I would like to address your assertion that "gay is a genetic issue" and how that relates to homosexual "marriage". First of all, there have not been any scientific discoveries of a gene or a set of genes that determine sexuality. (The reason primarily being that sexuality is behavior.) A multitude of studies have been done, including twin studies, that show homosexuality is much more of a result from environmental influences than genetic ones. In most instances, identical twins where both were homosexual grew up in environments where homosexuals were vastly more prevalent than in circumstances where the twins were both heterosexual. And the ratio of the identical twins that were homosexual - were it a genetic issue alone - would be 1:1. But there is plenty of evidence that shows all twins are not both heterosexual or both homosexual. (I know that twin studies alone do not prove the point absolutely, but it's one of the most plausible and scientific arguments made regarding genetics.) Now, we know that environment shapes much of our behavior - through antecedents and consequences. Homosexuality is not entirely genetic - we know at least that much. If it's not explained by genetics, then that leaves us with environment. Of course, you can't fault someone for being shaped by their environment as a child, but you also can't claim that because of this fact, they must be protected as a minority under the law. Behavior is generally not protected as a civil right. This is the problem with the push for "gay marriage rights". If we bestow rights on people that are different because of their actions, not their physical being (such as being black, a woman, or really old), then we enter into an entirely new philosophical dilemma on how to apply laws in our society. This issue is about much more than just having the legal "right" to say you're "married." Then we have the problem of government. It's not the government's place to co-opt a religious or otherwise private institution and confer benefits to the people making those private contracts. If government was not involved in marriage in that capacity, I don't think this would be a problem. If they simply recognized a legal contract between two individuals, regardless of their gender or relationship, then I can't see a situation where anyone could claim that they are being denied a "civil right". They may not be able to call it "marriage" if the churches don't recognize it, but it would still be a valid legal contract in the eyes of the law - which is how it ought to be anyway. And I think this is how civil unions are supposed to be interpreted. But when the government gives you tax breaks or other benefits for being "married", then they are essentially stepping over their boundaries as an objective entity that views all people as equals under the law. (And there is a long list of abuses by the government in this sense, not just with the marriage issue.) Does that make sense? *If you're interested in reading my articles, Click Here.

"Am I mistaken in thinking that marriage is an institution of the church. " Well, it *can* be... or not. Many people choose to get married by a county clerk or justice of the peace, etc. Their marriage is legal and recognized as valid by the government, even though there may be no religion involved at all. Other people go though a religious wedding ceremony, but of course even these people still must have their union made legal in the eyes of the law by getting a marriage license.

Great article Eggs. I support traditional marriage. Am I mistaken in thinking that marriage is an institution of the church. And that Gay marriage is an abomination to the church? If the government has offered equal rights by "Civil Union" is it not enough altogether? Why should the state dictate to the church the gay marriage is a right? Just my 2 sense. By the way I couldn't agree more about the situation with the six year old. The gay communities right to be gay should not infringe on my right to raise my child with my value system and lifestyle choices. Nor should I be forced to compromise my values, by failing to protect my child from these types of inappropriate topics. Basically where I stand is this. If you want to be gay, go be gay. Do it on your time, in your place and do it where it isn't getting crammed down my throat or into my kid's mind. You don't see heterosexual adults lobbying children with fliers... (well, there are the porn pushers on the streets in Vegas, but then again why in the hell would you bring your children to the strip in Vegas?) That is another topic that gets me upset. Gay is a choice and it is a choice I don't want my kids making until they are adults. Just like gambling, drugs, drinking, and tattoos. FreeCracker4Jack Would you like to earn money writing similar articles? CLICK ME! Read more great articles: http://www.xomba.com/xombyte/free_cracker_4_jack?p