Re: HOMOSEXUALITY -- SPEAK UP

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 22:13:31 07/05/03 Sat
Author: bolagard
Author Host/IP: NoHost / 68.184.185.51
Subject: Re: HOMOSEXUALITY
In reply to: JOEBIALEK 's message, "HOMOSEXUALITY" on 11:29:38 07/04/03 Fri

JOEBIALEK,
The Supreme Court ruling should bring into question what factors were considered when making the ruling, not the least of which is whether our Supreme Court Justices have ever read our Constitution. The only way to interpret the Texas anti-sodomy law as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment would be to prove that the law was written to be enforced unfairly. That is, if it made sodomy illegal for only one specific group of people. It did not; the law made sodomy illegal for every citizen. Therefore, it could not reasonably be construed to violate our constitutional guarantee of equal protection. Add to that fact our State's Tenth Amendment protection from federal intervention, as well as the fact that our federal Constitution has never been amended to authorize the Supreme Court to make new laws or to reinterpret our Constitution in a manner inconsistant with the intent of its writers, and it's easy to see that our Supreme Court is flouting the very Constitution they've sworn an oath to uphold. Of course, this is nothing new; our Supreme Court has ignored our Constitution for dozens of years....but that should not make their unconstitutional actions in this case any less repulsive.

You state that a homosexual person "is one who is sexually attracted to others of the same sex." You then go on to claim that such sexual attractions are caused by a genetic birth defect, even going so far as to claim that only those with the homosexual birth defect are true homosexuals; that those who are attracted to persons of the same sex but lack the genetic defect are practicing a "deviant variation of perverted behavior." Of course, that would mean some who fit your definition of homosexuals aren't really homosexuals, wouldn't it? At any rate, while reading your proclamation that homosexuality is a birth defect akin to mental retardation, and your using this premise to base your statements, I found myself anxiously waiting to read your empirical data which prove your claim. It was a bit of a letdown to see that all your "facts" about the homosexual genetic birth defect were based upon nothing more than your belief: ("but I believe (through the persistence of science) this behavior will be proven to result from natural genetic variation.")
Well, maybe homosexuality will be proven by science to be the result of a genetic birth defect, and maybe it won't. In the meantime, we should stick to facts, eh?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: HOMOSEXUALITY -- fadwa, 13:47:01 10/09/03 Thu
- Re: HOMOSEXUALITY -- Frenze, 03:14:13 01/10/09 Sat
SO THERE IS NO PROOF THAT.... -- whitney (confused), 16:49:10 09/18/06 Mon