Say NO to "Same Sex Marriage"

The issue of “Same Sex Marriage” is critical social issue that requires discourse by individuals that wish to view the issue away from Political Correctness or Religious Extremism. This petition disapproves of “Same Sex Marriage” on the bases of objectivity and rational common sense thinking. If you agree on the positions stated, kindly sign and help promote the petition to those that are interested it the topic.

Presented herein are four compelling reasons why “Same Sex Marriage” should NOT be allowed:

1. The term Marriage is a religious term that in America it is taken from the Judeo-Christian vocabulary, used by the State, and should not be altered.

The US Gov. / State has always used religious symbols, terms, and phrases to establish common meaning. Such symbols, terms, and phrases are borrowed terms that belong to the intellectual property of its originator. The term Marriage is such term *. It is inappropriate and disrespectful of the State toward to the Judeo-Christian faith to take the term Marriage and to alter the meaning of the term.

*The Judeo-Christian meaning is based on the belief in which marriage requires opposite genders to achieve unification into “one body one soul”

On separation of religion and state.
It is hypocritical to apply "separation of religion and state" for the term marriage when the government uses religious phrases on the U.S. currency, the government buildings, used the Christian calendar, etc. After all, a strict application of "separation of religion and state" is NOT within the democratic traditions of the country.

2. The fact of someone being born with a homosexual inclination, assuming that that is the case, does not make such inclination acceptable.

Individuals may be born with an inclination to be sexually involved with children, or relatives, or other, that however mainstream society considers unacceptable. Therefore, the argument that "one is born Gay" and that in-off-its-self grants acceptance is either bogus or is a double standard.

3. “Same Sex Marriage” defies nature’s self-preservation mechanism; thus, “Same Sex Marriage” is unnatural.

Science , including human biology and sociology, points to the fact that species operate on a built-in mechanism of maintaining and preserving their existence; thus, pointing to the critical function of procreation. Deriving from the orderly biological function of the organism, procreation serves nature’s law of self-preservation. In the opposite case, “Same Sex Marriage” does on operate within the laws of procriation, therefore not with the laws of nature. Furthermore, a “family” unit of two same gender parents cannot be equated to that of the male female setting / traditional family. Nature ascribes roles to the genders and the establishment of the family facilitates those roles. Such critically important role is that of the female or natural/biological mother. Offspring is produced of the female body, is nourished by the female body (the Mother), and owes its existence to reproductive procedures supporting the preservation of the human race.

4. Objection to “Same Sex Marriage” is NOT discrimination.

Advocates of Gay Rights in an effort to promote their agenda continue to try to make false associations to race and gender issues and therefore legalization of “Same Sex Marriage” as an equal right. Distinction on the bases of sexuality does not rise to the scale of other social / equal rights movements. It is rather something that can be analogues to a characteristic such as cigarette smoking. Smoking for example, which has been linked to a biological disposition, has been banned in public places. Some people smoke sporadically and are in good health. Is the ban on smoking in public places a form of discrimination? Obviously not! Characteristics of small segments of society (in this case of Homosexuals about 5%) cannot claim discrimination on the bases of difference that pertains to issues of liking/attraction/taste or alter concepts that belong to the majority and claim discrimination. Distinctions based on liking/attraction/ taste, thought may present similar external characteristics to race issues, in essence they do not constitute equal type to either race or gender.