According to the 9th & 14th Amendment there is an objective equality between all consenting adults. That puts the onus on you to prove that such an equality does not exist for homosexuals. You are the one who mentioned right to sexually attractive or pleasing partners. I merely quoted it from your post.
No, according to some people want those amendments to say. Trying to shoehorn homosexuality in there might not work. Or, it very well could pass with flying colors.
And what would that good reason be? Please explain it to us. I never said religion was made up boogeyman stories. However, I do say there are different interpretations of the meaning of various religious texts. There are many followers of those religions that fully believe in homosexual equality. Religion evolves as society does as we gain more and more knowledge about ourselves and the world we live in. It can't be anchored in the ancient past.
Evidently you're not going to tell is why you don't believe there is objective rationality. Saying we haven't presented any is simply poisoning the well. "Because I say so," is not a valid reason.
Being blown around by present whims isn't any wiser than being chained to the past.
But, for starters, attraction to one's own sex, instead of or in place of the opposite sex, is non-sensical on its face. Anything to the contrary seems steeped in rationalization.
What you've told is that you believe that the two are an apple to orange comparison. You have not explained why one biological difference in people is different from another biological difference.
The only reason to cling to what you call a fundamental principle appears to be that you believe the group asking for such a change are somehow inferior to the "normal" people in the majority group. Since American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association both state that homosexuality is normal behavior for LGBT individuals and is neither a disorder nor a dysfunction, it's incumbent upon you to explain why those medical experts are wrong.
People in the soft sciences aren't "medical experts." Also, said experts still haven't been able to even nail down an exact cause for homosexual attractions.
Furthermore, save by rationalization, they've yet been able to explain how attraction to one's on sex, instead of or in place of the opposite sex, makes any sense at all -- especially when it flies right in the face of basic biology.
And as usual there is no reason given for this claim. It appears to be that you are saying, "That is my opinion and that makes it right." I hate to tell you but the statement "this apple is green" or "that apple has a worm in it" rather than "this orange is an apple too." indicates that you believe that homosexuals have less value as people than heterosexual people.
In no sense does it indicate value as people. It is comparing the values of unions.
Past that, I can't help but wonder why you can't see what is so clear. Comparing one instance of heterosexual coupling (people of the same skin pigmentation vs. a couple with different skin pigmentations) to trying to throw homosexual pairings into the mix is, clearly, an apples-to-oranges comparison.
1. Just because you don't accept an argument as good does not mean it isn't. You are not the final authority on what makes a good argument. You are only the final authoruty on what you will accept.
2. In the objective sense, I have yet to see you put forth any good argument for objective inequality with man-woman marriage. The only argument you have put forward has to do with procreation which, as has been repeated here ad nauseum, is not a requirement for marriage in this country. Therefore the Supreme Court affirmed civil right to marriage cannot be based on the ability to procreate unless ALL marriages are subject to the same restriction.
Which, incidentally, makes your appeal to emotion regarding mother-father families irrelevant.
1: Agreed, and of course. But isn't there quite a lot of that happening on the other side of the discussion? Gay activism and its champions do a famously poor job of accepting anything that might contradict what they really, really want to be foregone conclusions.
2: Once again, if you want to talk about "marriage" in strictly and only the sense of a legal contract, then I'm not arguing with you. In a previous discussion we concluded, "Two consenting adults" are the only critera.
I will note, however, I forgot to add "who are not direct blood relatives." (Therefore, for example, a brother and sister who wanted to get married could not ride in on the coat-tails of an approval of legal same-sex marriage.)
If you are talking about it as a matter of principle and values, then please provide some rational backing for this notion of objective, universal "equality" between a homosexual union and man-woman marriage and mother-father parenting.
Who is talking about mother-father parenting?
Until you provide some "rational backing for this notion of objective, universal "inequality" between a homosexual union and man-woman marriage" there is nothing to respond to. All you have provided is a subjective belief that "inequality" exists.
Also, I find it interesting that you used to define your argument in terms of equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Why the change to "between a homosexual union and man-woman marriage and mother-father parenting?" Seems to me the only reason for the change is to be able to slip in the fallacious "mother-father parenting" meme.
You berate me for having an opinion, and then state your own, as if it were fact.
Also, you seem to assume that the only alternatives are:
A: Full recognition of gay marriage, both in the legal and moral sense, and full acceptance, legitmizing and mainstreaming of homosexuality.
B: Fear and loathing of gay people, and not a damn chance at all that they can ever enjoy such things as hospital visitation or estate planning with a partner and/or their children.
I'm saying, there are other possibiliites.
Gay civil unions being only one.
Would gay civil unions be separate but equal to marriage?
A claim of "discriminaton" can't be made unless and until an underlying objective equality is demonstrated. Therefore, your attempt to compare this to heteroxeual marriage is, again, irrelvant and baseless.
I think this is your quote, it certainly seems to be your style anyway. I see what Adelphe meant about certain types of block quoting.
Regardless, if this is you who said this, Can you give us the legal basis for your claim that "A claim of "discriminaton" can't be made unless and until an underlying objective equality is demonstrated."?
If it wasn't mtymouse57, could whoever wrote please provide the legal basis for that opinion?
If one thing simply does not work as well as another thing, then why should the law regard them on equal terms?
For example, if somebody wants to drive a golf cart, instead of an automobile, on the streets and highways -- do they have any right to cry "discrimination" because streets and highways are designed for automobiles?
MM: Plenty good has come out of the liberal West. I'm merely pointing out, the narrative of gay activism in this part of the world doesn't rest on much real substance. And when it's called out, it tends to resort to ridicule, scorn and accusation. Just as you have.
In your OPINION! Your opinion doesn't mean that the "narrative of gay activism" (whatever the Hell that is!) doesn't rest on real substance. It's very real to those of us who disagree with discrimination.
It's real that gay people have attractions to the same sex. It's real that they form lasting relationships. It's real that they ARE NOT recognized by the federal government and many state governments as having equal rights as heterosexual couples have regarding marriage. It's real that they are people too...who work hard, play, fall in love, pay taxes, own homes, have children, etc. etc. etc. There is no OBJECTIVE reason to not allow them to marry. That's REAL...not the "narrative of gay activism".
Now I'm done.
Peace
<'{{><
You berate me for having an opinion, and then state your own, as if it were fact.
Also, you seem to assume that the only alternatives are:
A: Full recognition of gay marriage, both in the legal and moral sense, and full acceptance, legitmizing and mainstreaming of homosexuality.
B: Fear and loathing of gay people, and not a damn chance at all that they can ever enjoy such things as hospital visitation or estate planning with a partner and/or their children.
I'm saying, there are other possibiliites.
Gay civil unions being only one.
My opinion is based on FACT! It is a FACT that gay people are human too. It is a FACT that they do ALL THE THINGS that heterosexual people do. It is a FACT that even though this is TRUE, they are being denied the right to marry like their fellow heterosexual co-horts.
And, yes, I would love nothing better than for religiously bigoted people to STOP calling it IMMORAL. It does REAL HARM to REAL PEOPLE!
You berate me for having an opinion, and then state your own, as if it were fact.
Also, you seem to assume that the only alternatives are:
A: Full recognition of gay marriage, both in the legal and moral sense, and full acceptance, legitmizing and mainstreaming of homosexuality.
B: Fear and loathing of gay people, and not a damn chance at all that they can ever enjoy such things as hospital visitation or estate planning with a partner and/or their children.
I'm saying, there are other possibiliites.
Gay civil unions being only one.
Would gay civil unions be separate but equal to marriage?
Perhaps.
And before you go off about the previous example of discrimination against Blacks under "seperate but equal" -- you must first provide rational proof of a universal and objective equality between homosexuality and heterosexuality.
A claim of "discriminaton" can't be made unless and until an underlying objective equality is demonstrated. Therefore, your attempt to compare this to heteroxeual marriage is, again, irrelvant and baseless.
I think this is your quote, it certainly seems to be your style anyway. I see what Adelphe meant about certain types of block quoting.
Regardless, if this is you who said this, Can you give us the legal basis for your claim that "A claim of "discriminaton" can't be made unless and until an underlying objective equality is demonstrated."?
If it wasn't mtymouse57, could whoever wrote please provide the legal basis for that opinion?
If one thing simply does not work as well as another thing, then why should the law regard them on equal terms?
For example, if somebody wants to drive a golf cart, instead of an automobile, on the streets and highways -- do they have any right to cry "discrimination" because streets and highways are designed for automobiles?
But here's the rub...who says one does not work as well as the other??? Oh, yeah, that's right...YOU!!!
I'm with Ken...fuck off! You are the most arrogant individual that I have ever run across in these forums.
1. Just because you don't accept an argument as good does not mean it isn't. You are not the final authority on what makes a good argument. You are only the final authoruty on what you will accept.
2. In the objective sense, I have yet to see you put forth any good argument for objective inequality with man-woman marriage. The only argument you have put forward has to do with procreation which, as has been repeated here ad nauseum, is not a requirement for marriage in this country. Therefore the Supreme Court affirmed civil right to marriage cannot be based on the ability to procreate unless ALL marriages are subject to the same restriction.
Which, incidentally, makes your appeal to emotion regarding mother-father families irrelevant.
1: Agreed, and of course. But isn't there quite a lot of that happening on the other side of the discussion? Gay activism and its champions do a famously poor job of accepting anything that might contradict what they really, really want to be foregone conclusions.
2: Once again, if you want to talk about "marriage" in strictly and only the sense of a legal contract, then I'm not arguing with you. In a previous discussion we concluded, "Two consenting adults" are the only critera.
I will note, however, I forgot to add "who are not direct blood relatives." (Therefore, for example, a brother and sister who wanted to get married could not ride in on the coat-tails of an approval of legal same-sex marriage.)
If you are talking about it as a matter of principle and values, then please provide some rational backing for this notion of objective, universal "equality" between a homosexual union and man-woman marriage and mother-father parenting.
Who is talking about mother-father parenting?
Until you provide some "rational backing for this notion of objective, universal "inequality" between a homosexual union and man-woman marriage" there is nothing to respond to. All you have provided is a subjective belief that "inequality" exists.
Also, I find it interesting that you used to define your argument in terms of equality between homosexuals and heterosexuals. Why the change to "between a homosexual union and man-woman marriage and mother-father parenting?" Seems to me the only reason for the change is to be able to slip in the fallacious "mother-father parenting" meme.
In the sense of standards, morals and values, society values, has valued marriage as the best vessel for the procreation of children and families based in mother-father parenting.
It's a subjective belief that a gay union holds any substantive equality to that.
MM: Plenty good has come out of the liberal West. I'm merely pointing out, the narrative of gay activism in this part of the world doesn't rest on much real substance. And when it's called out, it tends to resort to ridicule, scorn and accusation. Just as you have.
In your OPINION! Your opinion doesn't mean that the "narrative of gay activism" (whatever the Hell that is!) doesn't rest on real substance. It's very real to those of us who disagree with discrimination.
It's real that gay people have attractions to the same sex. It's real that they form lasting relationships. It's real that they ARE NOT recognized by the federal government and many state governments as having equal rights as heterosexual couples have regarding marriage. It's real that they are people too...who work hard, play, fall in love, pay taxes, own homes, have children, etc. etc. etc. There is no OBJECTIVE reason to not allow them to marry. That's REAL...not the "narrative of gay activism".
Now I'm done.
Peace
<'{{><
You berate me for having an opinion, and then state your own, as if it were fact.
Also, you seem to assume that the only alternatives are:
A: Full recognition of gay marriage, both in the legal and moral sense, and full acceptance, legitmizing and mainstreaming of homosexuality.
B: Fear and loathing of gay people, and not a damn chance at all that they can ever enjoy such things as hospital visitation or estate planning with a partner and/or their children.
I'm saying, there are other possibiliites.
Gay civil unions being only one.
My opinion is based on FACT! It is a FACT that gay people are human too. It is a FACT that they do ALL THE THINGS that heterosexual people do. It is a FACT that even though this is TRUE, they are being denied the right to marry like their fellow heterosexual co-horts.
And, yes, I would love nothing better than for religiously bigoted people to STOP calling it IMMORAL. It does REAL HARM to REAL PEOPLE!
Peace
<'{{><
Once again, appeals to emotion aren't facts.
Nobody here has denied gay people are humans.
I'm dubious about the affirmation, enablement and encouragement of homosexuality.
Perhaps that's causing real harm to real people. Enablement isn't "love." In fact, it's about the farthest thing from it.
But, I'm also for self-determination and freedom of choice. If gay people wish to pair up, more power to them.
If the push to get full legal recognition of gay marriage flies -- then so be it. I might not agree with the reasoning behind it. But I can surely tolerate it.
A claim of "discriminaton" can't be made unless and until an underlying objective equality is demonstrated. Therefore, your attempt to compare this to heteroxeual marriage is, again, irrelvant and baseless.
I think this is your quote, it certainly seems to be your style anyway. I see what Adelphe meant about certain types of block quoting.
Regardless, if this is you who said this, Can you give us the legal basis for your claim that "A claim of "discriminaton" can't be made unless and until an underlying objective equality is demonstrated."?
If it wasn't mtymouse57, could whoever wrote please provide the legal basis for that opinion?
If one thing simply does not work as well as another thing, then why should the law regard them on equal terms?
For example, if somebody wants to drive a golf cart, instead of an automobile, on the streets and highways -- do they have any right to cry "discrimination" because streets and highways are designed for automobiles?
But here's the rub...who says one does not work as well as the other??? Oh, yeah, that's right...YOU!!!
I'm with Ken...fuck off! You are the most arrogant individual that I have ever run across in these forums.
Peace
<'{{><
Go ahead mods...delete me...I'm PISSED!!!
Why are you so angry? What is it in your thinking that is so reactive to mere disagreement?
Why do you stake so much on a particular narrative?
Will the world end if/when homosexuality is demonstrated to be essentially dysfunctional?
So what if it is? Would that make it right, or fashionable to hate gay people?
If gay marriage is legal by then (which it probably will be) would that be cause to end it?
I don't see that it would.
Why do you call me arrogant? I'm perfectly willing to tolerate differences to my point of view. I understand the direction society is going right now -- toward gay marriage and the normalization of homosexuality.
So what? Are we no longer allowed to question and talk about things -- without resorting to blind anger and profanity?
For My Mother: In Praise of a Life Lived
Chasing an Elusive God
Why Christianity Is Dying But Spirituality Is Thriving?
On the Frontlines An interview with Yael Eckstein, Senior Vice President of the ...
Ray Liotta, Seth Green Join an All-Star Cast in Indie Film ‘The Identical’ “We want to bring films with a redeeming value to the world. One of ...
A Life of Hope The fact that you’re standing here today with breath in your lungs ...
Habits for a Heart Healthy Lifestyle Heart disease is a top killer worldwide -- but our lifestyle choices ...
Emotional Equations Using brilliantly simple math that illuminates universal emotional ...
Are You a Compulsive or Binge Eater? Do you struggle with your weight? Find out more about compulsive and ...
Faith, Freedom and Rocker John Schlitt “We are making choices on greed and stupidity. The truth is that our ...
Robert Griffin III: Not the Average Rookie Washington Redskins quarterback Robert Griffin III continues to wow ...
Green Powders to Add to Your Diet Now Green powders are a great way to boost your health, keep your energy ...
Natural Deodorants That Actually Work What's that smell? Not us! We’ve been on a mission to find the best ...
Birth of a Habit How long does it take to form a new habit? How long should it take ...
Madly In Love With ME “I will never settle for less than my heart and soul desire.”
Is It Love If You're All Cranky When You Give It? Love is the answer to everything in life.
Living A Meaningful Life You are what you love and you love whatever you give your attention ...
"The Bible" a Labor of Love for Famed Producer, Wife The five-week, 10-hour TV special was nurtured by "Touched by an ...
Who Should Be Allowed to Pray for President Obama? It seems preposterous, but there’s a major debate over who is worthy ...
