The Secret Gay Agenda

Not "legally" they haven't. (Ignore history much?)

 

People don't need to prove some "gene" to possess inalienable rights.

 

Amen to that!!

 

There may not be a gay gen, as I said it could be a form of mutation like what causes different eye color. Eye color is not directed by a specific gene.

I don't believe it's by choice, except for bisexuals who seem to be able to go either way. I don't think a str8 person can turn gay, or a gay person turn str8. Doesn't work that way. And like I said, you can test that out for yourself. My guess is either you could not do it or would not enjoy it. It would be the same for gays trying to be str8. Sure you could live a lie all your life. I'm sure many do too.

It's just the way it is, no one can change that part of themselves.

 

​

 

Actually, in the US, there have never been laws against interracial marriage in New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Vermont. In fact there have never been laws against it in most of the world.

 

Marriage ain't a right. Privileges can be denied based on behavior.

 

It is a well documented scientific fact that eye color is determined by genetics. It is hilarious that you attempt to deny that.

We are talking about science here, not your beliefs.

 

So can rights. We have laws that deny folks the right to vote, the right to free speech, and even the right to life. Regardless of whether we're talking about rights or privileges though, any law that denies equal protection to citizens must provide a rational basis for that denial. The promise of equality under the law is one of the cornerstones of our society.

And you are mistaken about marriage being only a privilege. In U.S. law, marriage is a civil right as confirmed by our highest legal authority.​

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man," U.S. Supreme Court June 12 1967.​

 

Until there is a shortage? There already is, else we would not have children lingering in the foster care system until they age out, unadopted.

 

Eye color is a polygenic phenotypic character and is determined by 2 distinct factors: the pigmentation of the eye's iris[1][2] and the frequency-dependence of the scattering of light by the turbid medium in the stroma of the iris.[3]
In humans, the pigmentation of the iris varies from light brown to black, depending on the concentration of melanin in the iris pigment epithelium (located on the back of the iris), the melanin content within the iris stroma (located at the front of the iris), and the cellular density of the stroma.[4] The appearance of blue, green, as well as hazel eyes results from the Rayleigh scattering of light in the stroma, a phenomenon similar to that which accounts for the blueness of the sky. Neither blue nor green pigments are ever present in the human iris or ocular fluid.[3][5] Eye color is thus an instance of structural color and varies depending on the lighting conditions, especially for lighter-colored eyes.
The brightly colored eyes of many bird species result from the presence of other pigments, such as pteridines, purines, and carotenoids.[6] Humans and other animals have many phenotypic variations in eye color.[7] The genetics of eye color are complicated, and color is determined by multiple genes. So far, as many as 15 different genes have been associated with eye color inheritance. Some of the eye-color genes include OCA2 and HERC2.[8] The once-held view that blue eye color is a simple recessive trait has been shown to be incorrect. The genetics of eye color are so complex that almost any parent-child combination of eye colors can occur.[9][10] However, OCA2 gene polymorphism, close to proximal 5′ regulatory region, explains most human eye-color variation.[11]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye_color

ScienceDaily (Jan. 30, 200 — New research shows that people with blue eyes have a single, common ancestor. A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today.

What is the genetic mutation
“Originally, we all had brown eyes”, said Professor Eiberg from the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. “But a genetic mutation affecting the OCA2 gene in our chromosomes resulted in the creation of a “switch”, which literally “turned off” the ability to produce brown eyes”. The OCA2 gene codes for the so-called P protein, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives colour to our hair, eyes and skin. The “switch”, which is located in the gene adjacent to OCA2 does not, however, turn off the gene entirely, but rather limits its action to reducing the production of melanin in the iris – effectively “diluting” brown eyes to blue. The switch’s effect on OCA2 is very specific therefore. If the OCA2 gene had been completely destroyed or turned off, human beings would be without melanin in their hair, eyes or skin colour – a condition known as albinism.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm

Mutations is part of genetics

 

From your source:

 

Yet thousands of traditional couples are on long waiting lists.

 

... that would be now. California alone has over 80,000 children in foster care. Older children and those with special needs face the likelihood they may never be adopted because of this shortage. California ejects 5,000 children a year from their foster care system, because they reached age 18 without ever being adopted.​

 

You are free to marry anyone you want. Again, my state along with 30 others has determined that it has no compelling interest to recognize it.

 

Post 88.

 

It may have no compelling interest to offer drivers licenses to vegetarians either. The standard of "compelling interest" exists to establish government need. That a state feels it has no additional need to offer equal protection under the law to it's citizens does not absolve it of it's federal obligation to do so.
​

 

There is no federal obligation to recognize homosexual behavior as a form of marriage...

 

That the screening process for adoption takes time and that some couples with specific demands are experiencing longer wait times than others does not mean there isn't a shortage of couples wanting to adopt.

California alone has over 80,000 children in foster care. Older children and those with special needs face the likelihood they may never be adopted because of this shortage. California ejects 5,000 children a year from their foster care system, because they reached age 18 without ever being adopted.​

 

Shortages cause delays for those seeking the service or product. That's a simple fact. There is a shortage of kids in the system.

Again, my position is that nontraditional couples should be behind stable traditional couples for adoptions; even stable, non-traditional couples are a better option than the foster system. If no traditional couple wants to adopt a child with special needs or an older child then the non-traditional couple should be considered.

 

Then don't. The federal obligation is to provide it's citizens with equal access to civil rights, unless there is a demonstrable "compelling interest" (need) not to. Denying a same sex couple the right to marry because of their gender is failing to do the latter.

​

 

Shortages can cause delays for those seeking service or product. Logistics can to. There are 80,000 kids in the California system alone served by 150 full or part time judges. Lawyers working on these cases have an average case load of 273 foster cases, in some counties it's closer to 600.

There is not a shortage of kids in the system, each year California ejects 5,000 kids from the system because they grew up in the system. There is a monumental excess of kids in the system.

You are entitled to your opinion as to what constitutes relevant criteria for adoption, that's a separate issue. Using tradition as a litmus test though is short sighted. Kids suffer because of that type of prejudice.​

 

There is not a shortage of kids in the system. Delays are a combination of the process and demand for specific traits (such as newborns, race specific demands, etc.)

In other words, you aren't basing it on a fitness to adopt, but on the sex of the parents. An obvious case of bias, then.

 

That's your theory. Since 30 states have laws against gay marriage I suggest you take one of them to court to try and prove it.

 

It seems to me that you ought to be advocating streamlining the California system instead of championing gay marriage.