But there are still those who wish to force them to continue to live this way to the point where they get married with opposite sex and then even have children – they are able to bond w/ there mate on some level but they are never really in true love with them – and eventually it eats away at them and when they do finally accept that it is NOT a choice, they end up destroying relationships with their mate, children and the realize there entire life has been a lie – but only then do they truly feel free and accepted (if not by everybody – then at least the two that matter God and themselves!)

Now I submit to you – one of the best dialogs on the subject that helps demonstrate who it can be so easy to pick and choose words and interpret literally and what a different heathen world we would live in.

THE WEST WING “THE MIDTERMS”
WRITTEN BY: AARON SORKIN
DIRECTED BY: ALEX GRAVES

JENNA JACOBS, CONSERVATIVE RADIO TALKSHOW HOST – I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.

BARTLET – Yes, it does. Leviticus.

JENNA JACOBS – 18:22

BARTLET – Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here.

I’m interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. (small chuckles from the guests) She’s a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, and always clears the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?

While thinking about that, can I ask another? My Chief of Staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath, Exodus 35:2, clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?

Here’s one that’s really important, ’cause we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes us unclean, Leviticus 11:7.

If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side?

Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
Jenna Jacobs fidgets uncomfortably.

BARTLET – Think about those questions, would you?

—-LASTLY, FROM MY FAVOITE BUMPER STICKER: FOCUS ON YOUR OWN DAMN FAMILY! -JOEY

Not one word in Prop 8 mentions education, and no child can be forced, against the will of their parents, to be taught anything about health and family issues at school. California law prohibits it, and the Yes on 8 campaign knows they are lying. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has already ruled that this claim by Prop 8 proponents is “false and misleading.”

Nothing in Prop 8 would force churches to do anything. In fact, the court decision regarding marriage specifically says “no religion will be required to change its religious policies or practices with regard to same-sex couples, and no religious officiant will be required to solemnize a marriage in contravention of his or her religious beliefs.”

Unlike Massachusetts, California gives parents an absolute right to remove their kids and opt-out of teaching on health and family instruction they don’t agree with. The opponents know that California law already covers this and Prop 8 won’t affect it, so they bring up an irrelevant case in Massachusetts.

Prop 8 is not about courts and judges, it’s about eliminating a fundamental right. Judges didn’t grant the right, the constitution guarantees the right. Proponents of Prop 8 use an outdated and stale argument that judges aren’t supposed to protect rights and freedoms. This campaign is about whether Californians, right now, in 2008 are willing to amend the constitution for the sole purpose of eliminating a fundamental right for one group of citizens.

California’s laws already prohibit discrimination against anyone based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. This has nothing to do with marriage.

California law clearly gives parents and guardians broad authority to remove their children from any health instruction if it conflicts with their religious beliefs or moral convictions.

Regardless of how you feel about the issue, you should at least base your vote on facts, and not on misleading statements.

1. Children in public schools will have to be taught that same-sex marriage is just as good as traditional marriage.

The California Education Code already requires that health education classes instruct children about marriage. (§51890)

Therefore, unless Proposition 8 passes, children will be taught that marriage is between any two adults regardless of gender. There will be serious clashes between the secular school system and the right of parents to teach their children their own values and beliefs.

2. Churches may be sued over their tax exempt status if they refuse to allow same-sex marriage ceremonies in their religious buildings open to the public. Ask whether your pastor, priest, minister, bishop, or rabbi is ready to perform such marriages in your chapels and sanctuaries.

3. Religious adoption agencies will be challenged by government agencies to give up their long-held right to place children only in homes with both a mother and a father. Catholic Charities in Boston already closed its doors in Massachusetts because courts legalized same-sex marriage there.

4. Religions that sponsor private schools with married student housing may be required to provide housing for same-sex couples, even if counter to church doctrine, or risk lawsuits over tax exemptions and related benefits.

5. Ministers who preach against same-sex marriages may be sued for hate speech and risk government fines. It already happened in Canada, a country that legalized gay marriage. A recent California court held that municipal employees may not say: “traditional marriage,” or “family values” because, after the same-sex marriage case, it is “hate speech.”

6. It will cost you money. This change in the definition of marriage will bring a cascade of lawsuits, including some already lost (e.g., photographers cannot now refuse to photograph gay marriages, doctors cannot now refuse to perform artificial insemination of gays even given other willing doctors). Even if courts eventually find in favor of a defender of traditional marriage (highly improbable given today’s activist judges), think of the money – your money – that will be spent on such legal battles.

And think of all the unintended consequences that we cannot even foresee at this time. Where will it end?

It’s your children, your grandchildren, your money, and your liberties.

Lets work together to protect them.

Join with us in walking precincts and phoning voters to vote Yes on Prop 8.

What I do take exception to is that proponents of Prop 8 want to fundementally change the definition of marriage. Marriage has been defined from the beginning of time as a union between a man and a woman having the natural potential of creating offspring perpetuating the human race. Same sex unions cannot accomplish this through normal biological means.

You can call an apple an orange, you can even pass a law to call an apple an orange, but at the end of the day, it is still an apple! An apple is called an apple, because that is name assigned to the piece of fruit since the beginning of time. Since the beginning of time marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman.

Legalization of same sex marriage as has happened in MA has undeniably had implications on partent’s legal rights to teach thier children moral values at home vs. in the schools. The state is now obligated to teach that a same sex union is the same as marriage. That is clearly not correct by definition and is confusing to children.

I respect one’s right to make choices I don’t agree with. Just as you claim the right to voice your opion, I claim the same right. I am not imposing my viewpoint or do not hold hostility to you or anyone else. I am simply defending the definition of marriage.