I Believe Homosexuality Is A Neurological Disorder.

Only if you assume the tyranny of democracy. I'll continue this below...

1. I am trying to let anyone practice whatever understanding of partnerships they desire.

2. Every political ideology is subjective, the idea is thus to find one that doesn't force itself on others as objective truth.

3. My ideology allows him to practice his beliefs, or anyone to practice their beliefs - so long as they don't violate the right of others to do the same. I cannot say the same for his.

4. There would be no central authority under my system forcing this on him. He is perfectly welcome to create one in his property, just not mine.


I agree it's imperfect since people cannot coerce others under my system, but a) that's wrong anyway, and b) you have to choose a system, and this is the lesser of all evils. It's either this small transgression of "pure" (ie: false, since it denies to others that freedom in kind) freedom, or the transgression of significantly more liberty.

 

No, people are free to practice whatever kind of partnership they like. You merely insist that gays and lesbians be given tax breaks and governmental entitlements for their practice

 

yes indeed- we insist that they are treated equally with all other married couples- with the same tax breaks and survivor benefits.

 

Every one of those tax breaks and governmental entitlements was enacted for and intended for married heterosexual couples. If you want to make an exception for homosexual couples youll need SOME legitimate governmental interest that is served in the case of homosexuals but not every other couple made up of consenting adults who are denied marriage.

 

I advocate no such thing. I think nobody should be given tax breaks because taxation shouldn't exist in the first place. Likewise with entitlements.

In the systems we live in I think the solution is for government to eliminate partnerships from the tax code and do it on a purely individual basis, but lower taxes for all enough to compensate so nobody's taxes go up. Sound fair? There's no reason for the government to the in the business of partnerships at all.

This solution works for the right, and it works for the left. The only reason why neither side wants it is because they figure they can get bonuses for their chosen groups. The right wants their definition of Christian marriage to be enshrined in the tax code, the left wants to add to that concept homosexual marriage. I want to do neither.

 

Though I am a strong proponent of SSM, this solution would be acceptable to me. The only reason I tend not to talk about it is that of all the possible outcomes, this one is dead last on the list of likelihoods. It simply is not going to happen.

 

How would you fix the economy dear?

 

I don't know. That's not my job, is it?

 

Actually we just insist that they are treated equally with all other married couples- with the same tax breaks and survivor benefits.

Currently, a homosexual married couple- a legally married couple- is denied Federal marriage benefits that are afforded to heterosexual couples- and those are denied exclusively because of their gender.

 

If you want to make an exception for homosexual couples youll need SOME legitimate governmental interest that is served in the case of homosexuals but not every other couple made up of consenting adults who are denied marriage.

 

Actually we just insist that they are treated equally with all other married couples- with the same tax breaks and survivor benefits.

Currently, a homosexual married couple- a legally married couple- is denied Federal marriage benefits that are afforded to heterosexual couples- and those are denied exclusively because of their gender.

 

You did say "is that so mysterious" so you must've had an answer that you simply weren't sharing or maybe it is that mysterious?

- - - Updated - - -

Which are also denied to single people who don't want to get married and isn't fair and shouldn't exist at all. Not to mention group marriages.

 

You know, that makes me wonder why no legally married same sex couple has filed a joint tax return, and when it was rejected, sued on 14th Amendment grounds. That seems even more clear-cut than using the 14th to validate SSM in the first place, though I find that a compelling argument, just a bit more grey than the tax thing.

 

Because they have a hard time keeping a straight face arguing that one can have a constitution right to a tax break.

 

Yeah man I know that feel. Didn't mean to group everyone into those groups, meant the Democratic and Republican establishments more than anything.

Most left leaning people I know want to end government endorsement of one type of partnership over another, that includes by reducing the endorsement of traditional marriage. Vice versa with most right leaning people I know.

 

Homosexuality isn't a 'gender', it's a sexual preference.

 

Pretty soon they're going to start calling people biggots who believe transexuals have a serious psychological problem.

 

I guess our brain makes us want to do things. We could see any of them as a 'disorder' if they affected us negatively. Homosexuality seems not to effect people negatively (who really things that there are not enough human beings, or really cares).

So, I would would say no negative effect no disorder.

 

I call you one right now.

 

That is essentially what has happened in the current United Sates vs. Windsor DOMA case:

"In 2007, Edith "Edie" Windsor and Thea Spyer, residents of New York, married in Toronto, Ontario, after 40 years of romantic partnership.[1] Canada's first openly gay judge, Justice Harvey Brownstone officiated.[2] Windsor had first suggested engagement in 1965.[3] Spyer died in 2009, at which time New York legally recognized same-sex marriages performed in other jurisdictions.[4][5] After Spyer's death, Windsor was required to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes on her inheritance. If federal law accorded their marriage the same status as different-sex marriages recognized by their state, she would have paid no taxes."

It's going to be heard this month (March) and probably ruled on in June.

 

If you start off as the wrong gender then you probably do have a serious psychological problem. I'm sure it helps to go through a sex change operation.

 

The OP is half right. Homosexuality is a mental abnormality. It's caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain. However, IMO they came to the wrong conclusion. The human race is vastly overpopulated. I think that homosexuality is a form of natural birth control. A certain amount of people are born gay to try and stem the number of people having kids. It's known that a species can have universal traits and that most species have a joint mental and emotion consciousness. It's how birds and other animals know when and where to migrate, it's how other species wide information is shared. And, I believe that it can cause this type of change to sexual orientation in order to stop overpopulation.

It's my theory that if you tried and trace homosexual activity in any species, it would rise and drop along with the population.

 

I can see your points.

I suppose someone could refer to homosexuality as being abnormal, but it's much like having 'blue eyes' or 'left-handedness'.

In other words, just as those things are understood to simply 'be'... homosexuality is not necessarily bad, unnatural or unacceptable. And many people think (improperly-so) that 'abnormal' must somehow mean that it is a negative thing. But that is what they've been taught.

If they truly knew what the APA has determined/defined and/or actually sought to know what homosexuality is for the millions of people who ARE homosexual (many surely hiding it)... they'd realize that the irrational animus, discrimination and negativity that many express toward homosexual people is unconstitutional (unjust) and generally immoral.

 

Really? And your evidence for this claim is what?

 

What about all the animals that are homosexual?