14 Reasons the Supreme Court Got it Wrong on Gay Marriage: Commentary
July 6, 2015
Apprentice Anon Amus
1
I have previously written on the subject of Gay Pride and my conclusion was that it does not exist nor will it exist. I am thankful the following list from Daniel King. The entire article can be read here.
1. “Throughout history, marriage has been between a man and a woman.”
While the appeal to tradition is appealing, many artifacts of history are curiosities only, such as the divine right of kings to rule and the wisdom of Solomon having 700 wives. We can not appeal to a book compiled in the 16th century for history stretching back “thousands of years”.
2. “Homosexual marriage is on the wrong side of nature. “
To state that homosexual relations are unnatural implies that these are not or can not be found in nature. Of course, there are dozens of documented instances of this behavior in the animal kingdom, therefore they are natural. Since animals can not provide consent, we understand “might is right” in a different light. Appeals to biology, physiology and religion can not be utilized to understand what is or is not natural. Firstly, one of these is not like the other two and, secondly, religion is not a monolithic behavior.
3. “Homosexuality is against the Bible.”
We clearly state that the Law applies to Israel only, not to Gentiles. What is the denial of Grace, but Judaizing?
"The Supreme Court of the United States cannot overrule the opinion of the Supreme Being of the Universe."
Rhetoric aside, we agree that SCOTUS can not override the laws of the Creator, however, since it is an opinion only, it may be a correct opinion or an incorrect opinion. We look forward to a future ruling by the Supreme Being of the Universe to either uphold his opinion or to reverse his opinion.
4. “Two fathers (or two mothers) is not the best way for kids to be raised.”
An appeal to authority: “You have your way. I have my way. As for the rightway, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” We have long theorized that the natural method to raise a child is to breast feed them and then allow them to swim to another part of the lagoon.
5. “Homosexuality is gross. There is nothing "loving" about the physical relationship between two men.”
Perhaps we are closer to the truth of this article than we initially realized. While I do not eat shrimp (my reasoning is not Biblical, but I find it disgusting), I have nothing against the consumption of shrimp by others, provided that this behavior is not in my presence.
6. “Homosexuality spreads disease. AIDS and other STD's have a much higher rate in the homosexual community then they do among monogamous heterosexual relationships.”
We read a statement that is verifiable and accurate. We speculate that members of the heterosexual community have a higher rate of STD’s than do monogamous homosexual relationships, but this can not be verified.
7. “Homosexual marriage is against the will of the people.”
We are thankful we do not live in a Democracy, where the majority tyrannizes the minorities. From this statement, it seems that morality and custom are defined by the majority, and not in revealed books.
“Five out of nine judges on the Supreme Court of the United States should not have the power to overcome the votes of millions of citizens.”
We are uncertain why SCOTUS “should not have the power”, unless of course, the author does support democracy, where “might is right”.
8. “Allowing homosexual marriage will damage the institution of marriage.”
We are occultists, not psychics, so we can not predict the future. Nor are we legal scholars, however, we readily concede that if divorce were criminalized, marriages would remain intact.
“Allowing homosexual marriage becomes a slippery slope toward allowing polygamy, bestiality, and even pedophilia. “
One of these three is not like the rest: Animals can not give consent. However, we are in agreement with polygamy and pedophilia, not because we are psychics, but because we use legal reasoning.
9. “Homosexual marriage is immoral.”
An appeal to ignorance: If Socrates does not know what justice is, then we do not understand immorality.
10. “Evolution says the homosexual gene is an inferior gene. Since the homosexual cannot reproduce, the gene would eventually disappear. As a Christian, I do not actually believe in macroevolution, but since many unbelievers do, this is a legitimate argument. The Theory of Evolution says that genes that are beneficial to a race get passed on to future generations and that harmful genes die out. If evolution is true, in ten thousand years there will be no more homosexuals.”
We are not certain why the “homosexual gene” is an “inferior gene”, however we understand “dominant” and “recessive” traits. Since homosexuality has existed throughout history, we conclude that, from a genetic and evolutionary perspective, these genes can either be neutral or beneficial, but not detrimental.
We note the wording “would eventually disappear”. If homosexuality were detrimental genetically speaking, then homosexuals should disappear in one generation, but human experience records homosexuals for at least four hundred years. It seems as if these homosexuals are more resilient than the Holy Roman Empire. We do not understand why this “dying out” would take “ten thousand years”.
“Even if there is a genetic reason in a homosexual's DNA for his or her attraction to members of the same sex, there is still no excuse to engage in behavior that is wrong.”
We note that morality is custom.
11. “Homosexuality, if adopted by all, would cause the eradication of the human race.”
The laws of Deuteronomy, if adopted by all, would cause the eradication of Gentiles. Monasticism, if adopted by all, would cause the eradication of the human race. While these statements are true, long human experience indicates neither of these scenarios will pass.
12. “Non-discrimination laws will force religious organizations to hire people who are completely against their belief system.”
Christians have not been denied “their religious beliefs”, as they are free to attend the building of their choice to engage in religious rituals. Their beliefs are not the problem, but their behavior.
13. “Homosexual relationships are not based on love, but on lust.”
Assuming facts not in evidence.
14. “Homosexual marriage will be expensive for companies and the government because they will have to pay benefits for homosexual couples.”
Over a ten year period, the same sex marriage rate in Spain is less than 2% of all marriages. We see an appeal to fiscal restraint in a poorer light than an appeal to authority.
Conclusion
We appreciate the compilation of this list and ardently hope that future researchers will utilize it. While we would like to state that our commentary is neutral, like a dispassionate professional historian, we cannot state this, nor do we have an agenda, homosexual or otherwise, unless facts are an agenda. As always, the Gentle Reader will form their own informed conclusions.
We are disappointed that the title of the article and the article itself did not focus on the SCOTUS decision, but engaged in various non legal or non Constitutional points of interest. For those readers interested in highlights from the four dissenting Justices with commentary, vide.
We also extend our congratulations to Mr. King on his efforts in evangelism, that is, the spreading of the “Good News”, as we read that over one million people have heard about Jesus. We ardently hope that these converts will enjoy “their freedom in Christ” and not be brought into “the yoke of bondage”.
1. “Throughout history, marriage has been between a man and a woman.”
While the appeal to tradition is appealing, many artifacts of history are curiosities only, such as the divine right of kings to rule and the wisdom of Solomon having 700 wives. We can not appeal to a book compiled in the 16th century for history stretching back “thousands of years”.
2. “Homosexual marriage is on the wrong side of nature. “
To state that homosexual relations are unnatural implies that these are not or can not be found in nature. Of course, there are dozens of documented instances of this behavior in the animal kingdom, therefore they are natural. Since animals can not provide consent, we understand “might is right” in a different light. Appeals to biology, physiology and religion can not be utilized to understand what is or is not natural. Firstly, one of these is not like the other two and, secondly, religion is not a monolithic behavior.
3. “Homosexuality is against the Bible.”
We clearly state that the Law applies to Israel only, not to Gentiles. What is the denial of Grace, but Judaizing?
"The Supreme Court of the United States cannot overrule the opinion of the Supreme Being of the Universe."
Rhetoric aside, we agree that SCOTUS can not override the laws of the Creator, however, since it is an opinion only, it may be a correct opinion or an incorrect opinion. We look forward to a future ruling by the Supreme Being of the Universe to either uphold his opinion or to reverse his opinion.
4. “Two fathers (or two mothers) is not the best way for kids to be raised.”
An appeal to authority: “You have your way. I have my way. As for the rightway, the correct way, and the only way, it does not exist.” We have long theorized that the natural method to raise a child is to breast feed them and then allow them to swim to another part of the lagoon.
5. “Homosexuality is gross. There is nothing "loving" about the physical relationship between two men.”
Perhaps we are closer to the truth of this article than we initially realized. While I do not eat shrimp (my reasoning is not Biblical, but I find it disgusting), I have nothing against the consumption of shrimp by others, provided that this behavior is not in my presence.
6. “Homosexuality spreads disease. AIDS and other STD's have a much higher rate in the homosexual community then they do among monogamous heterosexual relationships.”
We read a statement that is verifiable and accurate. We speculate that members of the heterosexual community have a higher rate of STD’s than do monogamous homosexual relationships, but this can not be verified.
7. “Homosexual marriage is against the will of the people.”
We are thankful we do not live in a Democracy, where the majority tyrannizes the minorities. From this statement, it seems that morality and custom are defined by the majority, and not in revealed books.
“Five out of nine judges on the Supreme Court of the United States should not have the power to overcome the votes of millions of citizens.”
We are uncertain why SCOTUS “should not have the power”, unless of course, the author does support democracy, where “might is right”.
8. “Allowing homosexual marriage will damage the institution of marriage.”
We are occultists, not psychics, so we can not predict the future. Nor are we legal scholars, however, we readily concede that if divorce were criminalized, marriages would remain intact.
“Allowing homosexual marriage becomes a slippery slope toward allowing polygamy, bestiality, and even pedophilia. “
One of these three is not like the rest: Animals can not give consent. However, we are in agreement with polygamy and pedophilia, not because we are psychics, but because we use legal reasoning.
9. “Homosexual marriage is immoral.”
An appeal to ignorance: If Socrates does not know what justice is, then we do not understand immorality.
10. “Evolution says the homosexual gene is an inferior gene. Since the homosexual cannot reproduce, the gene would eventually disappear. As a Christian, I do not actually believe in macroevolution, but since many unbelievers do, this is a legitimate argument. The Theory of Evolution says that genes that are beneficial to a race get passed on to future generations and that harmful genes die out. If evolution is true, in ten thousand years there will be no more homosexuals.”
We are not certain why the “homosexual gene” is an “inferior gene”, however we understand “dominant” and “recessive” traits. Since homosexuality has existed throughout history, we conclude that, from a genetic and evolutionary perspective, these genes can either be neutral or beneficial, but not detrimental.
We note the wording “would eventually disappear”. If homosexuality were detrimental genetically speaking, then homosexuals should disappear in one generation, but human experience records homosexuals for at least four hundred years. It seems as if these homosexuals are more resilient than the Holy Roman Empire. We do not understand why this “dying out” would take “ten thousand years”.
“Even if there is a genetic reason in a homosexual's DNA for his or her attraction to members of the same sex, there is still no excuse to engage in behavior that is wrong.”
We note that morality is custom.
11. “Homosexuality, if adopted by all, would cause the eradication of the human race.”
The laws of Deuteronomy, if adopted by all, would cause the eradication of Gentiles. Monasticism, if adopted by all, would cause the eradication of the human race. While these statements are true, long human experience indicates neither of these scenarios will pass.
12. “Non-discrimination laws will force religious organizations to hire people who are completely against their belief system.”
Christians have not been denied “their religious beliefs”, as they are free to attend the building of their choice to engage in religious rituals. Their beliefs are not the problem, but their behavior.
13. “Homosexual relationships are not based on love, but on lust.”
Assuming facts not in evidence.
14. “Homosexual marriage will be expensive for companies and the government because they will have to pay benefits for homosexual couples.”
Over a ten year period, the same sex marriage rate in Spain is less than 2% of all marriages. We see an appeal to fiscal restraint in a poorer light than an appeal to authority.
Conclusion
We appreciate the compilation of this list and ardently hope that future researchers will utilize it. While we would like to state that our commentary is neutral, like a dispassionate professional historian, we cannot state this, nor do we have an agenda, homosexual or otherwise, unless facts are an agenda. As always, the Gentle Reader will form their own informed conclusions.
We are disappointed that the title of the article and the article itself did not focus on the SCOTUS decision, but engaged in various non legal or non Constitutional points of interest. For those readers interested in highlights from the four dissenting Justices with commentary, vide.
We also extend our congratulations to Mr. King on his efforts in evangelism, that is, the spreading of the “Good News”, as we read that over one million people have heard about Jesus. We ardently hope that these converts will enjoy “their freedom in Christ” and not be brought into “the yoke of bondage”.