>>Not according to the Texas Sodomy law that the SC struck down. The two fellows who brought the case had been convicted under that law.<<
Texas law simply attempted to support the natural order by forcing individuals to support the natural order. The flaw in Texas’s law is that it failed to acknowledge that humans have the natural right to be morally unnatural with themselves.
>>People (well, European people) used to think that blacks and natives were subhuman, and could be killed or enslaved because they weren't quite human.<<
People never believed this. They simply attempted to make these sorts of arguments to justify the unnatural behavior of enslaving other humans. When white humans at the time were thrown or kicked by horses, they simply understood that the horse did what horses do. When they were thrown or kicked by black humans or Indian humans, they were angry, because they naturally sensed that the black or Indian should have known better. They sensed this because they naturally understood that the black, etc., was human – JUST LIKE THEM, and felt pain JUST LIKE THEM. No one really thought them sub-human. It was a grand attempt to justify the unnatural. It was doomed to fail because mother nature will have her way, regardless of human willful ignorance.
White men knew when they slept with black women that they slept with fellow humans and not animals. And when white women sneaked around to have sex with black men, they knew the black men were men, in every friggin’ way. All humans, all of us, black, Indian, white, brown – humans. And the proof of it is that should we take ANY of them and couple them, humanity issues forth – as long as they are truly coupled (a thing that cannot take place with homosexuals).
>>Sounds as if you are making the same argument: homosexuals are not quite human. That is your opinion, not a 'natural' law.<<
Oh, “Homosexuals” are human in that they are by nature heterosexuals – being comprised of a biological nature that is exactly one-half male and exactly one-half female. Their homosexual behavior is foreign to their own male-female biological identity. In truth, homosexuality does not exist. It is merely a perversion of human nature – which is hetero all the way.
>>My goodness, this argument almost exactly mirrors the aforementioned argument about non-Europeans. It used to be their blackness, or redness, or strange pagan ways, or shape of their eyes.<<
False. It has nothing to do with anything like that. English whites used to exclude non-English whites in precisely the same way they came to exclude blacks. The polish and Irish were once excluded. But nature has her way. She brought English and gals to truly couple with non-English guys and gals, and humanity kept issuing forth. The same thing is happening with races everywhere. It is NOT happening with homosexuals because nature condemns homosexuality as foreign to the human scheme.
>>Ah, onto the meat of the argument. Homosexuality is wrong, and thus not protected, because it is repugnant to you. Chronic abstinence is also not acceptable, but protected, because it is not so repugnant?<<
You appear to purposefully avoid the point here. Homosexuality, UNLIKE ABSTINENCE, is completely foreign to humanity. ALL HUMANS have part in abstinence. They do not all have part with chronic abstinence, but because they ALL share in abstinence they intuitively recognize it as part of them.
>>Men are quite capable of keeping more than one wife, as history has shown.<<
But NONE OF THEM are comprised of biological materials from more than one woman. That is why polygamy is repugnant even in those societies where it is practiced. Jealousies are ferocious because children naturally sense in their own physical identity the exclusivity of their dad and their mom and NO OTHER.
>>In certain cases in history, where men were in short supply because of wars, men were expected to keep more than one wife.<<
Fine. That did not make it natural. At many times in human history men behaved unnaturally. Big deal. Nature still will have her way…
>>Some have come to the conclusion that it is MORE natural for a man to have multiple wives than a single one. So, your perception of what is NATURAL is simple an opinion not shared by all.<<
My perception of what is natural is found in every cell of your body. Every single cell, built of the fundamental material of your dad and your mom AND NO OTHER. That is marriage, pal. It is the fundamental unit of all human societies. AND it is ALWAYS heterosexual. That is just a fact of nature.
>>How could you possibly turn around a situation where a group is being discriminated against, and make it sound like the discriminators are the victims?<<
Because they are indeed the victims when the might of law is used to force them to accept what is a perversion of their fundamental natures. That is just unfair. Homosexuals ought to be free to do their ghastly deeds, but not free to teach them to children as normal within the school system against the wishes of those children’s parents. Yet that is what homosexuals have done and what they wish further to do. They ought not be free to force the Boy Scouts to accept them as leaders over boys, against the wishes of the boys’ parents. Yet that is what they aim to do. Etc. friggin’ etc…
>>Can you hear yourself? No one should be forced to grant rights to someone who marries outside of their notion of what is natural?<<
The notion of naturalness is in every single cell of your body and you know it. You ought to hear yourself flatly denying what you are in nature.
>>These people are not asking for your acceptance, or blessing, or friendship. They are asking for the basic rights that are afforded heterosexual couples.<<
The resources by which those rights are expressed are made possible by one human scheme only: a heterosexual scheme. That is because heterosexuality is us – and homosexuality is not. Homosexuality does not even exist. It is just a behavior that is a perversion of physical reality. That reality is heterosexual – ALWAYS. So to take a perversion and equate it to reality to just a fantasy.
>>If you choose to shun these neighbors of yours, it is your choice. But, you have no moral or legal right to take away their basic rights.<<
Their basic rights come to them because they are human, NOT because they are homosexual. Once they engage in humanly foreign behavior, they have no right to force anyone to acknowledge that behavior at all. Legal rights come and go. So the SCOTUS ruling is nothing. Nature’s morality will ALWAYS be against homosexuality. |
