Skip to main content

Atticus Circle

I had never heard of the Atticus Circle or it's founder Anne S. Wynne until the other day when a LGBT (Lesbian Gay Bi-sexual Transgender) employee support group in Cisco (my employer) sent me an invitation to join a discussion about...


"the value and process of recruiting our straight allies to our LGBT
Employee Resource Groups"


As a matter of fact, I didn't even know that Cisco had a LGBT employee resources group. I don't know whether the LGBT lifestyle is biological or social, but I know for sure that it isn't for me. I also believe that unfair discrimination against anyone, be they individuals or couples, is wrong. To me the "golden rule" is basically a law of physics. Every person should always be treated with love and respect, no exceptions, ever.


So I look for a logical solution to this dilemma. There is a simple solution to non-discrimination with respect to LGBT lifestyles. It's called civil union. Properly designed, civil union gives LGBT individuals and couples exactly the same civil rights and privileges as married heterosexual couples, thus eliminating the possibility of discrimination. It does this without changing the plain, historical, biological, and common sense definition of what marriage is.

In my view marriage is the combination of at least three things. First, marriage reflects the obvious science of evolutionary biology in which it is necessary for males and females to form bonds & unions for procreation and nurturing of children to guarantee the survival of our species. Second, the evidence from psychology suggests strongly that children and adults both develop best in the social institution of the family and particularly where there are both caring fathers and loving mothers. And finally, there is that mystical or perhaps spiritual quality that binds man and woman together in marriage, often lasting a lifetime, and that's like no other earthly experience.

Those of us who are defending the idea that marriage is the union of man and woman, are not arguing for discrimination against LGBT's, we think their civil unions should be equal in every conceivable way. We are merely attempting to preserve the meaning of the relationship which we hold dear, called marriage. And, to show that the relationships which LGBT couples have is fundamentally different; should be called something else like civil union; and should not redefine the historical, logical and mystical meaning of marriage between man and woman.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Climate Change and Open Science - WSJ.com

This Wall Street Journal article Climate Change and Open Science - WSJ .com made the right basic point about liberal hypocrisy in the Climate Change debate, but disappointingly it failed to cite the best sources of real information from an unbiased scientific point of view. I believe that source is Dr. S. Fred Singer & Dr. Craig D. Idso , from the Science and Environmental Policy Project and Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, who coauthored "Climate Change Reconsidered; The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change" published in 2009. In this book, the petition letter shown here from Dr. Frederick Seitz ( Ph . D. Physics) President Emeritus of Rockefeller University was published. Dr. Seitz circulated this letter: urging fellow academics with qualifications in the physical sciences to sign the petition at http://www.petitionproject.com/ and thereby acknowledge their agreement with this statement in the petition: Accor...

Health Care

I spent nearly three hours today trying to understand the meaning of the Obamacare legislation. I am a reasonably intelligent individual, I have experience analyzing legislation (in my work), I know generally where to look and despite all that, I found it to be basically incomprehensible. This suggests to me that most people; don't have a clue what has happened, how it will effect them, why it was necessary (0r not), when it will take effect, what it will cost, what the alternatives might have been (or might still be), or in general what they should think about it. I'm going to try again to decipher it and when I do, to write here what my opinion is. Right now I am suspicious of it simply because it's too complicated to understand.