Local view: Stakes high on marriage amendment
October 26, 2012 at 7:00 pm in Duluth News Tribune
Vote no: Don’t allow homosexual agenda to advance
Continue Reading
Local view: Stakes high on marriage amendment
5 Comments
To start connecting please log in first. You can also create an account.
Advertisement
Need a hand? Ask a moderator.
To think that this constitutional amendment (based upon hatred, prejudice, and quite frankly an attempt by the conservative right to get more people to the polls during a presidential election) cannot be overturned is idiotic. Courts will still have the ability, no the duty, to strike down such an amendment (or any amendment for that matter) that violates the U.S. Constitution. Again, read the 14th Amendment. It’s only a matter of time before these laws and these amendments are struck down by federal courts. Run and hide because homosexuals will be able to live more openly in committed relationships…I’m sure that’ll be the downfall of society….not
Like or Dislike:
15 
7
speaking of reasonable conversation what exactly does “intellectually opposed” mean? And even though it doesnt have any negative influence on child rearing so what if it did?? so does divorce so why do we let that happen? and id rather let a judge decide the legality of something than a popularity poll, thats why they are where they are…they know the law and the constitution and its principles much better than the ill informed masses. And i can see why you worry about homosexuality becoming legitimate because that makes the case for religion becoming more and more illegitimate
Like or Dislike:
10 
8
Levi…..”intellectually opposed” is meant in this story by the author…..as “common sense”……conjured up by the “gray matter” that everyone has! There are many times in your life that you have to choose your head….over your heart! Try to look “further down the road”…..or look at “the bigger picture” here……and I do MEAN THE BIGGER PICTURE…..and NOT TO JUSTIFY your feelings……for “THE SHORT TERM”.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
To the DNT or Mr Bellamy or whoever edits these pages: The bi-line under the title of the story says to vote no…..under this title …. it should say: vote yes. The opposing view says to vote no under the title….opposing views….BOTH say to vote NO! Are you trying quietly keep on slipping in those “zingers”…..because you are opposed to the amendment? Please correct the bi-line under this story….do not know if it will do much good…..this just adds to damage done to the vote “yes” crowd!
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
The fact is that same-sex marriage is neither beneficial to the individuals who engage in it nor to the society that permits it. The reasons have to do with health and the origins of homosexuality. Concerning health, same-sex behavior involves human physiology that’s not designed for same-sex interaction. Consequently, they’re prone to bodily damage, which, in turn, is the most efficient means by which serious diseases, such as hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, STDS, microbes from the intestinal tract, are transmitted. Concerning origins, homosexuality (the urge for the behavior) results from a mix of genetic, biologic, and social/peer-related factors, each of which varies in significance among individuals but none of which (in and of themselves) guarantee same-sex attraction. Rather, they impart a greater tendency or predisposition towards developing the urge.
Hence, a society that in any way encourages homosexuality through marriage, teaching, or other means, makes it more likely that people with this predisposition will develop same-sex attraction and engage in the behavior. It’s no different than taking someone with a familial history of alcoholism, who’s never had alcohol or been in a bar, and encouraging them to drink. The urge which had heretofore been dormant now becomes active.
Hence, the government should not recognize same-sex marriage and encourage it with legal and financial incentives, like it does for real marriage – that between one man and one woman. Besides this post, other reasons for opposing same-sex marriage is in the essay at
http://marriage-onemanandonewoman.blogspot.com/2011/07/case-for-limiting-government.html
Here, in addition to a more detailed discussion concerning the risks and origins of same-sex behavior, you’ll find references from respected, mainstream, and objective sources (such as UCLA, USC, the University of London, the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association and none from anti-gay marriage groups), upon which this post and essay are based.
I realize that proponents of same-sex marriage will probably disagree. However, if they do, then it’s their responsibility to provide a fact-based rebuttal (that includes all the facts – not just those supporting their view), using reputable, objective, and apolitical sources, as this essay does, proving what’s written here to be wrong. If they can’t or refuse to do so and offer an implausible excuse for their refusal, then it will prove that proponents of same-sex marriage have no logical or objective reasons (the only reasons for passing a law) for their cause, except a selfish desire that’s devoid of any care about the damage that would result.
That’s why it’s so important to vote to amend the Minnesota Constitution this November 6th and keep marriage between one man and one woman as it needs to be! Without such an amendment, agenda-driven judges will impose their view on the issue, instead of yours or what the law truly requires!
Like or Dislike:
4 
11