Hernandez arrested, doma struck down, good day so far.
it just seems perfect that the Ronald Reagan man put this through
what a party
Hernandez arrested, doma struck down, good day so far.
If thats the ruling, good. I'm pro-gay marriage generally speaking (on libertarian private-contract grounds).
With that said, I do find funny that we live in a time where being fat or hoarding are considered "diseases" of the mind, but being homosexually is considered perfectly normal, not a disfunction of any kind or in any way.
If homosexuality was normal or natural behavior we would be extinct or at least witness more immaculate conceptions. The primary purpose of a species is to reproduce, to ensure survival.
Last edited by DDNYjets; 06-26-2013 at 01:00 PM.
Be it genetic or behavioral, I do not agree with the AMA that it's "normal", not something that should be treated thus. I have always believed it to be a dysfucntion, either based upon some faulty wiring or by some behavioral/social issue(s).
Note, that doesn't mean I'd legislate against the behaviour in any way. I've been very clear in my support. But my support does not extend to the political correct lie that it's "normal" or somehow equally biologicly valid as hetero. It's not.
I take no moral position on sex, gay or strait, outside of infidelity in marriage (which I loathe and loathe those who engage in it).
I wouldn't legislate against bline people either, I shouldn't have to point out.
Last edited by Churchill; 06-26-2013 at 01:11 PM.
I agree, I do not consider it a disability b.c technically homosexuals could reproduce if they chose to. A blind person cannot see no matter how badly they want to.
So has a large number of genetic disorders and disabillities. That may make a certain percentage of them occuring to be expected (i.e. a normal frequency of occurence) but it does not make the specific dysfunction "normal" or fully and correctly functioning.Reality is that homosexuality is in our genetic code from the beginning...
Also, I was unaware the homosexuallity had been locked down as a genetic issue. Source?
I'm not "selling" first of all, the AMA/Docs have already had their say and tehy say it's normal.Therefore, if producing children is the criterion for "normalcy" or "healthy functioning" you're going to have a hard sell.
To answer your issue we (homo sapiens) are a sexual reproducing organism, and as such, the reproductive norm in our specific species is hetero. Deviation from that is by definition (a t least the old way we defined normal) not normal, but a specific dysfunction that does not permit normal sexual reproduction as we are evolved to do.
The choice to actually do so or not is irrelevant to whats is being discussed here.
Pretty much all of your spirited defense of homosexuality are points I agree with, and are good reasons for social tolerence. They are no, IMO< good reasons to describe a blind person as "normal" or "equally but differently functional" or some other PC tripe. I fully support homosexual rights equal to heterosexual rights in every way, that does not change my opinion that we (as a society) have, due to social pressures, chosen to describe an obvious dysfunction as a normal and good to be thing.
Again, interesting groupings on the various rulings.
In the decision upholding the original California district court decision on Prop 8, the majority opinion (that the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to review the decision once the State accepted it and declined to appeal) included Roberts, Scalia, Ginsburg, Kagan, and Breyer. The dissent was from Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor and Kennedy.
I love these types of groupings, because it drives home the point that for all the claims that these folks are monolithic party-line robots, the reality is that they are making decisions based on their sincere understanding of the law and constitution. Of course, the philosophy that led their nominating party to nominate them will animate much of those decisions, but the idea that you can say "Scalia will vote X because it's what the Republicans want" or "Sotomayor will vote Y because it's what the Democrats want" just isn't accurate.
I hope that point doesn't get lost in the discussion of these rulings, since the general politicization of the SC and the ensuing lack of trust in and respect for it is, I believe, one of the more profound long term issues facing the US
Same stuff Mark Levin and many righties trot out when rulings go against their beliefs?
Seems neither side trusts the court, regardless of how they rule.
Kudos on your support of equal rights, but I'm not sure I agree with the way you got there.
It's abnormal, and will always be so
Thanks to the 60's radical hippies and other fruits nuts and flakes running the nation it's legal
No law in favor of it will make this social climbing exercise approximate anything more than a similacrum of normalcy
Exclusive sexual attraction to the same sex is not the same thing.
Again, it's not the action that counts, but the evolutionary design of the species. This is not about choices.In no way is oral sex natural or necessary to keep us going as a species. ?
We are designed by evolution to have eyes, hence lacking eyes is not normal, it is a dysfunction, even if 10% of us might lack vision.
In the same vein, we are designed by evolution to be a sexual reporducting, heterosexual species. Hence being homosexual is not normal, it's a dysfunction, even if 10% of us might like our own sex.
the only reason it is called "normal" desite not meeting the definition of the word is to A. reduce abuse of gays (a good purpose) and B. to make gays feel better about being gay. It's the same as why we can no longer use "retarded" even if someone is, by the definition fo the term, metally retarded by their specific problem or ailment.
It's PC speak. I reject it.
Could care less if people agree tbqh, although I never cease to be amazed at how brainwahsed most are by current era political correctness and fear of offending anyoen about anything.Kudos on your support of equal rights, but I'm not sure I agree with the way you got there.
Rightiousness and consensus are two different words for a very good reason. As some say about freedom of speech, I may disagree with what you say completely but would defend your right to say it with my life. I feel the same way here, I may disagreew ith teh claimed "normality" of homosexuality, but I do defend their rights to be free from descrimination abuse or any other unequal treatment under the law fully and completely.
If that isn't good enough, if )like the freedom of speech issue) it's not enough to support the right, but to be forced to support the content too.....well, too bad.