The unconstitutionality of same-sex marriage becomes obvious, if the society understands ‘what is sex’, ‘what is  marriage,’ what is a constitution’ and ‘how the latter was adopted by different nations to govern their respective national behaviors’. Specifically, same-sex proponents are invoking their alleged constitutional rights but forgetting the fact that the ‘types of sex and marriage’ they are promoting are not within the ambit of the present constitutions.

The banana republic and same-sex marriage

In fact, same-sex marriage is a misnomer or a misplaced terminology or ideology. In short, same-sex marriage, which is even bereft of any sexual basis, is grossly unconstitutional.

Also, the term is not only misplaced but also promoting the biblically prohibited ‘oral sex‘ (Genesis 9:4).

Further, it is possible that same-sex advocates will be just be finally found to be spiritually and psychologically confused of their aberrant nature, which can still be helped by society not by making their aberrant proposition as constitutionally valid but by way of advise, either psychological, medical or spiritual.

Above are without prejudice to discovery of treatments that may be published later by theologians, physiologists, researchers and scientists ‘to treat  the said aberrant behavior’.

Furthermore, if same-sex proponents insist on their proposition, they should be logically required to adopt and pass their own constitution to make their oral or anal sex appearing constitutional.

It is because the present constitutions were not adopted by Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgenders (LGBT) but by people, whose concepts about sex and marriage involved the relationship of opposite sexes. That being so, same-sex relation was not deemed incorporated in the constitutions.

Finally, history is bereft of factual lead to say that LGBT came out into the open during the adoption of the present constitutions to formally register  themselves as part in the adoption thereof.

Therefore, LGBTs are in gross error to invoke their alleged constitutional rights under their respective national constitution, which was not respectively passed and adopted for and by them. Besides, what if their aberrant nature would be finally found to be hormonal in nature and therefore considered as a hormonal disease, is it logical for the court to hold their disease constitutionally valid?

Related articles:

• The Same-Sex Marriage ‘Debate’ Is Based Upon Ignorance and Inaccurate Information (huffingtonpost.com)
• on Baity, Baptist Preacher, Claims God Will Send Something Worse Than Ebola As Punishment For Gay Marriage (huffingtonpost.com)
• Onanism in Reproductive Health
• ‘Human rights’ and ‘women’s rights’: Are they real?
• Superbugs, HIV/AIDS and ‘oral sex’ behaviors
• Same-sex Relations in Reproductive Health Law
• “Parenthood” in Reproductive Health Law
• The Oral Sex Theory
• Habakkuk 2 and the End Times

>>>To Home Page to also proceed to The Forum