You know, being black was really unhealthy 150 years ago. I mean, it must be in their genes. All the time, they would just develop welts across their backs, they would find themselves in trees hanging by nooses and the like. What an unhealthy race.
Lets see. Treat a discrete class of people like shit, marginalize them, kill them, hate them, discriminate against them. And then you wonder why they develop unhealthy attitudes? Really? I'm not surprised people who are gay kill themselves more often. But thats not their fault, ITS YOURS. So don't come here with bullshit about how they are less healthy when its little bitches like you that cause that shit.
What is wrong with this argument?
Well the first thing that comes to mind is that it's a false comparison... the premise being that the discrimination of blacks, is on some level similar to the discrimination of those suffering the homo-sexual orientation.
This based upon the certainty that there is no discrimination, legally speaking, of Homo-sexuals... sexual orientation stands as a means to civil protections... which is what feeds this specious line of reasoning. Racial Minorities are protected, sexual orientation is protected... thus the comparison is implied.
But being a racial minority is a genetic distinction which the bearer cannot change... Being homosexual is not a genetic distinction... SCIENCE has determined that there is no genetic root at the bottom of sexual orientation; sexual orientation is a mental disorder...
And while there are also protections for the physically/mentally impaired, those protection does not rise to the level where, when that impairment prohibits the individual from fulfilling the scope of say a job, which requires them to perform certain tasks... where they, say... have no arms... the law does not force an employer to hire them to fill a position which requires arms... I'm sure you see this point as accurate and agree that the civil protections do not afforded the handicapped a 'right' to do anything a non-handicapped person can do; and this because the reality is that they simply cannot. The protections afforded are designed to protect their opportunities... to the extent that is possible; and assure, again to the extent that is possible, that their opportunities rest at equity with the balance of the population.
The issue here is that homosexuals want to REDEFINE the well reasoned, logically valid, long standing standards which define Marriage. And they do this through the use of an irrational view of FAIRNESS; where upon they drape Equality as a facade in bringing legal challenges which seek to represent that they are not being treated EQUALLY, under the law
The simple fact is, that Homo-sexuals are NOT prohibited from marriage... they get married ALL THE TIME... what the standard of marriage prohibits, is what ALL standards prohibit and that is someone who cannot meet that standard IS not provided a pass to cross that threshold.
To the best of my knowledge, No homosexual has had their application for a marriage license denied... on the basis that they are 'Homosexual'...
They HAVE however had their application denied because they are applying for a license, in full knowledge that as filed, they do not meet the minimal threshold requirements... which are applied EQUALLY to ALL applicants: First, there must be TWO individuals... second that those two individuals must be comprised of two distinct GENDERS.
Where a homosexual comes to apply for a license to marry and open declares "I AM A HOMOSEXUAL MALE... Please meet my wife Sally... she is a HOMOSEXUAL FEMALE... and we would like to apply for a marriage license... the municipality would approve such an application in a SNAP! Why? Because there are TWO individuals, who represent the two distinct genders; thus having met the minimum standard required for marriage.
The homosexual argument is that they are being treated UNFAIRLY... they simply use the word 'equal' as a substitute because the Law does not concern itself with FAIRNESS... as fairness is a subjective determination... EQUALITY on the other hand, where judicial decisions are handed down, often results in NEITHER party feeling that they've been treated "FAIRLY..."
The homo-sexual advocacy above, the validity of which you seem to adhere, requires that Homo-sexuality is not being treated EQUALLY... when in truth... they are being treated PRECISELY equally... THEIR argument is WITH THE CONCEPT OF EQUALITY ITSELF!
They are not satisfied with EQUAL TREATMENT... they are demanding SPECIAL CONSIDERATION... 'We can't meet this standard; the standard is unreasonable because of our mental disorder... our special circumstances prevent us with no means to apply for marriage and make a successful application, in that we do not possess the means to LOVE people of the opposite gender; which is a lie in and of itself.
Homosexual males, love their mothers, their sisters, aunts and I've no doubt, love other females which they have come to know and are special to them... So they are capable of loving females... they simply do not love females 'in that way'... Right? (You know what I'm sayin... RIGHT? You old DOG!... Dey gonna GET SOME!!!)
So it's the physical attraction... right? Which used to mean what? It USED to mean, when someone felt 'that way' about another, and we're talking hetero's now... that this meant that they LOVED someone, were sexually attracted to them and wanted to settle down and start a family... They wanted to GET MARRIED! To JOIN TOGETHER.... Join as one BEING... as ONE Entity. So Marriage is merely the Public acknowledgment that those two individuals were operating as ONE... in the presents of God and his witnesses, that they were committing themselves to one another... vowing to remain WHOLE... as one entity... because... Well...
why is that?
What happens when two genders join as one? What it is about the process of "joining?"
Isn't it the biological function of procreation? And when two people join... and that results in procreation; that's a pretty serious commitment isn't it? This SINGULAR entity of marriage, wherein TWO INDIVIDUALS have joined and conceived A NEW individual... which is a new element of their singularity, which is distinct to THEIR UNION... requires a firm commitment in a sound Union... which we call a 'family' and stands as the nucleus of our culture.
Now, as far a joining is concerned... that doesn't require any input from the government, does it? I mean two people have committed themselves to one another... what business is it, of the government's? If two people cohabitate, share expenses and otherwise operate as one entity... that doesn't seem to have any public interests, does it? And it does not...
So then... why DOES the government bother? What is the public interests, which rests at the foundation of the whole licensing process?
What SPECIFICALLY is the licensing burden designed to do?
Excellent question!
To answer that one... We simply look at the scope of licensing itself... Why does the government require a Contractor to make application for a license?
Wouldn't you agree that the government requires a contractor to apply for a license because they want to ensure that the would-be contractor is QUALIFIED to Contract within their desired specialty?
Of course... Licensing merely establishes a minimum STANDARD, by which those who would participate in a given endeavor, must meet before they can cross the threshold established by that standard and engage in their stated purpose...
Such is the same with regard to Marriage. Licensing of marriage is NOTHIGN BUT the means of the government to ensure that those who make application to enter into MARRIAGE... meet the minimum standards required FOR SUCH and given the above explanation... where the purpose of Marriage is to create a single entity where two genders join as one... we can readily see that the minimum standard is such that there be TWO individuals... and that those two represent the TWO DISTINCT GENDERS...
Why not three or more and what if they're infertile or impotent; why must they both be humans and why must they represent both distinct genders and why... ?
The standard represents the public interests... Like the US Constitution, the standard of Marriage does not seek to accommodate every flake of human desire... its purpose is to serve the interests of the community wherein TWO PEOPLE JOIN TO RAISE A FAMILY... and it simply seeks to determine that where such is the case, that such unions are comprised of the minimum requirements to make that work, to the extent that can be measured; to give that union the best possible chance, within the means of the law to provide for such; and to do so with as little interference or encumbrance upon the rights of the individual as possible.
So we can readily see that there is no means for those afflicted with the homo-sexual orientation to procreate... In my state, they are prohibited from adoption... thus there will be no family... thus there is nothing to be served through Marriage.
Homosexuals are free to join... they are FREE to commit to one another if they are so inclined... they can cohabitate, share expenses, bank accounts, car payments, home loans... and they are FREE to, if THEY FEEL REALLY STRONGLY for one another... they can incorporate and form a legal union, which establishes
their special union as ONE LEGAL ENTITY... recognized by the Federal law, the State Law and all local municipalities, the IRS and the US Chamber of Commerce...
But they do NOT meet, as they are not well suited, for the standards that ARE MARRIAGE; in that the homo-sexual orientation, makes it unlikely that they will present application wherein the TWO individual applicants are representative of both distinct genders... and there is NO CHANCE that they will procreate, or adopt a child... and for the same reasons.
So Homosexuals are NOT being treated unequally under the law; they are being treated unfairly, as THEY interpret their circumstances, based upon the specious scientific conclusions which require that one suspend reason and accept that the abnormal is normal; as well as the spurious argument, that Marriage is the SOLE MEANS which provide for the specific economic privileges
common to Marriage; to which they erroneously FEEL, that they are RIGHTFULLY ENTITLED.
Its all a lie
based upon a litany of myths, which are sustained by a chorus of empty platitudes.
