As to "normalcy" in any case, I think the whole construct is strained and useless. I have determined that anyone who has more than six kids is "abnormal;" anyone who has more than two dogs; anyone who wears stripes and plaids at the same time; anyone who is less than five feet tall; anyone who actually likes eggplant. If it helps you sleep at night, then by all means go about neatly categorizing "normal" and "abnormal." Although you still must answer the question why from an evolutionary perspective homosexuality exists at all. Could it actually serve a purpose?
In a libertarian way, the Federal government should not have any interest in legislating marriage in any way whatsoever. In a practical way, it should encourage hetero marriage and the natural family whenever possible (they do it in teh tax code). The problem was lavender states making the mockery of a sham of a pretense of gay marriage legal in the 1st place. Oncest that happened, the Federal law prohibiting such was endangered. On the surface, this decision does not prevent SSM from being prohibited in the states that wish to do so. I expect the gay lobby to focus on making those unconstitutional as well.
Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-26-2013 at 02:08 PM.
As a married person, IMO how you or anyone else live your married lives has no reflection on mine. Just like I could care less how big your house is, your car, or whatever. The value of my marriage is impacted by two individuals and two indivuals only; My wife and me.
Luckily, none of those things you mentioned have anything to do with biological functions. Eggplant? Really?
Fact is, gays can't reproduce without artificial scientific means.
And to Flubber: don't trot out the tired "animals are like that also" tripe. Animals will hump anything. If a dog tries to hump a cat, does that mean he's into bestiality?
/facepalmAs to "normalcy" in any case, I think the whole construct is strained and useless. I have determined that anyone who has more than six kids is "abnormal;" anyone who has more than two dogs; anyone who wears stripes and plaids at the same time; anyone who is less than five feet tall; anyone who actually likes eggplant. If it helps you sleep at night, then by all means go about neatly categorizing "normal" and "abnormal." Although you still must answer the question why from an evolutionary perspective homosexuality exists at all. Could it actually serve a purpose?
Love the personalization and vitriol "if it helps you sleep at night".
Yes, because my sleep is determined by this debate.
Now even the word "normal" is offensive hate apparently.
With that said, you may want to consider the ages of wives in the era of Jesus, which (today) would be considered pedophilia, but in jesus's time was perfectly normal.
The third, Polgyany is absolutely going to happen next IMO, based upon the specific arguments used to win this and other Gay marriage suits.
Last edited by Churchill; 06-26-2013 at 02:28 PM.
No need to give a social aberration social and moral privilege/standing it doesn't deserve on behalf of a mixed up minority.
Marriage is not a right, if it were, children and all the wet and wild combos you could imagine would be permitted to marry and society would have no objection.
Color me skeptical when a heathen cites the time of Jesus as a basis for argument. Any stoont of history knows people in those days lived shorter . more laborious, less comfortable lives and got on with marriage and procreating as soon as menarche occurred.
IMO the age of consent barrier will also be struck down as an archaic artificial social construct preventing the pursuit of happiness.
Last edited by Jungle Shift Jet; 06-26-2013 at 02:43 PM.
Here's an article re the paradox of homosexuality in evolution...
Last edited by long island leprechaun; 06-26-2013 at 02:54 PM.
Only if you redefine what normal means. Being in posession of a variance form the norm will never be normal without socio-political re-definition, as is occuring here.Nor have you answered my question as to whether it may actually serve an evolutionary purpose. In the bigger picture, it may actually be part of "normal."
To answer you somewhat off-topic question, there is no such thing as "evolutionary purpose", evolution is an unguided and random process, not a guided hand of God that has things like "purpose". What works works and lives on, what does not does not and doesn't.
So no, it does not serve an evolutionary "purpose", and if evolution could overpower our collective-social-intelligence (which in this case it clearly cannot), any supposed genetic cause would die off due to lack or reproduction, and only social choice (which COULD then be judged by society if it so choose) would remain.
Only the socio-political mandate requires that we redefine something that is not normal to be normal. Without that social pressure, there is no question that a deviancy from the norm (norm being hetero) would be called what it is.
The logical proof is thus: If being gay is normal, it's normal to be gay. Hence all of us hetero would not be normal, because the very meaning of normal does mean "any possible combination fo traits", it means what is says on the tin, the "normal", i.e. Normality (also known as normalcy) is the state of being normal. Behaviour can be normal for an individual (intrapersonal normality) when it is consistent with the most common behaviour for that person.
Which brings me back to the beginning. It's not enough to support and tolerate. The socio-political pressure to agree fully even if illogical and counter-factual or else isnever more obvious than when discussing this issue or others like it.
Last edited by Churchill; 06-26-2013 at 03:05 PM.
So is being born blind, using your definition of "normal". Just like blindness (a lack of correct function of the eyes), I see Homosexuality as a lack of correct function of the human sexuality/attraction/mental system.
I wouldn't legislate against bline people either, I shouldn't have to point out.[/QUOTE]