Mini-fisking

Firstly, it is not equal to allow heterosexual couples the benefits of marriage, while same-sex couples enjoy only a fraction of the rights, as dictated by their respective states.

I think you have a good point here. Marriage should be for all, and not for a particular discriminated people. Sisters should marry their brothers. An uncle should be allowed to marry his adult niece. Even a father should be able to marry his grown up daughter. Marriage should be for all, including the Mormons and Islamic guys who have several wives. Polyamory should also not be a taboo.

The supreme taboo allowed should be the existence of any taboo. It is a matter of economics: if you have only a taboo, you would not spend your resources dealing with a lot of them.

---

For anyone to say that this is an issue for people who are gay and that this isn’t about civil rights is sadly mistaken. If you really believe in freedom and limited government, to be intellectually consistent and honest you have to oppose efforts of the majority to impose their will on people.

Isn’t here a clear contradiction? As I can read it, defending freedom = oppose the majority of people. Why? Because “gay cultural rights” = “black civil rights”. A particular cultural identity and social behavior is equivalent to ethnic rights. Sexual orientation became a sort of ethnic community with a political and social identity. This is not just a claim upon Justice; it is pure politics. And dangerous.

---

Trayce L. Hansen, Ph.D., a licensed psychologist, recently reviewed the available research on homosexually parented children and reports findings relevant to the same-sex marriage debate: Children raised by openly homosexual parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves. And some self-described pro-homosexual researchers who uncovered such results attempted to conceal them by declaring that no differences were found.