Now that 5 lawyers have made same sex marriage legal throughout the land, people are really talking about it all over the place.  Of course some have been talking about it for a while.  Like Ryan T Anderson https://mobile.twitter.com/RyanTAnd?p=s who has done a lot of good tweeting.  There are plenty of people who get pretty ugly with their replies.  But he's an expert and a PhD who has written a lot and been on several shows, debates, and panels, etc.  Sometimes he gets a bit snarky too.

One of the most interesting and civil discussions I've seen has been on a couple of FB posts from one friend.  His friends are able to post differing opinions on all sides of the issue in a really civil and respectful way. 

I also have enjoyed some of the quips like these from one friend:

Poverty and starvation do not effect my daily life, but I still care deeply about those issues.

Mom's are awesome! Every home should have one.

So, not to point out the elephant in the room, but will the polygamists get venerated too? Or are they still oppressed? (FYI: I'm not interested in participating, I'm just asking)

Unfortunately, the threads from some of my friends have been so loud that I've had to unfriend.   The interesting thing is that those have been the winners in this thing.  I guess it's kinda like a city winning a NBA championship and then celebrating by trashing the town.

There are somethings about the debate that are really interesting.  It's good to have a civil dialogue.  Some minds have been changed.  Most of those trending favorably toward same sex marriage.  I guess that is the direction of the band wagon. 

But one of the real tragedies and injustices of this court decision is that they didn't let the debate play out all the way.  Where the legitimate debate happened among the people they answered it with their votes.  In almost every case those votes were to uphold traditional marriage.  Over time the tide of public opinion may well have gone toward supporting gay marriage.  Instead it has been forced too soon.  Now the opinion of 5 people has stolen that opportunity to truly win the hearts and minds.

I have several good friends who have adopted or been adopted.  Some of those adoptions have been within extended family.  One was a bit unique.  He was raised by an Aunt and Uncle as if he were their own but there was never a formal adoption until he was going into the Military.   He only ever new his aunt and uncle as mom and dad and he wanted to make sure that his military survivor benefits would go to them.

Of course I don't know all the details but it has caused me to wonder Why did it have to be his legal parent?  Why could he not put her name down?  Perhaps this was a control that was put in place to prevent Fagans from preying on the vulnerable and then signing them in the military in hopes of collecting?

That led me to further wonder why the government is involved with marriage.  I think the reasons are fairly obvious. The society and individuals in it, generally benefit when children are reared in a home where mother and father provide stable environment and moral teaching.   It's been many years since I read The Lord of the Flies but I recall it being a very stark example of the opposite.

I have not read the entire opinions in the recent Supreme Court decision.  But the excerpts that I have seen from the 5 judge opinion and the resulting celebrations seemed to focus on the idea that Love has somehow triumphed.  That frankly surprises me.  How in the world can anyone think that the government can or should have anything to do with legalizing love?  Who can even agree on a definition of what love is?    My reading of the Constitution of the United States is pretty clearly absent of any reference to love, marriage, or sex.  Some will say that is included in the phrase "life, liberty & pursuit of happiness."  However, that phrase is NOT in the constitution, but rather the Declaration of Independence.  What does show up in the constitution is that the purpose of it is the protect "Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity"

Some were worried that the unalienable God given rights were not adequately protected in the Constitution and so the Bill of Rights, the original 10 amendments to the constitution were created and ratified.  This with no mention of happiness, love, marriage or sex (except where the word sex means gender).  No, not all rights were specifically spelled out.  Some had to be added later.  But I think that is exactly my point.  Those rights, or rather the protection of those rights, were added.  And until they were added (sometimes late) they were reserved to the States.

Well first of all I should be clear that it is the pushing of Gay rights that is a current fad--homosexual behavior has been around for a very long time and will be.   It is just the promotion of, not just the acceptance of, homosexuality that is the fad right now.  That is fairly recent.

The Gay rights movement is not at all like the Civil rights movement.   Civil rights was an effort to equalize where people had been historically discriminated against because of the color of the skin given to them by their parents.  That is something they cannot control or change or hide.  Some will argue that Homosexuality is something that a person is born with.  I don't think that is true.  There may be some that do have some tendencies that they are born with that might lead them down that path but it is something they can control and they can hide.

Now I know I've already angered some by the use of the word hide, and perhaps there is a better way to say this.  But the point is someone who was black in the pre-1960's USA could not avoid discrimination because the tool that was used to discriminate them was permanently physically visible.  Whether someone is, was, or will be gay is not.  I'm not suggesting that either should ever have to hide, merely that one could and the other could not.

Regardless of what I say here some with think "He just doesn't understand".  But if you have that thought, please make the thought a complete one by continuing it with "the way I do."  That is a completely true and correct sentiment whatever side of the issue you are on.  I don't understand it the way you do.  I understand it the way I do.  My understanding may be incomplete but that doesn't make it wrong.

I happen to firmly believe that most gay people are blessed with an innate gift to love and empathize that is far greater than many straight people.  I think that is something that should be celebrated. 

All people have sexual desires.  One of the things that does is cause men and women to come together and reproduce.  That is pretty critical for any species.  When they do and they stay together and parent the offspring together the society is better than it otherwise would be.  But lets say the father has those desires towards many women or that mother has them towards many men, or heaven forbid, their own children.  Should they act on those desires?  No.  If they do it wounds the other.  Their relationship and their children suffer.  They often split and so their children suffer more.  And so they control those desires and do not act. 

As a society we expect that individuals do not act on every desire they have but instead put guidelines in place that help preserve order and that benefit the thriving of the society and all its members. 

Love and sexual attraction and sex are all very different things.  One may love many of either gender and may feel attracted toward many of either gender but should only ever have sex with one and that sex should at least be capable of producing children.