07-17-2010, 04:22 AM
quote:
Originally posted by oink
Just for the sake of argument (I'm not picking sides here), "affectional orientation" is not a protected class under the US Constitution, so I believe your argument is flawed, at least that part is.
You are correct. In fact, blacks are considered 2/3 of a person. I don't think there are any protected classes in the Constitution. I know almost nothing about constitutional law. But I believe the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is what has been used, and ultimately successful in cases that make clear that people must be treated equally when they are otherwise being discriminated against on whatever basis. That doesn't mean or rely on anyone being in a "protected class."
As for kalamaboy and the "unnatural" idea. I guess what I don't understand is why you focus on it being, "unnatural" as you call. As has been shown and stated to you it is something that has existed throughout human history (from the Greeks to Kamehameha himself-at least behavior wise) and exists in many other animals, including our closest primate relatives, so in fact, it is as natural as any other measurable thing in many species. In fact anything which exists without being manipulated by humans or any other animal should be considered "natural." If your argument is that homosexuality not being the dominant sexual orientation in any species, therefore it is unnatural--well you are using a different definition of unnatural, and you're free to do that, and correct if that is your definition. But I'm not sure what that has to do with anything or that anyone is advocating that all non-gays must immediately cease their heterosexuality and become gay. I just wonder if you have the same vigor in pointing out all the things that are unnatural by that definition, such as being male, being left-handed, having blue eyes (a mutation that developed only 10,000 years ago), etc. By most people's and certainly any scientific definition of what is natural, being the majority or meeting any certain percentage threshold is not implied or required. Basically your "belief" that homosexuality is unnatural is similar to the "belief" in intelligent design, that the world is flat, that astrology rules all of our lives, etc, or anything else that has been disproven by science. Since you state you are a believer in natural selection, etc. you think you would be consistent in applying science to your reasoning, but if you aren't, whatever, anyone can believe whatever they want!
This has nothing to do with seeking any societal approval. In fact a large percentage of the gay community historically has not wanted to be socially accepted and have been more interested in creating different, and sometimes rejected social cultures. That however does not preclude being treated equally under the law. I don't really myself have any interest in being embraced or socially accepted by anyone based on being gay, but I certainly, and legally, have the right not to be discriminated against based on that fact. And it seems you agree with that so good for you!