The "consequence" of not being able to marry the person with whom you can actually tolerate ongoing sexual relations and cooperative cohabitation is not a natural consequence. It is a fabricated consequence; what's more, with marriage being a civic contract, it is a socially engineered consequence, denial of access to an engineered legal and socio-economic advantage granted to households no more procreative (the elderly, the medically infertile, those willfully using contraception to avoid pregnancy; in fact, fewer than half of all marriages at any given time involve progeny, a number that can only partially be accounted for by couples who simply haven't squeezed out womb-rats yet
Thus the objection to this inequality is not reflective of an unwillingness to accept natural or even logical consequences, but an objection to a fabricated inequity no less arbitrary than any other form of segregation.
Faggots and dykes choose the sole thing that they're claiming differentiates them, their aberrant sexual choices.
The alternatives to those choices being celibacy or romantic engagement to an individual for whom one is biologically incapable of harboring erotic desire.
Second, show me one area of life in which fags and dykes are substantially punished for their deviancy. Jobs? Nah. Statistically fags and dykes do as well as their sexually healthy peers.
Largely because they are disproportionately represented in high-paying jobs like technology or high-prestige jobs like the arts and academia. Statistically, homosexuals seem to have higher than average IQs, but I think that's a sampling bias; the smarter you are, the less danger there is in coming out. Still, it seems to me that any statistic (not that you offered any) suggesting that "fags and dykes" are "doing fine" will tend to be skewed, as an average, by those who are doing considerably better than fine, and ignoring those experiencing real discrimination.
Ability to buy or rent a home? Again, nope. Even the best neighborhoods often have a faggot or dyke in them.
Indeed, even without controlling for anti-gay violence, the very best neighborhoods in Western industrialized nations are those with a greater number of homosexuals.
There is no such thing as gay marriage, whatever my or any other state says. Marriage is, marriage always has been, and marriage always will be between a man and a woman. No faux legal definition will make decent people ever think otherwise.
Except that marriage doesn't exist except by engineered definition. The way the state defines it has already stood at odds with the way churches, families, and communities define it. Civic marriage, then, has always been the state's to define, the state's to sanctify.
Your marriage may always be between a woman and the man who has shocked and abused her into fearing to leave for a better life; may we breathe a sigh of relief that we don't all live such a life.
Washington could legally redefine gravity, but it won't change anything about how the thing works.
One could argue that the theoretical nature of our understanding of gravity makes it a collective subjective construct, but it's still distinct from marriage in that sense. Marriage is more like art; it only exists at all
by virtue of how we discuss and recognize it.
It's knowing reality works one way, and trying to force it to work another. Having sex with the same gender for instance, or trying to force others to bear the consequences of your lifestyle choices.
But reality doesn't work "one way" when it comes to human sexuality. The female orgasm, for instance, can be achieved through procreative coitus in less than 25% of women; in that sense, all female orgasm lies outside the purpose ascribed to "normal" sexuality.
What I wrote was that neither she or I had a choice in skin color. What I've written before is that judging someone based on what they had no choice in is silly and unjust, a mark of an inferior mind.
Yet you feel comfortable judging someone for acting on a (by all clinical appearances immutable) proclivity with a willing partner of legal agency rather than engaging in celibacy or loveless and/or sexless marriage (the only alternatives). I don't see that as very far removed.
Gay men can't donate blood for sound medical reasons if in fact that's true. I give blood often and have yet to be asked if I'm gay, though I am always asked about whether I've had anal sex or injected drugs, again for sound medical reasons.
The controversy over the blood donation ban on those who have or have had anal sex is that it's too far reaching. It basically asks whether you're a man who's had sex with another man since the '70s.
I will rent my houses to whomever I choose. It really isn't the business of anyone else. When you buy a rental, you can do the same.
I'd like to think I'd be a bigger man than to deny rental to, say, a Christian. And if I weren't a bigger man, I'm not sure I morally object to a law forcing me to be so, and suggesting that my ideological differences with a prospective renter--who otherwise demonstrated the qualities of being a good tenant--are inadequate basis to deny a lease.
What I know is that modelling healthy adult roles as a father, husband, son to my parents and so on is among my most serious obligations in life. How is a boy supposed to know to lovingly and respectfully treat his girlfriends and eventual wives?
I doubt he'd learn it from you.
A girl deserves a dad who shows her that she deserves to be treated with those qualities. Those with unhealthy sexual behavior choices simply can't do this.
I fail to see (because you and your ilk have failed to illustrate or demonstrate) how knowing how to treat a loved one with respect and dignity would be influenced in any way by the gender of either party.
Skin color, gender and so on aren't chosen. We as a society have decided that common justice is served by protecting people from discrimination unjustly based on non chosen characteristics. Faggots and dykes choose the sole thing that supposedly differentiates them from their fellow, perverted sexual behavior.
Sexual behavior is distinct from sexual orientation; the percentages alone bear that out. At least 10%, and by some metrics 25%, of individuals have had at least one homosexual experience; this is a far higher percentage than of those who engage primarily or exclusively in homosexual behavior, or those who lack significant heterosexual attraction.
Now there are classes of choice specifically Constitutionally protected. You bring one up in the bottom of your post. And I do agree with the majority of the ruling, since it goes to a protected right, that of free expression of religion. The choice to express a faith or a journalistic bias, or to publicly air grievances against the government are protected. Fags and dykes choose an expression not specifically protected, and must accept the consequences of that choice like adults.
I disagree. Because even religions without any hard and fast sexual proscriptions (say, Buddhism or Taoism) comment on sexuality, and how one wields it, as a field fraught with moral conundra, I would suggest that sexual expression is implicitly protected as a form of religious expression.
As to sexual so called orientation you're just using different terms to say the same thing. If a person has schizophrenia, we don't say 'born that way' and go on.
We can point to the ways in which schizophrenia has consequences that aren't
But asking that it be treated as some kind of mark of superiority is a bridge too far for me.
In what ways are homosexuals or their supporters asking for "superior" treatment?