Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Either one accepts the genetic component to homosexuality and if you have an understanding of genetics you can see where this would be a defect (there is an argument I can think of that would make it a possible benefit but I'll see if someone else comes up with that one, its weak but worth mentioning) or homosexuality is somehow psychological and therefore can be cured or prevented in children. That was the thought up until the late 70's and guess how well that worked?
|
If it's genetic, then it's a
condition until it's proven to be detrimental or a negative in some real way. If it is found to be a shortcoming, fault, or imperfection,
then it becomes a
defect. Until that imperfection is proven, and it has not been so far, this has been and will remain a condition.
If it's environmental, why cure it? I mean that's like curing someone from enjoying musical theater or for preferring blondes. Who cares? It's clearly not harmful. It doesn't actually harm in any way the people around them (despite what some may say). As stated before, it can even be helpful as it combats overpopulation!
Getting back to gay marriage, I couldn't be happier. It's about time we show these people the respect set fourth by legal precedent. In Lawrence v Texas, 2003, the Supreme Court considered sodomy laws regarding homosexuals. You see, Texas thought it would be funny, between beers and wife beating, to say that sodomy is illegal between homosexuals but legal between heterosexuals. In a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court overruled Texas' ruling in Bowers v Hardwick and ruled that the state "lacked a legitimate interest in regulating the private sexual conduct of consenting adults." I'm sure you've all heard of the Equal Protection Clause. Scalia threw a fit, of course, but the decision stands.