Defending the Truth

Because in some of the counties in California, they are refusing to perform SSMs. They'll issue the licenses, but because of their religious views they're refusing to perform the ceremonies for same sex couples that want to wed.

I said nothing about a religion. Calling the unnatural, illogical, and dysfunctional same sex union a marriage is an affront to human intelligence.

But racism, 100% of same sex unions are dysfunctional. Any time you see a same sex union, it's 100% gonna have the qualities that most people find aberrant. When you see a [insert race here] there are no guarantees that THAT person has the qualities that drive you to hate that race. There's a huge difference.

I disagree... It's not unnatural, lots of species have homosexual members, as for it being illogical, most of what people do is illogical, and not all homosexual relationships are dysfunctional.

I don't think it is an affront at all. On the contrary, I would contend that since we create the definition of our words, and we frequently change them, it would be a small, but natural change to include same-sex unions in the term marriage.

Well that's an easy fix, fire those that refuse to do their jobs.

Lots of species have retarded members and physically impaired members too. Things that "occur" in nature aren't always "natural". Sh*t happens. And apparently as it relates to homosexuality, it happens about 2-5% of the time. I'm not saying all homosexual relationships are dysfunctional from a "two people getting along" POV. The same could be said of any of the sexual deviant urges. And not all heterosexual relationships pass the functionality test if that's your criteria.

And I would contend that to change the societal recognition of the only union that has purpose and reason for our species and nearly every complex species of anything on this planet to include an union that is essentially null and void to anything and serves absolutely no natural purpose IS an affront to human intelligence.

Ahhh... that's a good point. So people should make a list of those elected officials who are refusing and refuse to reelect them, since they are clearly not serving the public interest.

Did you seriously liken homosexuality to retardation? I hate to tell you this, but retards (for the most part) are natural too. No one chose to be a retard.

I suspect that when you say dysfunctional you are reffering to the fact that homosexuals cannot bear their own children? Does that mean you want to redefine marriage as an institution for the sole purpose of bearing children? If that's the case, I can't get married either, and I am straight as they come, but I don't want kids.

Finally, to call it "the only union that has purpose and reason" is ridiculous. It's rhetorical nonsense. All unions have a purpose, otherwise they would not exist, and most of those purposes are really quite reasonable. I would say the employee-employer union has just as much purpose and reason. You are really being overly dramatic here.

Marriage isn't some natural thing that our species depends on to survive. It is an abstract social construct. And as such it is open to be modified by the society which it serves.