GAY TRUTH

Q—What harm would it do to the institution of marriage if we redefine it to include same-sex couples? At the outset, it is worth noting that this question is often framed in a rather misleading way: “What harm would a same-sex couple getting married do to your opposite-sex marriage?” The issue, however, is not how any one couple’s marriage would affect any other specific couple’s marriage—the issue is how changing the definition of marriage under the law would change the social institution of marriage. Giving unique privileges and a unique status to the only type of relationship that can ever result in the natural creation of another human being sends an important message to society . Contrary to the charges of those who would redefine marriage, that message has nothing to do with “sexual orientation” as such. It simply sends the message that relationships of a type which can result in natural reproduction are unique, and are uniquely valuable to society; and it further sends the

October 17, 2012 ( thePublicDiscourse.com ) - Value depends on scarcity. In the world of human reproduction, the most valuable entity is the fertile female—specifically, her eggs and womb. The fierce politics surrounding female fecundity and women’s reproductive rights rests not only on a woman’s ability to create new life, but also on the incredible amount of commitment and risk involved when her eggs and womb are accessed for procreation . Since women are fertile for a shorter period than men, since gestation takes 40 long weeks, and since labor and delivery pose life-threatening risks, young women will always face disproportionately high demands for access to their bodies. But those demands are rising in unexpected ways, and from unexpected people. Historically, it was understood that sex created babies. Cultural scripts thus emerged that valued and preferred certain types of sex and male-female relations. The profession of prostitution has always been highly stigmatize

“LGBTTIQQ2S? How many letters do we need, and what do half of these even stand for?,” someone recently asked in the comments section of a news article I wrote. The answer is simple: A letter is needed for every single sexual inclination and action that deviates from the obvious norm - i.e. sexual inclinations and actions between a male and female that are best expressed in marriage. Can I say such a thing without being discriminatory and homophobic? I hope it is not being discriminatory to point out what biology teaches. On a purely biological level, sexual organs are for the sake of reproduction. Nature produced woman with a vagina and man with a penis so that the two could come together to procreate new life. Ejaculation is for the sake of shooting a seed to fertilize the egg so that a new human being can come into existence. On a purely biological level, the sexual inclination is for the sake of the continuation of the species. If there was no sexual drive , the hum

A symbolic marriage cake in favor of allowing gay marriages in Italy not only to heterosexual couples but to lesbian and gay ones as well. Picture by Giovanni Dall'Orto, January 26 2008. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Crowd in support of Gay Marriage (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) The debate over whether the state ought to recognize  gay marriages  has thus far focused on the issue as one of civil rights. Such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. States regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the  right to marry  men, and women the  right to marry  women. Roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer  blood relatives , even if the individuals being married are sterile. In all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one’s spouse. Some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other