Argument Against the So-Called ‘Gay Gene’

In response to an inquiry regarding homosexuality being genetic, and the Chandler Burr argument.

There is no scientific evidence that a “gay gene” exists. I ask for your patience in reading this lengthy response, as I woke up at 5am to offer a satisfactory answer.

You must first ask yourself what is science? To make a scientific statement, such as homosexuality is genetic, you are not making a relative statement, but one that is scientific, and must be testable and empirical. A few observations must then be made about the source you provided as ‘proof’.

1.    Scientific research/argument from a political pro-gay rights group, whose goal it is to propagate a pro-homosexual agenda on society, is hardly a bias-free source for science. If anything, a red flag flares up since it is soaked with pre-suppositions on how they will evaluate the scientific research.

2.    This is not genetic. There is scientific research with empirical/quantitative analysis, and then there is clinical research & observation. In order for something to be scientific, it must be testable. If not, it falls into the domain of the ‘lesser’ sciences (you cannot empirically test whether a ruler will be a dictator, but you can gather a ‘trait profile’ of certain similar observations in dictators. However, because we have not located a “dictator gene” we cannot replicate and test this study, and therefore it is not hard science).  One provides testable results, the others compiles observations. This is a serious difference.

To make a claim gender orientation is genetic, as done earlier, one would need to point to scientists, not a political activist, and work from the scientists work, not the polluted assumptions and insights of a biased political activists’ assumptions. The activist seeks to find information that supports his cause (reading into the work). This happens with ‘gay gene’ studies and this article.

As mentioned earlier, if one argued that sexual orientation is generic, he must provide the testable proof of this gene, and be able to replicate this proof in further peer reviewed studies. This was not done. Rather, a political argument was given. The proof of the “gay gene” was not given, but assumed. However this is not surprising, as evidence for a gay gene does not empirically exist. Rather, it is a distortion made by media and pro-left/gay-rights activists upon related research.

We could sum up this paper as follows: we observe an invisible trait that may or may not be hidden but we cannot give you any ‘gay gene’ genetic proof. We assume it is there by observation.

This is not science. You MUST provide the ‘gay gene’ to say it is genetic. In addition, the research much of his assumptions rest on is lackluster (gay gene studies have not been reproduced, etc). Burr also gives inflated numbers (understandable given his political agenda), such as higher 9% homosexuality rates, instead of reasonable 3-4%.

I will repeat, there is no evidence that shows homosexuality is simply genetic. This article does not show it is genetic, but in terms says, in summary, observations are made so it probably has genetic roots. That is not scientific evidence, but politically poisoned speculation.

Even then, behavior-gene studies are poor: Science 1994

“Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated… ‘it is hard to come up with many’ findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated.”

In rebuttal to the twin argument, head of one of the largest genetic research groups says:

“While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality [these authors being two American activists], we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment”
In the words of the researcher Dean Hamer, who studies this topic of the ‘Gay Gene’, regarding whether homosexuality was solely biological:

“Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors…not negate the psychosocial factors.”

For something to be gene specific that produces a behavior or trait, it must be what geneticists call ‘inherited’. An example is eye color, which is genetically inherited, and we can point to a gene in which it is passed down.

Inherited means directly determined by genes (exp. eye color). There is no way then, of changing this via altering one’s environment. It is set in the genetic structure of the person (you cannot change their environment to change their eye color). Sexual orientation is not this at all (as my friend shows example of, and thousands who become heterosexual mothers, fathers, etc. show). Individuals choose, recant, return, etc. of their orientation. They can move from one orientation from another, and many have sexually done so (a simple Google search will suffice).

At this point then, we can see a difference in something inherited genetically (specific genetic structure that causes a trait such as blue eyes), and something that is heritable.

For explanation, let us show how All Basketball Players are born to be basketball players. We will use three fields:

1.    Twin studies.
2.    Brain dissections.
3.    Gene ‘linkage’ studies.

Sounds quite scientific, no? First, the twin studies: We will find that if one twin is a basketball player, you will find that the other is more statistically likely to be one. The percentage of pairs in which both twins are bb players, or not, is a concordance rate. You find that this rate is high, like that rate for sexual orientation.

We’re on to something! There must be an underlying bb gene as hinted in twin studies! We must continue exploring…

Second, we cut the heads open of several dead basketball players. We locate a portion of the brain where basketball functions occur. We compare it to that section within non-basketball players, and find that it is larger in the bb players. We then conclude this to be evidence that it is a biological factor of the brain section that predisposes someone to become bb players.

Third, we study gene “linkage” studies. We study bb players, and notice certain clusters of genes that are similar among bb players. With the supportive information in the first two points, we have proved that basketball players are genetic! No? We can expect the headlines ‘Scientists have found the Basketball player gene!’.

Actually, we cannot. In response to the third point: Some genes such as height, athleticism, quick reflexes, etc., are associated with playing basketball. They, however, DO NOT CAUSE basketball players. One may be likely to play because they have these genetic traits, but no one trait is the actual cause of basketball players, just the response there-of.  Saying otherwise is unscientific. These may be common amongst bb players, but they are not the “basketball” genes.

We can say male homosexuality carries similar traits (tendency for shyness, anxiety, intelligence, sensitivity, aesthetic abilities, etc), however this is not an area heavily explored by scientists. These genetic linkages are not the cause of orientation, but a response to traits. A willful response.

In response to the second point, the brain changes with use. Playing basketball exercises that area of the brain, vs. those who do not. Growth and changes occurs. We are judging post fact, and making the assumption that portion causes basketball/orientation when in reality it is simply being worked upon willfully by those individuals, leading to the change.

In response to the first point, we merely have observed what the gene linkage studies have done. A mere response to environment and certain traits. Understandable, given the closeness of genes, the shared environment, and the gene linkages (shared size, traits, etc).

This “basketball gene” is as scientific as this “gay gene”. We have used the same arguments that political activists like Burr distort. If the basketball argument seems hardly scientific, then you can conclude the same about the “gay gene”.

In conclusion, how does science, not a political activist with a clear agenda, define sexual orientation? Mainly by psychological, social, biological factors.
“At this point, the most wifely held opinion (on causation of homosexuality) is that multiple factors play a role” (‘Gay Brain’ researcher Simon LeVay)
“Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality” (Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist)
“I know of no one in the field who argue that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors.” (Sociologist Steven Goldberg).

IN SUMMARY: 1. We have observed that Burr is clearly a biased individual reading into the researcher for the propagation of pro-homosexual agenda. He reads into the research. 2. We have defined what we mean by ‘scientific’, and have shown that there is no testable body of scientific proof we can replicate on the topic that ‘sexual orientation is in the genes’. 3. Burr’s argument is from a series of observations, not hard scientific evidence. 4. Associating genes with human behaviors is incredibly poor, as pointed out by Science magazine’s 1994 article. 5. Twin studies argue in favor of environmental response, rather than a specific gene. 6. It is not genetically inherited, but heritable. 7. Saying sexual orientation is genetic is as accurate as saying basketball players are genetic; that your genes would determine you will become a basketball player vs. your genes will determine what your sexual orientation will be. In reality, certain gene traits will be noticeable in basketball players, but NOT THE CAUSE THEREOF, just as certain gene clusters may also be noticeable in homosexuals, NOT THE CAUSE THEREOF. 8. This fits the practical experience of people shifting back and force from sexual orientations. 9. Twin studies, brain dissections, and gene linkages do no mean it is genetically inherited and thus unchangeable (opposed to something directly genetically & unchangeable like blue eyes, etc).

And finally, 10. There is no evidence or proof, as Burr would want you to assume, that sexual orientation is purely ‘in the genes’. That is not science. No research on the subject is making that absolute statement. Rather, it is a combination of media presentation, and political agenda distortion, that cause you to think otherwise. I would further comment that I implore you to seek the research free of any bias baggage or political agenda you carry, or that of commentators. Go straight to the source, and ask yourself this very important question: am I looking only for information that affirms by assumptions, or am I alleviated to observe this issue in a free manner.

Science instead argued for a complex response to the three earlier factors, which I would place extreme emphasis on one’s willful response to it.
Simply said, sexual orientation is NOT genetically determined.

WITH THAT ASIDE: One final say, given we’ve run through the scientific realm. Something of the spirit must be mentioned, as it’s authority rises above that of science. Man is terribly flawed. As Burr shows, we pollute ourselves with bias. We can both look at the same scientific study, and come away with two wildly different conclusions. This is why so much philosophy conflicts. Man and his thinking, simply said are flawed (1 Cor. 1:20). We are depraved. We are, in short, sinful. We blind ourselves with ourselves. Burr seeks to find that orientation is natural, because he has an agenda. This hints at a greater need. It hints at the fallibility of man, and a need to alleviate us from ourselves. It hints at a need of revealed knowledge.

This is one reason why it is so necessary to have something that alleviates you from human frailty. I’m not talking about a strong ideology, but true perfect wisdom, and true perfect wisdom can come only from the perfectly wise. In other words, God. He is the only being who is freed of imperfections, or faulty reasoning, or poisoning bias. He is the source of truth, which is absolute, not relative. He allows us to submit our faulty will to Him, and instead attain true pure knowledge by the means of his revelation. From this revelation, this truth, we can respond. One of these truths is that real change exists. Revelation makes it clear in His revealed scriptures that homosexuality is a sin. God would not make something natural a sin (such as being black, or having blue eyes). Rather, sin is the willful choice, and the supportive action, to do something against God’s will. Homosexuality is placed alongside other behavioral sins. It is important to notice that someone like Burr places the need to prove homosexuality, a behavior, natural, because it would then justify such immorality. The individual places this desire as an idol. However perfect revelation shows otherwise (Romans 1:26-28, 1 Tim. 1:10).

Science is not an absolute source of truth. It merely provides us observations (not meaning, or purpose, or truth). Science does not have all the answers, as you cannot even prove that statement with science. We see an example above.
Our revealed source of truth, for good reasons, shows us that homosexuality is a behavioral response. A willful decision supported by actions. It is one that can be changed, as we see in Romans 6:11 where Paul is speaking to the Corinthian church, who among their members had individuals who were sexually immoral, homosexuals, and drunkards. “Some of you were like this; but you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and the Spirit of our God.” (Rom 6:11).

God, in His wisdom, has offered true change. Real change. In his Son, forgiveness, and God-empowered change can occur.

One more real life point:

A militant lesbian, who was entrenched in the lesbian lifestyle, now sits within a seminary classroom. She speaks openly of what she has done, and how she considered it to be central to her very being. It was her very identity. After such a lifestyle, she came to God, and was cleaned, washed, forgiven, empowered. She was removed of such desire for behavior. Where her desires were once sexual relations with her gender, they are now a godly husband and children. She had no ‘gay gene’. She did have real change. A gene does not produce depression, but the response to environment and situations. The same of homosexual orientation. And with both, and even behavior and action, forgiveness and real change are found in Jesus (1 John 1:9).

The above argument fits within this revealed truth. This female’s experience, which my wife knows, is not suppressing her ‘natural inclination to be gay’, but has rather been given freedom, and the power to change. I married a woman who was told she would be OCD, PTSD, and severely depressed all her life by psychologists. Her father suffered a brain aneurism when she was young, and for years she self-mutilated, attempted suicide, and suffered severe depression. Psychologist told her these were rooted in brain fluids. Serotonin levels. She would need to deal with such things for the rest of her life, day by day. Then, she came to Christ. She was healed of 8+ years of what psychology attempted. All those years of ingrained behaviors. Gone. Done. Vanished. Now, empowered, forgiven, and washed anew, she is completely different.  “Christ has liberated us into freedom” (Gl. 5:1).

There is true change to sinful behavior. The absolute source of truth, God, reveals to us that he did not make us for unnatural relations, but rather explains that such is a behavior which goes against his created order, and is such sin. However even then, he offers us the solution to change such behavior, one that is not within science, but in His son (2 Cor. 3:17).

Sources: Argument &  outline from Is There a “Gay Gene”? narth.com/docs/istheregene.html.

A Feminist Concept of Marriage vs. the Godly Alternative. Continuation of Facebook Marriage Discussion

Justin McNealy ./sigh…”No man ever believes that the Bible means what 

it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means.”

–George Bernard Shaw

And that’s really all I have to say about that.

Sat at 1:24am

 

Søren Stidsen That one is too easy.

It can actually be a tough one, when you realise, that you disagree 

with the bible and then have to adjust your own position.

Sat at 1:46am

 

Leonard Goenaga Oh Justin, come on now, that was entirely not even 

appropriate. If you surround yourself with such assumptions, that every 

man merely takes what he wishes from scripture, than you will 

oh-so-conveniently cast it aside.

The wonderful thing about being a protestant is that scripture is the 

final authority. You can place it within its historical, cultural, and 

literal setting and get a very straightforward answer.

Your quote will apply tremendously to liberal protestant scholarship, 

but hardly would that apply to an actual examination of what it says.

 

The conservative protestant would agree with you, that individ

uals warp 

scripture to theological justify certain beliefs. They take scripture 

to support a point, starting from their assumption, rather than 

starting from scripture.

 

Also, your quote had nothing to do with the issue of social 

generational responsibility, and the importance of the institution of 

marriage. It was merely an appropriate way to fan your presuppositions.

Sat at 2:47pm

 

Female Friend: Before you go around quoting feminist scholarly lit. READ 

the entire book. When you quote one line or two, you can make ANYTHING 

and ANYONE look bad.

 

I agree with Servia, I pity you. Further more, I actually pity your 

wife for being subjected to this because how you think projects on how 

you treat her. I don’t care if you buy her a BMW and a house on by the 

beach, a woman made to “submit” is not a woman loved. I don’t care how 

you sugar coat it. It’s an indentured servant.

 

“SUBMIT: to defer to another’s judgment, opinion, decision, etc.: I 

submit to your superior judgment.

 

to place (oneself) under the control of another,” from L. submittere 

“to yield, lower, let down, put under, reduce,”

 

DO YOU KNOW, that those words described above are also used to describe 

PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE on the 5 branches of DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?!?

24 minutes ago

 

Female Friend: Further more, yes, there are gender diffrences, our organs 

hang inwards, while yours hang outwards. It gives us GREATER=2

0mind 

control because we think with our minds rather then our penises. AND 

psychologically speaking (proven by research), women reach rational 

thinking before men do.

 

YES, you can bench press more, WOW. Do you know that medically proven, 

women have great pain tolerence?!? And higher endurance?!? So I don’t 

give a damn about what you say about “gender diffrences,” it has not 

grounds on why we must “submit” to you besides you not wanting to grow 

up and be a man. Your mommy made your bed and cooked for you. Now your 

wife does it for you. Stop hiding behind your laziness and grow up. It 

has nothing to do with “natural order’ because if you look at nature, 

it is OFTEN the female in numerous specaies that is in charge.

18 minutes ago

 

Female Friend: And don’t hide behind “i take care of my wife so she cooks 

for me.” The majority of college grads ARE women. She doesn’t need you 

to pay bills, unless she’s to lazy to go out and get a job.

 

Do you know that wives that “submit” to their husbands live 5 years 

less then single women or women in feminist relationships and have 

higher depression? While men like you who have submitted wives live 5 

years longer then single men?!? Good for you! But it speaks about the 

stress on the wives who have such lives!

 

Do you know that research shows that women in feminist relatiionships 

are up to 70% happier then “submitted” wives?!? And 

husbands in such 

relationships have more sex a week then men in relationships like yours?

 

Feminisism did not do anything to divorce rates. Divorce rates have 

been increasing EVERY year since divorce was an option. Do your 

research. It had nothing to do with feminism.

 

Feminism HELPED with divorce rates. WOW. Do you know why?!? WOMEN 

STARTED WORKING!!! They didn’t

12 minutes ago

 

Leonard Goenaga For one who goes on claiming how blatantly in error I am 

for not reading them in full, you are quick to make assumptions on how 

I treat her. It would be best for you to ask yourself how she feels 

about the condition of her marriage; how she feels about the roles we 

both actively, and supportively, carry out.

 

The Church has to submit to Christ. If marriage is a mere finite 

expression of this submission, are you to suggest that the Church 

Body’s submission to Christ, as God had designed such a relationship to 

be, something as unloving?

 

The condition of a rebellious heart is made clear: you have problems 

submitting, to God and to anyone in general. The marital relationship 

God designed is absolutely beautiful. A woman submits to her husband’s 

leadership, and a man lays his life on the line and devotes himself to 

his wife as Christ devoted himself to the death.

 

If you disagree with this design, what then on your idea of Jesus’ and 

the bride of the Church?

5 minutes ago

 

Female Friend: They didn’t ave to stay with scum bags because they had an 

income. When women weren’t allowed to work, they had NO choice! It was 

either be homeless, or deal with the husbands ill behavior. Having an 

income gave them the option to not tolerate ill and lazy behavior from 

husbands. It helped marriages by sending a message to terrible husbands 

that they better get their act together.

 

Vivian Gorn made the quoted statement in your post about marrying men 

like you and Soren. She did NOT oppose marriage. She opposed sick 

marriages. There IS a difference.

 

A woman is not a child, she does not need to submit to you. We are ALL 

equal in the eyes of God, so twist it however you like. Submitting is 

not Gods will. The bible has been editing by MEN in their favor, and 

the many of the text hidden.

 

On another note, 86.2% of the population is Christian according to USA 

Census while less the 37% of American Women are Feminist. THAT IS NOT 

ENOUGH to cause the divorce problem happening in the united

3 minutes ago

 

Leonard Goenaga: Furthermore, a rebellious heart is a wicked heart. Why was Israel exiled? Because they rebelled against God.

 

You offered me a rant on the superiority of woman. Man, nor woman, are superior. Rather, we are lowly vile creations. We are absolutely equal in our depravity. One is no greater than the other. Both are made in the image of God, and are thus equal. Equal in our access to Salvation, and equal in our worth before God. You overtly have pride in your gender, I do not. I wonder why you must tell yourself your gender is somehow superior, but I will guess it to be a condition of the heart.

 

Listen, as you do not understand how this relationship works. God is the Father, Jesus is the Son, and then we have the spirit. Jesus came to us under the Father, and Jesus sent to us the Spirit. A hierarchy of the trinity exists, but one cannot be greater than the other; it is merely a relationship of hierarchy.

 

The president is higher than you in terms of hierarchy, but his value as a human is

about an hour ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: equal to yours. He can sign an executive order and you cannot, although your relationship to him is respected. However, his humanity is not greater than yours. Legally, if he murders someone, and you murder someone, you are both murderers. Your humanity is equal, but the hierarchy is the same.

 

Perhaps this will help you understand. Ever more, I force no one into submission. Rather, my wife chooses to submit willingly, as we both willingly choose to submit to Jesus.

 

You will have a hard time in any relationship, specifically with men, if you believe yourself to be somehow superior (as you obviously need to tell yourself you are, i.e. above comments). A relationship will only ever work if it is in submission; if it is in servitude to one another. 

 

The servitude in marriage is reflective of a greater more important and spiritual servitude to Christ. If you cannot accept, nor learn, how to serve your spouse, how than can you possibly understand to serve your God? How then, can you

about an hour ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: become a slave unto Christ? 

 

“The one who boasts must boast in the Lord.” (1 Cor. 1:31).

 

“For to those who are perishing the message of the cross is foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is God’s power.” (1:18)

 

“God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength.” (1:25).

 

In addition, you tell me not to quote these feminists, yet you do nothing to explain these quotes to me. A simple way to cast them aside.

 

The spiritual significance is great. You greatly despise a vision of Men as posing themselves as greater than woman, as more powerful (things I not once did in my above comments, where I discuss marriage, not male supremacy). 

 

Although, how you commit the very sin you complain against, by going on a tirade of the superiority of woman. Do you not see a conflict here? A sort of hypocrisy?

about an hour ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: Why, must your convince yourself of such a superiority? Do you feel such a weakness? Have you been injured by wordly men?

 

I can tell you there is a man who can show you the value of submission. His name is Jesus, and he will show you how beautiful servitude can be. If there is any pity to be passed, and by all means you can judge my relationship however you wish, it is I who may not stop myself from pity.

 

You place your bet on the wisdom of the world, which is foolishness to God. What i pity, is that you must convince yourself about something. You must have been hurt by a man, or men, and you must now find strength in your gender; exaggerating such gender hatred to find some type of foundation.

 

However to do so is to build a house on sinking sand. Humanity’s wisdom is weak, and you will find no joy nor salvation in the knowledge of any gender-focused argument is greater than another. Only God can show you such, and you will only make it that much more difficult to submit.

about an hour ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: Btw, you’re in error with some of the things you’ve stated as factual. Brain studies have shown men and woman to be entirely different in their approaches to thinking and relationships via brain scan studies. The intellectual and scientific idea that woman and men are the same except for reproductive organs is archaic at best.

about an hour ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: “I believe both parties need to Submit to God and God ALONE.”

 

And finally, if you believe we must submit to God, than are you submitting to Him when he asks you to submit to your husband? Jesus is not inferior to God. The Spirit is not inferior to Jesus. It is called a relationship.

 

You also have no understanding of how our relationship functions. Their is no I and Her. there is no Katrina and Leonard. Your problem is that you view your relationship as two people, where God has established it as a union of one flesh. No identity outside the other exists. 

 

It is foolishness to pity someone for assuming, while your pity rests on assumptions themselves.

56 minutes ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: It was a simple question. Anyone can morph text however they wish. However, God’s truth is objective. He is rather straightforward in his truths. 

 

A Christian is someone who submits and follows Christ. As such you follow his commands and designs for marriage. You do not take such, and mold it to surround feminism, or ideology, or whatever other foolish philosophies of man.

 

It is simple. God offers this truth: wife’s submit to your husbands. God is asking you to submit to your husband. The idea to you gets polluted by whatever assumptions you make about men, or about this idea of servitude. It is polluted to you; some hateful relationship of man’s control over woman. It is an unwarranted assumption: you need to understand the Church’s loving role in submission to Christ, and then you would willingly wish to do the same.

 

In other words, if you care to call yourself a Christian, how are you approaching such a verse? Do you see it, and move to your feminism for an answer, or do you

51 minutes ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: allow God to speak for himself.

 

You cannot follow God and also follow militant feminism. One obviously has the greatest authority. To filter God’s truths through any ideology is to poison truth with presuppositions. With man as flawed as we are, why in the world would we want to filter His truth through our observations?

 

Again, what do you do with such a verse? How do you explain it? Do you just skip it, and look away, because your feminism tells you otherwise? If that is the case, I would highlight where your priority thus lies. In the world, or in the word?

49 minutes ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: So it is the men editing who do so? So instead of taking it as God’s word, you explain it away as Men editing. How is that not feminism poisoning understand of scripture? 

 

If you look over it as the editing of men, why take anything the bible says as truth, let alone our understanding of Jesus and God? The whole thing could just be a work of editing correct?

 

Fortunately that is as far-fetched as an understanding of scripture can come. 

 

Until you learn how to submit to Miguel, and Miguel learns how to do the same, a relationship will never be successful. 

 

Romance dies. Feelings die. What matters is the covenant, the promise. You do not get married for eachother, but for God. Marriage supports love, not love supports marriage. 

 

You’re not understanding how this marital relationship works: You’re seeing it in the modern romanticism version, not God’s intended design.

 

I want you to understand that your feminism is clouding your understanding of scripture. You say it is edited by men,

39 minutes ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: as your feminism assumes, instead of seeing scripture as scripture. Can you understand now what I am trying to highlight? Your Christianity is filtered through your feminism, and not the other way around. 

 

Study in depth how marriage works in bible. You will be surprised by its beauty. Read John Piper’s This Momentary Marriage (a really short read), and you will discover how incredible this relationship is. This Union. 

 

Again, I cannot stress it enough. Scripture speaks for itself. To filter it through any worldview whatsoever, is to poison God’s Word with human foolishness.

36 minutes ago · Delete

 

Katrina Goenaga: Friend, I am still unsure of why I need to be pitied, but I will respond with this.

I am a highly educated woman who graduated cum laude from a well-regarded private institution. I spent three years studying women’s rights and at one point would have probably considered myself to be a feminist. After years of rigorous study I have come to the conclusion that the only thing I am proud to be called is a God-fearing woman and a servant of CHRIST. I have only one master and his name is God. Before you go and assume you know everything about the other side of your argument you probably should have consulted me first.

27 minutes ago · Delete

 

Katrina Goenaga: The Bible clearly says in Ephesians 5:21, “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” It doesn’t say that men are meant to be slave drivers in charge of women nor does it say that women are meant to be in charge of men. It clearly states that we, men and women alike, are meant to submit to one another out of respect for our creator. I’ll give you a perfect example: a police officer is put in place to protect his city and community, right? Does that mean because I am not a police officer that he is somehow better than me? Or that he is more intelligent or stronger? No, it merely means that he was placed in a role of authority. He has been given a job to protect and guard his community. Just as police officers are meant to protect and guard their cities, men, as prescribed by the Bible, are meant to provide for, protect and support their wives.

27 minutes ago · Delete

 

Katrina Goenaga: Does that mean that Lenny is somehow better than me? Absolutely not! Lenny and I were created equal in the eyes of God. I merely have a different role than him. Does that make me stupid or naïve? No! I am just as educated as Leonard, when we both had jobs I made just as much money as he did, if not more, I am free to do what I please when I please as long as it is respectful to myself, to God and my marriage. 

 

I am not Leonard’s slave, I am his wife and if you cannot understand this than I pity you because you will never know the love of a Godly man if you continue to hold on to these preconceived notions of what a biblical, God-centered marriage really is. It is obvious from your statements that YOU have never READ the Bible from which we receive our truths.

27 minutes ago · Delete

 

Katrina Goenaga: Ephesians 5:22-33 says, “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— for we are members of his body. For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.”

26 minutes ago · Delete

 

Katrina Goenaga: My husband treats me with more respect and love than I could have ever imaged and that’s because he has God as his source of reference. The best way that my husband could ever show me how he loves me is through following the truths that God has placed for us in the Bible. I could not imagine how our marriage would be if Christ was not at the center of our relationship and we were merely married for our own selfish desires, which is what you basically follow. You seem to be unhappy because you are not able to get your way. Once you realize that marriage is not about yourself and is about a union with God and your husband you will begin to understand where we are coming from, but until then your views of submission are going to be skewed.

26 minutes ago · Delete

 

Katrina Goenaga: My husband does not need to buy me a BMW or a house, because I am complacent with nothing. All I desire is a Godly man, a man who is willing to treat me the way Christ loved the church and because you cannot comprehend the love that Christ had for his church you will never be able to comprehend the amount of love that Leonard has for me. I submit because I know that Leonard’s sacrifice was much greater than mine. He submits himself to me daily and for that I am eternally grateful. 

Tania, I have no problem submitting to my husband because I have submitted myself fully to Christ.

26 minutes ago · Delete

 

Female Friend: Okay, I have a question for you. Do you asks your wifes opinion on certain decisions? Or do you just do what you want to do? because if you consider her opinion or meet her half way, that’s not submission.

 

Also, not every man wants a woman to submit. Miguel asks for my opinion for every decision, and he WANTS to meet half-way, not just do whatever he wants and have me submit to his “authority”. Miguel wants an equal. Furthermore, he even wants me to manage the money once we get married. 

 

To me, submission=doormat, I guess you don’t see it that way, But I do, Miguel does too. And I know some other guys who do too. MOST men think like you, and I wouldn’t date someone who thinks like wise, because othere wise, it would be war. And Miguel has dumped all of his sex’s, because they submit, rather then be his equal. So it works perfectly for us. Not everyone wants what you have. and vice-versa of course.

22 minutes ago · Delete

 

Katrina Goenaga: I can answer that question. 

Yes, he does ask my opinion about EVERYTHING! Because Leonard is not an individual, he is only one half of our marriage. He cannot stand on his own. 

Submission does not mean that you ask for opinions or that you ask for permission. 

Submission is humbling yourself before God and your spouse. It is not making yourself a doormat, but opening up your heart and your love. If I was not able to submit to Leonard openly and if he was not able to submit to me openly our marriage would have a TON of problems because we would only be looking out for ourselves and not each other. You don’t get married to make yourself happy, you get married because you love the man you’re with, right? So why is it that every question you’ve asked has to do with you getting your way? 

Tania, my husband is not in charge of everything, nor am I. We have an equal partnership that is based on the truths that God has set out for us in the Bible.

14 minutes ago · Delete

 

Katrina Goenaga: Friend, I think it’s funny that you can judge us like you know us. Or at least like you know me, because you don’t. And you need to understand that. 

Leonard is my equal just as I am his. I live my life in a way that supports him and he lives his life in a way that supports me. That is what you are not understanding. I take care of my husband to the best of my ability, which does mean cleaning, cooking, etc and he takes care of me to the best of his ability, which means providing and protecting me. But this is not where our roles end. I also take care of him emotionally, spiritually, and physically, just as he does those same things for me in return, if not more.

8 minutes ago · Delete

 

Katrina Goenaga: I guess it worked out for you that you found someone who does not want you to be a Godly woman because that’s obviously not who you want to be. But you need to understand that submission does not equal doormat, it merely means letting go of your own personally selfishness and living for God’s truth.

5 minutes ago · Delete

 

Leonard Goenaga: In addition to what Katrina said, God did something incredibly genius with our relationship with men and woman. Men, being biologically stronger, as well as their mentality, have a greater ability to abuse.

 

As such, God designed his marriage, founded under equality, yet with the headship of the man, yet under the submission to God, to prevent a solution to the VERY abuse you’re arguing against! Man has a vast capacity to hurt, and to abuse, and to take advantage of. As such, God designed a form of marriage, that humbled before God, would counteract that very dilemma! It is a beautiful solution. He designs marriage in such a way, that a Godly man, would product women from the abuse against men.

 

It is beyond words in its beauty, and as such you understand the idea of a protector male figure, in the authoritative role that Kat mentioned (police officer). 

 

Even greater it is when understood within the biblical times it occurred.

2 seconds ago · Delete

 

Marriage and the Family Foundations: Part 2, Denmark & Spain.

A continuation of yesterdays facebook conversation with a good Danish friend of mine. He’s a seminary student at a Lutheran Evangelical seminary in Denmark, and overall a good guy. Here is the exchange:

 

Søren

Wow. This is as long as some of the comments I made on my brothers status sometimes.
I agree with you on most of it, Leonard, but as I live in one of those terrible European countries, Denmark, I think I can nuance some of it a bit.
What I experience in the danish debate is that concept of marriage is actually defended by both sides. Homosexuals actually wants to be able to marry and live togehter for the rest of their lives. In Denmark the divorcerate is actually lower for homosexuals than for heterosexuals. I think it is because it is still a bigger thing to marry and not just live together for homosexuals than for heterosexuals.
The problem is, that marriage is far more than that. 

Marriage, seen from a humanistic point of view, is a civil and legal construction in which two persons choose to live together, have a shared economy, perhaps raise children, and support each other in different ways. How this is done is subject to changes due to culture and change of time.
Conservative christians do however see marriage differently. Even though we accept the humanistic view, we do not find it sufficient. We believe, that God laid into marriage a fixed pattern, that does not change. This are for instance that the man is the head of the wife, who are subordinate to him, while he is to prioritize her wellbeing above his own.

The result of this difference in viewsmakes the two sides in the debate misunderstand each other very often.
Two men cannot live together in marriage simply because they do not meet the requirements no matter how much they love each other.
Claiming that they can is to try to reduce marriage even if you do not know, that you are doing that.

As a christian I can live with the model used in Denmark even though I do not like it.
As it is, only heterosexuals can marry. Homosexuals can enter into what is called a Registered Partnership, which gives them the same rights and possibilities as married people.
That, I think, is an acceptable solution in a democracy. 
In a theocracy things would have been different, but religion cannot dictate the order of a democracy.

Leonard Goenaga

The civil union/registered partnership still approaches the same dilemma: does it still de-construct the concept of marriage? Whether you’re a humanistic, or a christian, or a plain citizen, the question to be asked is how important is the institution of marriage? It is shocking to see how quickly our concept of sex has changed in the last 40 years, versus the last thousands. 

Society rests upon the shoulders of a healthy family. As such, regardless of religious conviction, healthy citizens want to support policies that protect healthy families. And healthy families are founded upon healthy marriages. And marriages are founded upon the institution of marriage. If you remove the structure of an institution, it is no longer an institution, but a simple word. What is being attempted is the removal of what makes marriage marriage, and instead the usage of the word. 

It is not so much the issue of gays getting married, as the pursuit for the right of marriage. An affirmation by the law and

 

 the public that their lifestyle is natural, and moral. I know this is a massive statement. There is the rhetoric we find in those movements (we want to marry) and then there is the results.  

We are those results? We’re learning that in countries which have legalized gay marriage, homosexual couples are not really getting married. An example is Spain, which has full fledged gay marriage (no difference with heterosexual marriage): “On 27 June 2007, the Ministry of Justice announced 3,340 same-sex marriages had taken place in the last two years.” In a country with 40.5 million people, with one of the highest gay populations in the world, this is a shockingly LOW number [.0000000835% of the total population]. Why? Because it wasn’t about getting married, but about the right to, the affirmation and legitimization of their immoral unnatural behavior.

http://www.elpais.com/articulo/sociedad/3300/parejas/homosexuales/han/casado/Espana/ultimos/anos/elpepusoc/20070627elpepusoc_5/Tes

 

More so, the pattern continues in other countries as well.  

Besides that follows other interesting statistics. Divorce rate amongst heterosexual couples, children out of wedlock, couples choosing co-habitation over marriage, and decreased children born within marriages seems to have skyrocketed as a result.

Why is this? Because the structure of an institution was removed, watering if not removing its intended natural meaning, and thus removing its usage and viability within society. Then, it broods more of itself. 

I’ll be posting the stats on some of that later on this week.

mange tak.

Marriage, Family Foundations, and De-Constructionism Exchange.

Short facebook exchange. Thought I’d put it up here for future personal reference. If it may have the additional benefit of helping you with the important question of what is marriage, then I will consider it an additional blessing. Short discussion regarding the De-Construction of Marriage by militant feminist and homosexual ideologies. 

Leonard Goenaga 

just got out of his Marriage and Family foundations course. Wow. Blown away at how good it and Dr. Heimbach were. The narrative of the de-construction movement, and how the feminist and homosexual ideological movements wish to use it to deconstruct marriages to further legitimize immoral behavior/lifestyle was a great way to get the class started.

Individual 1 feminism is immoral?

Individual 2 You can’t be serious…

Leonard Goenaga

Matters on what we mean by feminism. If we are talking about the idea that gender identity doesn’t exist, and that man and woman are the same accept for sexual reproductive organs, than yes, I would say it is inherently sin-driven/sinful/immoral. A rejection of the natural order, which being devised by God, would make it immoral (immoral being anything in opposition to God’s design and law). 

Now if we talk about feminism as the idea that men and woman are equal in worth, than that it overtly not immoral, as God designed us and intended us to be equal before him. We both were made in His image, affirming our equality. However, this does not mean we deny our gender-based differences, as well as the corresponding roles.

And yes, I am serious. As serious as Vivian Gorni when she stated that “Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession… The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.” and the 1971 “Declaration of Feminism” that states “Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned
method of control over women . . . . [I]t is the institution that has failed us and we
must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary
condition for the liberation of women”. 

It makes sense that two ideological movements, which seek an affirmation of their lifestyles as being normative, would find themselves in direct contrast with an ancient social institution that blatantly speaks and contrasts the immorality of such unnatural directives. 

Sex literally becomes deified, and the two movements, which once blatantly blasted this institution of marriage (1960-1991), seek instead to deconstruct their enemy in marriage, and thus legitimize their practice and convictions.

This ignores the natural and beneficial nature of marriage itself, and how needed it is to a healthy

society, let alone civilization. There was a reason why we find the deconstructive of marriage to be a precursor to the fall of many a powerful civilization.

Sociology itself affirms the necessity of healthy marriages. Children born of biological parents who do not separate in divorce score betters test scores, live happier lives, etc., whereas children born of divorce homes or out of wedlock are monumentally more susceptible to future divorce, abuse relationships, adultery, theft, depression, poverty, abuse, murder, and a host of other ills.

Society literally rests upon the foundations of healthy marriages, as they are a primal system to pass down social responsibility, as well as order, character, and virtues. 

These two ideological movements attempts to deconstruct marriage, by removing the structures that make up the very institution, and thus leave it as nothing more than an empty word, also attempt to unnaturally remove the meaning and importance of this very important

social institution. This in turn is dangerous to society. as such, it is immoral. Selfish ambition, the deification of sex and their associated world view, the relative individualistic nature that craves acceptance of immoral behavior as norm, in turn deconstruct an ancient institution that precedes any healthy society. The question is an ancient spiritual one: sinful individualism versus social responsibility.

Worse of all, the deconstructed purpose of marriage, as found in this terrible social decline, broods only more of itself. Removing the structure of marriage, and its natural intention, removes the structure itself, replacing it instead with a word, which gives way to a relative concept.

Divorce homes produce more divorced homes. Children of wedlock produce more of the same. This further breeds citizens who are more inclined, sociologically speaking, to cast upon more social ills, thus producing somewhat of a cancer.

Without the concrete structure of marriage in its natural form, the incentives against it grow, and such behavior outside of marriages prove hardly beneficial. The individual follows their desires, as relative as they wish them to be, because man is sinful, and desires himself. Perhaps he may not see it as such, but it broods more of its fruit. 

Individualism in place of social responsibility. Unnatural in place of natural. Relative in place of absolute.

Individual 2 No, Lenny.

1) Feminists are not seeking to destroy anything except patriarchy. 

2) Gays do not want to destroy marriages and families. In fact, they want nothing more than the ability to have both. They’re fighting tooth and nail for that, actually.

You may want to go out and meet a few of these individuals before you make assumptions about their agenda.

Leonard Goenaga

1) If God designed marriages to be Patriarchal, and this marital system is natural, and marriage functions in accordance to a specific system (“Wives submit to your husbands… Husbands love your wives as Christ loved the church…”), then an attempt to dislodge the very nature of marriage, in opposition of natural, would be immoral. Not to justify an abusive marriage with a dictator husband (as that itself defies the natural design of marriage, making it too immoral). I’m speaking more of militant feminism and homosexuality, as those two traditions inspired such movements, and have in their goals the destruction of patriarchal marriages, which if those are their natural conditions, would leave the same critique stated above. 

2) The homosexual ideological movement does not straight-forward state they want to destroy marriages. They instead want to legitimize their behavior and condition as not being immoral, but amoral. They wish acceptance of immoral actions by the public, and one way this goes about is by deconstructing the things that provides the contrasts which expose such immorality. By deconstructing the structure and institution of marriage, and sapping from it its meaning, they are in turn destroying marriage. There is a reason why an interesting pattern has developed in nations which legalized gay marriage in Europe: Gays are not getting marriaged in legitimate numbers, and the above-mentioned social ills are skyrocketing. The purpose was not outright straight-forward destruction, but the results of such deconstruction centered on legitimization of immorality had the same such affect.

The homosexual ideological movement at first outright attacked marriages in intellectual and political thought (see Franklin Kameny, Michael Swift, James Nelson, and Eugene Rogers), and it wasn’t until 1991 that the approach (obviously failing in its viciousness) changed, and sought instead to grab unto the de-constructionalist movement by attempting to not remove marriage, but deconstruct and re-define it out of its very natural existence. 

I also have met many, as have talked to them, with kindness, respect, and passion (could find them on my friends list and ask them). You’re statement to not make assumptions is grounded on a wrongly make assumption.

Whether they state they outright want to remove it (as some prominent founders and thinkers of the homosexual movement have done), or whether they use de-constructive language draped with flowery language, the result is still the same: a dangerous de-construction of the natural order, and a vital social institution. Radical, hyper-intentioned unhealthy social change.

 

The Political Pendulum: Where Do Conservatives Go From Here?

The Political Pendulum: Where Do Conservatives Go From Here?

By Leonard O Goenaga, LeonardOoh.com

10-5-08

 

I had a wonderful experience yesterday. Obviously, it occurred before the election results streamed in. This wonderful experience was waking up early morning, besides my wife, to garner together the Goenagas to vote. The interesting experience was in this: My father, a Cuban American (and a proud one at that), had received his U.S. citizenship early this year and was now voting in his first presidential election.

 

Here I was, standing in line with my mother, father, and wife, participating in a Democratic process within the most beautiful and successful country in the world. A country that opened its arms to my family members: individuals who were being persecuted by Castro for political positions and beliefs.  

 

Here I was, within the warm embrace of family, country and democracy. To deny it the title of blessing would be a shame…

 

After the months upon months of lively discussions, deepened debates, and prolonged late-night arguments, I filled in my voters sheet besides my father and his booth; two generations proudly participating.

 

As sorry as I am for the results of the election, there are several lessons to be learned. First I must ask myself, did I expect Obama to win? Sadly, I knew for a sizable amount of time that Obama would claim his victory, although by no means would that prevent me from pursuing and fighting! A man shows his inwards most against the odds.

 

McCain simply ran a less than average campaign. Obama was impressively organized, and politically creative. The Republican Party was divided, as can be seen in the 53% of Republicans who did not vote for McCain during the primaries. In addition, as impressive as McCain may be, and surely nothing short than an American Hero, he is not highly inspiring. To add to this the damage of the Republican brand, the division of Libertarians and the angst of Conservatives, the Financial Tsunami, and worse of all the ‘Bush Factor’, I cannot say I’m surprised he lost. Surely disappointed, but hardly surprised.

 

So where do we go from here? First I lay out the only real benefits I can see in the election of President-elect Obama.

 

1)      Regardless of whether one claims Obama is a post-racial candidates (and I consider myself post-racial), the election of a black President will heal some racial wounds. It sets a good global example.

2)      I hope, with all my heart that Obama succeeds in this: Healing the black family. The black community has some serious concerns in regards to their family structure (as most Americans, just on a higher level). Although some may wish to credit the corrosion of the black family to a class divide, the real issue is can Obama help that structure? Black families are in trouble. Looking at the number of single mothers, the absence of fathers, the ‘rap and hip-hop culture’, children born out of wedlock, and other factors, I hope that the example of Obama’s family can be a model for the black community.

3)      The historic step from slavery, to abolition, to the Presidency of a Black African American President is monumental. This should not be undermined, regardless of political partisanship.

 

At the moment I can think of no more benefits fitting besides those two (and historic they are). Surely those are things anyone can hope for (no pun intended), regardless of political affiliation.

 

So, Conservatives, where do we go from here? First, remove this false mentality of this being a severe blow to Conservatism. By no means was this the Conservative candidate (as can be seen in stimulus packages, bail outs, etc). Neither was the ending of the Bush legacy a blow to conservatism (‘Compassionate Conservatism’ hardly echoes true fiscal small government Conservative policies, as can be seen in Bush’s government expansion).

 

In addition, the electorate does not vote on mere ideological grounds. Surely, the Democrats are extremely polarized to the left (liberal President, liberal VP, liberal Speaker, liberal Committee chairs, etc.) Some argue that we are no longer a center-right country, but a center-left. I would say that is incredibly immature. The voters did not vote on a mandate for leftist political policies. On the contrary, Obama ran as a moderate with center-right bait (tax cuts), and hardly was the populist centrist who campaigned the same Obama who served his state and federal Senate as a far left democrat. Citizens voted not for leftist ideological liberalism, but for the candidate. 

 

We must ask ourselves this important question: With such a polarized government, which Obama will we see govern? This campaigned populist ‘centrist’, or the man before the campaign? If the latter, with the vanished ‘moderate democrats’, and the resulting left-aligned Democrats in power, what can we expect? More of the same democrat taxes, social-spending increases, and other ‘entitlement’ programs? Can we expect more of the same welfare-state policies?

 

In addition we must ask ourselves this: Given the financial crises and the status of the economy, are such classic left-democratic policies beneficial, let alone possible? Can he provide a 95% tax cut to the middle class (including already 40% who don’t pay taxes), while the baby boomers are creeping in greater numbers into retirement? With the stagnating economy, the retirement of baby boomers collecting social security, a massive national debt, a stunning bailout and stimulus package, trillions of debt, and the burden placed on payroll taxes to cover social security costs, are these left policies Obama pursued in the past possible?

 

Also, what of national security? I believe it to be an immoral error of the left to make terrorism and the real threat of radical Islamic fundamentalism appear as just a scare tactic from ‘evil president Bush’. With this sad mentality, the error of Americans in forgetting and growing comfortable (shown understandable by their individual concerns), and Obama’s calls to cut weapons development and nationals security spending, where will we be?

 

If there is a benefit in all this, and I know the waters are murky, it is here: Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves. If they can succeed, by all means God Bless them! However, if these are the same democrats who have pursued the same policies all of their lives (ignoring campaign promises), then we could only arrive to two solutions: Reign in social spending (which will hardly happen), or increase taxes to an amounts similar in Europe, thus increasing stagnation (if not depression), and unemployment (which further leads to an increase in the need of welfare-benefits, which means more taxes to pay for those benefits, which means greater strain on the economy, etc.). I believe we can understand which of those two solutions has been preferred by these types of polarized democrats.

 

So we conclude in this: surely Republicans have taken a hit, but to call this the end of conservatism is foolhardy. FDR, Johnson and Kennedy welfare-state liberalism is still alive in the leaders of the Democrat Party, so why have the foolish belief that Conservatism has taken its deathbed, when the last president and this candidate can hardly be conservative ideals?

 

It is common for conservatives to rally to the Reagan battle-cry, but I find it no more fitting than now. With the current problems, and the poor practiced solutions of the democrats, perhaps this is prized soil to plant the next Conservative movement; to win one for the Gipper. The above-mentioned problem’s solutions are best found in conservative principles: small government, strong natural defense, individualism, capitalism, service, and freedom.

 

The only way to purify gold is to first melt and form it in the furnace. Afterwards, it reaches its opulent value. It took the furnace of Carter to produce the gold of Reagan, so what next?

 

Allow the democrats their victory, and pray for our new President. It was hard fought and hard won. Rest assured in the knowledge of history, in the performance and faith of principle, and the expected transfer of power from party to party.

 

Rest assured knowing that the Political Pendulum sways.

 

 

Gay Marriage.

I have always felt, or came to understand through debate, that an important component in Liberalism is the emotional lure of it’s arguments. By no means do I discredit experience, as it’s an important factor of understanding reality, but a political theory founded in emotional principles is weak at best.

I have engaged myself in various political debates where my proponent steeps themselves in an argument of emotion, and from this sandy foundation they try to develop a logical reasoning for their argument. I’ve found it my duty in these positions to expose that foundation in the hopes of removing the emotional presupposition and thus their designed argument.

Mind you, every liberal does not steep to this design of an argument, but the cases I’ve discovered are worth making the generalization. Again, I am not saying EVERY Liberal argues on this ground, but I would say the movement, intellectually bankrupt as it is, does.

I will use one discussion I had with a gay friend of mine to explain this point. It was on the dreadfully emotionally dangerous topic of Gay Marriage, which he wished to discuss after finding out I’m getting married and stating so was he. I will summarize the exchange with paraphrasing (just the ideas I could remember being exchanged):

Friend: Banning Gay marriage is unconstitutional. It’s like segregation, but on the grounds of sexual orientation. Are you telling me you don’t agree with the High Court’s decision in California?
Leonard O: Of course I don’t agree. Besides it being one of the most liberal courts, let me ask you something. Where in the Constitution does it say you or I have a right to get married?
Friend: I don’t know. It’s implied.
Leonard O: There is no constitutional right to marriage. As a High Court, you need to mainly see an issue in terms of it’s constitutionality. If there was an amendment to the constitution allowing gay marriage, then it would be different, but you cannot imply there is this ‘right’ when it is not written in it. The liberal court has enough problems understanding rights clearly spelled out (2nd Amendment), but they still have this terrible ability to interpret rights (Privacy). There is no right to Marriage, and as such, the People & States in the form of a legislature and the government have a right to define marriage, and it’s been defined as a Man and a Woman. The benefits are given to such so they can be in an environment that promotes children (aka future labor and tax payers). Let me ask you another question, after having explained there being no constitutional right for such. How is this like segregation?
Friend: They’re discriminating people.
Leonard O: Segregation was discrimination on race. This is not an issue of discriminating between race or gender.
Friend: Yeah, but why can’t I be able to marry? I’m discrimated on the basis of my sexual orientation.
Leonard O: You can get married. You have the same right as I do to marry a woman.
Friend: Thats not what I mean. Why can’t I marry the person I love? Why don’t I have that right, and the Benefits?
Leonard O: You can. Go to the United Church of Christ and you can have a huge ceremony and all. Occams Razor tells us “entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity”. Why make this situation so difficult when you can get many of those rights by merely writing wills and other options?
Friend: Yeah, but the government shouldn’t decide that only men and women can get married.
Leonard O: First, we have the same rights to marry, you just choose not to use them because of your orientation. Second, the government can define marriage. They have certain requirements for certain benefits. Not everyone is eligible for Medicaid, or Social Security benefits (we’re not being discriminated on age because we haven’t retired, but we still all have the right to those benefits when we do). Me and you have the same right to marry, you’re just asking for a ’special right’.
Friend: What do you mean ’special right’?
Leonard O: Well, say me and a best friend are living together. Say we apply for a marriage licence because we both want the healthcare benefits.  Should the government give us marriage benefits?
Friend: No, because that’s not a loving relationship.
Leonard O: Wait, so in other words I’m being discriminated because of my sexual orientation of being straight, even though I would want to do the same thing as you and ‘marry’ another man. What you desire are ’special rights’, bestowed on the basis of sexual orientation. In our original model, we both have a right to marry a woman (regardless of race, religion, etc). You had a problem with states & government defining marriage this way. Yet, your solution to this problem is to have government define marriage, just in the form of a loving relation? Whose to stop people, family, friends, polygamists, and others from asking of their government these benefits? Do you discriminate them? Your problem was that the government defined marriage, and your solution was for government to define marriage (just in this ‘in love’ concept). Don’t you see how this is logically problematic? How does the government discriminate one group and allow special rights to another? How does it define love? With that Occams Razor issue, why even go here when many of the things you desire can be solved through legal means (wills, etc)?
Friend: Yeah, but we should still have the right to get married.
Leonard O: Then move to a state that recognizes it, and don’t impose some ‘interpreted’ right upon society when it wishes to define it as something else. Society has the real constitutional right of a legislature and the ability to define law, as associated with marriage benefits. After recognizing there being no constitutional right to marriage, the government being able to define something that receives benefits, and the problem of the ’special rights’ issue, you should understand why ‘gay marriage’ is problematic.
Friend: We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Leonard O: Understandable.