activities when certain athletes that fall under the female category will be forced to allow female-identifying men to compete in the category.

c. Groups and organizations, such as the Freemasons, Boy Scouts are denied the right to decline opposite-sex applicants who identify as the gender of the organization resulting in a violation of their instituted charter.

d. Various religious institutions and denominations will be indiscriminately targeted. It fails to protect the conscience rights of individual Christians, Jews, Muslims and others. Profit-making corporations may not qualify for the exemption.Christian bookstores, religious publishing houses, and radio stations could all be forced to compromise their faith-based principles.

4. Section (4f) could be used to open the doorway to same-sex marriage by forbidding discrimination in the issuance of licenses, including, as the proponents of the bill have stated, marriage licenses. Forbidding the issuance of a license for a same-sex marriage (which is not marriage at all) would therefore be illegal under this law, superseding Title I, Chapter 1, Article 2 (1) of the Family Code of the Philippines which states that parties contracting marriage must be a male and female.

5. Section (4g) Allowing female-identifying males in female facilities and housing put to risk the protection of women’s privacy and safety. Female dormitories in campuses or those offering rental housing will be placing women and young girls in circumstances where their privacy and safety is compromised. They will be at risk of bodily exposure to members of the opposite sex which is not only demeaning, humiliating and denies also individuals’personal dignity.

6. (Section 7) Provides special police protection and treatment to those identifying as LGBT, without providing any justification, to the detriment of other citizens who need police assistance. Furthermore, this could be open to abuse, if LGBT individuals were to use this special access to the police to prejudice investigations in which they were involved in a dispute.

7. Government directly imposing mandates conflicts on parental authority.

These laws put parental rights—including the right to educate children and raise them according to our faith and values—are (sic) at risk. 3

Special rights based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity or expression jeopardizes parents rights to direct their children’s education and safeguard their children’s innocence.

Filipinos who believe in God’s design for sexuality and that marriage is the union of a husband and wife should not be penalized for expressing those beliefs at school. While sexual attractions may be involuntary, neither homosexual conduct nor transgender behavior meets any of the other criteria. Skin complexion, ethnicity, and gender cannot be changed (so-called transgender surgery is superficial; it does not change the genetic and thus defining characteristics of the persons gender).4 Accordingly the American College of Pediatricians urges educators and legislators to reject all policies that condition children to accept as normal a life of chemical and surgical impersonation of the oppositesex. Facts – not ideology – determine reality.5

8. Adverse effects on the business sector (corporations/SMEs/professionals)

It increases government interference in the free market.

They would substitute the judgment of government officials for that of private businesses and organizations regarding what qualities or characteristics are most relevant to a particular job, and regarding how to operate their businesses.

It forces juridical persons to violate their freedom to uphold moral and religious convictions

These include those which provide products, services, or catering for weddings, or groups and businesses providing dating services. They could be forced under employment provisions of such laws to hire homosexuals, and under the public accommodations provisions they could be forced to participate in the celebration of same-sex weddings, even though homosexual behavior and same-sex marriage are expressly contrary to their religious convictions.

Employers are forced to provide special preferential treatment to avoid lawsuits arising from this law.

They invite disgruntled employees to sue for discrimination over a characteristic (in the case of sexual orientation) which is not even visible and of which the employer may have been unaware. In the case of public employers, such laws at the local and state level have led to large settlements being paid at taxpayers’ expense. Disgruntled customers have sued businesses in the wedding industry under such laws for declining to participate in same-sex weddings (even when the business made clear that they would serve individual homosexual customers in other ways that would not involve celebration of their homosexual partnership).

Prepare the way for reverse discrimination.

The more open homosexuals and transgendered people become, the more people who hold traditional values will be forced to conceal their views–or face punishment for expressing them. This can happen even if the employee’s views are expressed outside of work, and when no reference is made to sexual orientation or gender identity.6

9.We have presently enough labor and civil laws on human rights to protect the citizens of whatever gender making additional ones such as this draft bill irrelevant.

The Draft Law also needs further study on the probable effect it will have on other laws. Judging by the usual listing that LGBT advocates have regarding the rights they are pushing for, such will involve laws relating to employment, military service, adoption, marriage, student activities (such as attending school dances with same-sex dates and dressed in gender nonconforming ways if they choose), parenting, schools, and government identity documents.7[28]

In which event, the implications and possible conflicts such will have vis-à-vis the constitutional protections relating to religion, free expression, academic freedom, and contract will need to be examined and address, along with its relationship to family (including marriage, adoption, succession), labor, education, tax and social services, military, and health laws, amongst others. The affected stakeholders need to have a say and be consulted because, as pointed above, the possible unintended effect is discrimination in order to ostensibly rid of discrimination.

10.The Philippines is already widely considered to be very tolerant of LGBT individuals8, making this bill largely unnecessary.

Presently, consumers already patronize services members of the LGBT community; enjoy the recognition in various fields and hold various significant positions already. In fact the main author of this bill is the most credible proof that this bill is something Filipino constituents do not need. The bill is extremely subjective and open to abuse resulting in the difficulty of reliable enforcement. It has measures which risks the safety and privacy rights for women; creates unnecessary bias towards LGBT members in the workplace, educational institutions and the various religious community; and will instead justify a widespread feeling of antagonism and resentment towards the LGBT community because of the intolerant measures proposed.

For these reasons, Filipinos for Life strenuously objects to this bill, which serves no purpose but to advance the LGBT agenda, and urges your kind office to reject this bill in the House.

REFERENCES

1 Jemy Gatdula, My House testimony on the SOGI anti-discrimination bill.Jemy Gatdula blog, 10 February 2015 (http://jemygatdula.blogspot.com/2015/02/my-house-testimony-on-sogi-anti.html?m=1 : accessed 15 Sept 2016).

2 Executive Summary Sexuality and Gender 2016, http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/executive-summary-sexuality-and-gender Accessed 04 Oct 2016

3 Responding to SOGI Laws—Tone and Truth (http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/sexuality/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-laws-jeopardizing-freedom-and-rights/responding-to-sogi-laws-tone-and-truth)

4. Responding to “SOGI” Laws—Tone and Truth (http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/sexuality/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-laws-jeopardizing-freedom-and-rights/responding-to-sogi-laws-tone-and-truth)

5. Gender Ideology Harms Children (http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children)

6. Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Laws: A Threat to Free Markets and Freedom of Conscience and Religion (http://www.frc.org/issuebrief/sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity-sogi-laws-a-threat-to-free-markets-and-freedom-of-conscience-and-religion)

7. American Civil Liberties Union; retrieved 8 February 2015, https://www.aclu.org/lgbt-rights

8. Philip C. Tubeza, “PH ranks among most gay-friendly in the world,” Philippine Daily Inquirer, June 8, 2013 (http://globalnation.inquirer.net/76977/ph-ranks-among-most-gay-friendly-in-the-world/ : accessed 15 Sept 2016)

Keeps on writing and writing and writing

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Documents, Homosexuality, Official Statements/Press Releases, Position Papers
24 comments on “F4L position paper on Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity (SOGI) Bill
  1. Quite honestly, I really don’t care if 2 people of the same sex want to marry. Why do some people make a big deal about it if it does not affect them? Since same sex marriage will never devalue traditional marriage, why would it face any opposition? Gay and lesbian people can’t help the way they are (I am not saying the should,) so why do some people feel the need to judge them? In the U.S., when the Supreme Court ruled bans on same sex marriage as Unconstitutional, I was pleased by that despite the fact that I am not gay.

    • Catherine Mae Decena says:

      Are you sure it won’t affect you? Apparently, you haven’t heard of what’s been happening in the US since that SCOTUS ruling. This is not just about allowing people to “marry whoever they want”, this is about legitimizing a false ideology, and forcing people to accept the said ideology with the threat of fines or imprisonment. In the US, bakers, florists, farm owners, etc., have been fined heftily for refusing to participate in same-sex “weddings”. To LGBT activists, it is not enough that they are allowed to do what they want, they want to force people to AGREE that what they do is right. That’s not “equality”. That’s homofascism at its finest.

  2. Catherine Mae Decena, yes, I am sure. People who are gay or lesbian should not feel the need to justify the reason that they are the way they are. Same sex marriage will never devalue traditional marriage (I mean, why should it?), so why do so many people object to it? Religious fundamentalists need to stop thumping their Bibles and just let gay and lesbian people live their lives in peace. Even though I am not gay, I find the bigotry that the LGBTQ community is subjected to as highly offensive.

  3. Catherine Mae Decena says:

    Jeffrey Liakos I see you’re sure it won’t affect you personally but you also totally ignored the examples I gave you on how it has already been infringing on other people’s rights in the United States. You see, even without these SOGI laws, people could already enter into their choice of relationships “in peace”. What you’re asking for is the redefinition of marriage, which is an altogether different thing. Clearly, after what you’re asking has been granted in the US, it left most of the non-LGBT (the majority) living NOT in peace. As I mentioned above, people are threatened with fines and/or imprisonment to accept the false ideology (a.k.a. Gender Theory) imposed upon them by the LGBT through the law. And oh, what makes you think that people are opposing these laws only for religious reasons? People are opposing these SOGI laws mainly because it infringes on their most basic freedoms, such as those mentioned in the position paper: freedom of speech, freedom of association, freedom of religion, etc. You complain of people who “thump on their Bibles” but these people do not use the law to impose their religion on others with the threat of criminal penalties. LGBT lobbyists, in contrast, use the law to shove their Gender Theory down the throats of the majority. Didn’t you notice, the LGBT movement itself has become some sort of religion/cult? But it’s a dangerous one because it forces itself upon others. People should accept it or face jail/fines. That’s not “equality”. That’s homofascism.

  4. Catherine Mae Decena, people who advocate laws prohibiting same sex marriage are infringing upon the rights of gay and lesbian people to marry. So it is essentially a 2 way street. When was the last time you saw a person who was gay or lesbian advocating a ban on traditional marriage? Despite what some people may think, there is no gay agenda. They just want equal rights like heterosexual people do. Of course, why do people argue about who gets married to who, be they a same sex couple or a heterosexual couple? I believe that freedom should mean freedom for everyone. Not freedom for one group of people and not another group of people. People who do not wish to perform marriage ceremonies or bake cakes for same sex couples should not be forced to against their will or because it conflicts with their religious convictions. Freedom should be seen as a universal concept, not have freedom for one group of people over another.

    • Bernie Bagaman says:

      Kindly read the document above that is the focus of this discussion: “The hypothesis that gender identity is an innate, fixed property of human beings that is independent of biological sex—that a person might be a man trapped in a woman’s body or a woman trapped in a man’s body͟—is not supported by scientific evidence.” Marriage is between a biological man and woman. Gay people have the freedom to classify themselves as such or even unclassify themselves because there is no evidence they are trapped as such. They even have the freedom of consensual sex with the same gender or any gender if they wish. But alleged “gays” of the same sex cannot marry simply because the definition and purpose of marriage is not for them. Marriage remains a right, a right accorded to a man with a woman of the right age and mind, but all rights have their limits. Children below majority age cannot marry, but when they reach the right age, they can. In the same way, people of the same sex cannot marry each other, but since there is no evidence they are doomed to be gay, they can eventually marry when they find someone of the opposite sex.

      • Bernie Bagman, Catherine Mae Decena and Irish Coffee, as indicated be the term same sex marriage, that means that same sex couples want to marry. Gays and lesbians don’t want to marry a member of the opposite sex. They want to marry a member of the same sex. Even if the love argument falls on deaf ears like yours, many people who are gay or straight might see legitimacy to the argument. Stop thumping your Bibles and let the gay and lesbian community live their lives in peace. Tell me the last time any of you saw a gay or lesbian individual flaunting their sexuality and telling you that you should be more like them or that heterosexual couples do not have the right to marry. You want your marriages to be respected, however, you hypocritically don’t show any respect for the right of same sex couples to marry. You want to monopolize the concept of love, subject it to legal definition and want to impose by legal means moratoriums on same sex marriages. Just get a life and grow up. Homosexuality and paedophilia are not synonymous, so don’t try to make them equivalent.

  5. Catherine Mae Decena says:

    Jeffrey Liakos Again, no one is infringing on the LGBT’s “right to marry”. They are free to marry someone of the opposite sex, just like everyone else. Now what they want to do is to REDEFINE marriage. That is the gay agenda and that is precisely what is being opposed here. Marriage or the lifetime union between a man and a woman is a unique institution that has invaluable benefits to society. For one, only the union between a man and a woman can produce new life, and thus sustain a society by maintaining a healthy demography. That’s not bigotry, that’s biology and common sense. Also, marriage ensures that these children brought forth into the world by such unions, are provided with a stable environment to grow up in– that they have a father who will not ditch his wife and his children without consequences. These are very practical, non-religious reasons. It may not sound romantic, but the State doesn’t really have any interest in protecting romantic relationships. She’s only interested in the common good, and since the earliest civilizations, marriage or the union between a man and woman, has been proven beneficial to society. What UNIQUE benefits to society do same-sex partnerships have? None. Therefore, while such relationships have long been permitted, the State has no reason to elevate them to the status of marriage or to redefine marriage to accommodate them.

    At least we agree, though, that people should not be forced to bake cakes or render their services in same-sex “weddings”, if it goes against their deeply-held beliefs. But this is exactly what SOGI laws do. And this is the most basic reason why we’re opposing such laws.

  6. Bernie Bagaman and Catherine Mae Decena, gay people don’t want to marry a member of the opposite sex. They want to be able to marry a member of their sex. You are both grasping at straws. 2 men, 2 women, 1 man and 1 woman-what does it matter what the sexual orientation of a couple is? Traditional marriage may have a religious connotation, however, same sex marriage will never devalue traditional marriage. Anybody who claims otherwise is being absurd. Same sex couples in the U.S. have the right to equal protection under the law as spelled out under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Personally, I think that businesses should have the right to deny services to gays if it conflicts with their religious convictions. Refusal to do so should not get the person who refused to serve a gay or lesbian couple in any capacity to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit from the American Civil Liberties Union. Same sex couples don’t want to redefine marriage. They just want the right to marry the way straight people do. Your respective inabilities to grasp this is sad. Legitimizing a false ideology-that is patently absurd. Redefining marriage-that is a laughable notion.

  7. Jeffrey

    Its been several days and here you are still fixated on this issue. Did you not say at the beginning that you dont really care about this ? I guess thats obviously a lie then. A quick search shows this isnt the first time you have been vocal about this issue so why pretend that its no big deal when it obviously is -kinda lowers your credibility doesnt it?

    So whats really making you obsessed about this? The fact that people are defending marriage? If you can dismiss SSM why cant you dismiss people who want to preserve marriage between a man and a woman? You cant say you dont care and yet you demean those that wish to defend marriage between a man and a woman -that there is an obvious bias.

    The problem here isnt that you are defending a group you dont even belong to but the fact that you personally have no respect for the sanctity of marriage. If you truly had any respect towards this sacred institution you would for instance respect and not demean people who place it with high esteem. You would refrain from dismissing the conditions that define the very essence of that makes marriage what it is instead of recklessly allowing LGBT with their self entitlement issues to trample upon people who wish to preserve the sanctity of this sacred institution.

    The welfare of the majority and the future of society rests on the foundations of marriage and family. Marriage is entered into by a mutual agreement between a man and woman that involves emotional and sexual faithfulness and the promise to raise children within its bonds. You need to realize that value this country places on marriage and family is in high esteem any threats to diminish it by way of SSM will be fiercely defended and rejected.

  8. Irish Coffee, I said that I don’t care if same sex couples want to marry. Yes, I do respect the sanctity of marriage. As far as me defending a group that I don’t belong to, I will defend the rights of anybody to associate with whoever they want to. Catherine Mae Decena and Bernie Bagman, gay people want to marry a member of their sex, not a member of the opposite sex. Only the ill-informed would claim that same sex marriage will lead to collapse of civilized society. Traditional marriage can be defended without infringing upon the right of same sex couples to marry. What irritates me is how Bible-thumping turbo-Christians want to act as if they are entitled to the right to dictate the legality of same sex marriage. Insofar as I know, no specific book in the Bible speaks directly on the topic of homosexuality. Besides, gay and lesbian people are born that way.

  9. You are in fact the one with a very shallow understanding of this issue based on your comments you have been giving. You seem to have not really read the position paper if you had you would know that that narrative being pushed by the alphabet mafia has already crumbled. Extensive and reputable studies cited in the paper already disprove that lesbians and gays are NOT born that way There is no gay gene and genders are fluid -so fluid in fact that it makes this law being pushed impossible to enforce. A person who is gay now may change his mind there are in fact so many cases of ex gays and lesbians that prove your notion to be completely false. In fact Im glad you brought that issue up because it is precisely that erroneous and baseless notion that makes this entire bill translates to a complete disaster to society. To actually criminalize and impose penalties of as much as 6 years and fines of up to 600k on to professionals, schools and institutions over perceived claims of an individual’s gender which in fact cannot be proven with medical or psychological proof is absurdity at its finest !

    In fact it would interest you to know that even the European Human Rights Courts have already ruled that same sex marriage is NOT A HUMAN RIGHT!

    Its also ironic that you would insult those that want to respect the teachings of the bible and yet profess ignorance of the scriptures. Well in fact homosexuality isnt mentioned just once but numerous times all warning people against the consequences of giving into this abomination.
    1 Corinthians 6:9-11
    Romans 1:26-28
    Mark 10:6-9
    1 Timothy 1:10-11
    Leviticus 18:22
    Genesis 19:1-5
    I suggest you look up the following passages because this lack of knowledge makes you the one that is ill informed and makes it obvious that that one cannot possibly be a true Christian and support gay marriage.

    We as Filipinos reject the idea of ending up like the US where there is so much chaos perpetrated by the Gaystapo. All this rampant gender confusion, academic freedom being violated as laws are being imposed mandating LGBT indoctrination, Christians and Catholics alike being persecuted and publicly shamed, businesses being forced to close because they are being targeted, womens rights to privacy and safety in peril simply to appease this group I can name numerous cases to prove all this if you want me to share it .

    Let me make it clear you are only lying to yourself if you think that enacting this law will be beneficial when it will not solve anything except cause more harm than good to the greater majority. In fact it will trample the rights of heterosexuals, women, institutions, businesses and railroad a number of existing natural and moral laws already in place. I know that I am just some random person no matter how many links, cite references I cite you will still refuse to listen in the end your own research and understanding of the number of victims and rights will make you understand. I suggest you make an effort to do just that.

  10. Catherine Mae Decena, you say that nobody is infringing upon the right of gay people to marry, that they can marry a member of the opposite sex. You are missing the fact that gay and lesbian people are attracted to people of the same sex, not people of the opposite sex. It is short-sighted and narrow-minded to claim that same sex marriages will in any way devalue traditional marriage. Irish Coffee, I do respect the sanctity of marriage. Please do me the courtesy of not claiming otherwise because any claim to the contrary has no credibility.

  11. Catherine Mae Decena says:

    @Jeffrey Liakos But you still haven’t answered the relevant questions. Why should marriage be redefined? Marriage has always been recognised as the lifetime union of a man and a woman for its invaluable benefits to society. What invaluable benefits to society do same-sex partnerships have that they should be elevated to the status of a marriage?

    • Catherine Mae Decena, if you any people personally who identify as gay or lesbian, ask them if they want to redefine marriage. When you talk about marriage being the lifetime union of a man and a woman, you are speaking of marriage of heterosexual couples. Gays and lesbians have a fundamental human right to love who they want. Mandating that they have an attraction to the person who is of the opposite sex-that is like telling the round Earth that it should be flat. Both are impossible. Irish Coffee, show me statistics of gays and lesbians coming out against traditional marriage and I will re-evaluate my views. Otherwise, do some fact-checking of your own. You both need to stop advocating the monopolization of love and subjecting it to legal definition. Same sex marriage, traditional marriage-since love is involved regardless of the relationship, why act like it is normal for heterosexual couples to express their love for each other and not for same sex couples to want to do the same? Frowning upon love expressed by a same sex couple and being fine with that being expressed by a heterosexual couple-there is a double standard there.

  12. Catherine Mae Decena says:

    @Jeffrey Liakos Really?? Based on your comments here, anyone can tell that you have zero respect for the sanctity of marriage. ==> //I do respect the sanctity of marriage. Please do me the courtesy of not claiming otherwise because any claim to the contrary has no credibility.//

    • Catherine Mae Decena-bullshit! I do respect the sanctity of traditional marriage. However, I am not going to go around like those Bible-thumping people who use their religion to bash the gay and lesbian community. On http://www.youtube.com, some people come out as part of the LGBTQ community and tell their coming out stories. Besides, like heterosexual people, gay and lesbian people love with their hearts, thus invalidating the notion that they are different from the rest of us.

  13. Jeffrey you can deny the fact that you do not respect the sanctity of marriage all you want but nobody believes you. The fact that it is your words and views that betray you is evident enough. You now resorting to cursing manifesting such hatred towards Christians is ironic considering that you claim to be standing up for love.

    By the way, love is not the basis on which marriage is defined or justified None of us brought it up -but you did so saying we are advocating a monopoly of love is clearly a blatant lie.
    The love argument is the weakest card you can use to rationalize this because love is what justifies homosexual marriage can also be used to justify other things which you use love would be advocating as well.

    Have you even considered the collateral effect or redefining marriage and using “love” as the justification of legal bonding?

    Consider pedophiles. If a pedophile loves a young boy and the young boy loves the grown man, then shouldn’t they be allowed to get married–if they are both mature enough for consent? After all, if love is the criteria that justifies two homosexuals or two lesbians getting married, then why can it not also be applied to pedophilia–or as the new term that has been proposed, “minor attracted persons.”

    What about polygamy and polyandry? Would those who say homosexual marriage is okay as long as two people love each other–also advocate one man having many wives and one woman having many husbands as long as they love each other? It would seem that in order to be consistent they would have to.

    It is a dangerous argument–illogical–and is wrought with problems and pitfalls.

    Also don’t kid yourself for a second that I have any grand illusions of convincing you or anybody. I am not a statistician and feel that even if I were would not make a difference on your opinions I am glad however that you are giving me an opportunity to provide you with a chance to share this link from a gay activist and what the true intentions are in this regard. https://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/

    In making laws one must weigh the outcome when it causes more harm to the majority than good its not good governance to enact it. When you have an issue that causes even harm to gays and lesbians themselves its horrible policy making. https://carm.org/gay-marriage-harm

  14. Jeffrey you claiming that you respect the sanctity of marriage in case you are not aware is like you self identifying as a unicorn. Nobody but yourself believes in it. In fact what is now evident is your hatred for those that believe in and defend religious doctrines like the bible. Your attempts to vilify and disrespect deeply held religous beliefs and then proceed to attempt at lecturing about love a complete failure. In fact how can you even have the audacity to lie and accuse Catherine and myself of advocating monoplization of love when we never even brought it up.

    You can review every single comment and nobody not once mentioned about love. Because quite frankly that is the lamest poorest argument for this issue. The government is not in the business of making laws about love if it were then you would find laws concerning boyfriend-girlfriend relationships. But that has never been the case.

    What about the collateral effect or redefining marriage and using “love” as the justification of legal bonding? Consider pedophiles. If a pedophile loves a young boy and the young boy loves the grown man, then shouldn’t they be allowed to get married–if they are both mature enough for consent?

    Where does it stop? Just saying that love is what justifies homosexual marriage can also be used to justify other things. It is a dangerous argument–illogical–and is wrought with problems and pitfalls.
    Also dont kid yourself for a second that by posting I have this grand illusion that I can convince you or anybody else. I can present you with boring statistics but its clear that you still will not let a random person like myself convince you. For your benefit though I can share a link straight from a gay activist herself about the nature of what it is they are really pushing for. Perhaps if it came from someone as credible as her would help you understand the deeper darker agenda here. https://illinoisfamily.org/homosexuality/homosexual-activist-admits-true-purpose-of-battle-is-to-destroy-marriage/

    I also noticed that you failed to present Catherine with facts about What invaluable benefits to society do same-sex partnerships have that they should be elevated to the status of a marriage? Perhaps to broaden your knowledge you may be interested to know the harm which might surprise you would be more harmful to those pushing for it.
    https://carm.org/gay-marriage-harm

    Bottomline is its bad governance to enact laws that end up causing more harm to the majority. But it is even more disastrous to pass legislation like this when you in fact harm those that you are supposedly trying to help.

  15. Why is a person’s sexual orientation the business of society at large? Why can’t gays and lesbians marry like heterosexuals do? Same sex marriages will not lead to the collapse of civilized society.

  16. You need to ask the authors of the bill to answer your first question because frankly your point is the another good reason why this bill shouldnt even be passed. The most direct answer to your second question is THEY DONT QUALIFY. I can be a kid and want to get married but if I just dont meet the requirement I will just have to respect it. Behaving like a spoiled brat insisting to change laws because they cant meet the requirements is not the fault of the law its the fault of the ones that simply dont meet the requirement. Respect the law respect the sanctity of marriage and stop insisting on imaginary rights to legitimize sodomy in this country.

  17. Some people have reportedly done studies regarding kids raised in homes run by same sex couples and found that children who are raised by same sex parents are often happier than those raised by heterosexual parents. As a whole, on what grounds does society have the right to judge the fitness of same sex couples as parents over heterosexual parents? Here are a few articles that discuss this in great detail: 1: http://whatweknow.law.columbia.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-wellbeing-of-children-with-gay-or-lesbian-parents/, 2: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup, 3: https://thinkprogress.org/major-new-study-finds-kids-raised-by-same-sex-couples-are-healthier-and-happier-9cb8fc434c71#.mpm4xolgd, 4: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120610151302.htm?trendmd-shared=0-I know that hardcore skeptics will look at this information and have doubts about it, however, I think that these articles are insightful. Given the fact that kids raised by same sex couples are just as likely to be happy as those raised by heterosexual couples, maybe happier, it seems reasonable to me to assume that either scenario has good results.

  18. Irish Coffee, you never directly answered me regarding my last statement about same sex marriage not leading to the collapse of civilized society. You also neglect the fact that your marriage will not be threatened if same sex couples want to marry. Catherine Mae Decena, your point about marriage being redefined is invalid. If you know anybody who is gay or lesbian, ask them if their agenda involves threatening traditional marriage or if they want the right to romantically affiliate with a person of the same biological sex. Same sex couples are not trying to redefine marriage. All they want is the same right to marry as heterosexual couples. Don’t give me the they can marry as long as it is to a member of the opposite sex line. As indicated by the term same sex couples, a person of one sex wants to marry a member of the same biological sex. If you find that distasteful, that is your problem. Bernie Bagman, the fact of the matter is that some people who want to use force of law to deny the right of same sex couples to marry. Some people claim that sexual orientation is not at all a choice. People who want to mandate marriage are infringing upon the basic human right of other people who want to marry a member of the same biological sex. If your marriages, assuming any of you married, are threatened by same sex marriages, than maybe your marriages are not that stable to begin with. Since gay and lesbian people are not going around telling heterosexual people that they have no right to marry, why are heterosexual people in some cases going around and dictating to same sex couples whether or not they can marry?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,962 other followers

%d bloggers like this: