Religious and neocon radio host Linda Harvey said on her radio show on Mission America (look under "Supreme Court to Consider Marriage"), that since homosexuality is a "learned behavior," people don't naturally engage in that kind of behavior, thus, gays are not "people" according to the law and do not qualify as a "person" under the 14th amendment in the Constitution of the United States. Harvey also says that gay people are not "beneficial" to society. [note: that was the argument of eugenics. I think this is an appropriate place to pull Hitler out here. He said the same thing.] Harvey stated that:
“‘Person’ should be understood based on historic, beneficial, or at least neutral and fact-based traits; it should not be twisted to incorporate behavior that most religions and most cultures have said a firm ‘no’ to.
“It’s also behavior for which there’s no recognized science demonstrating a genetic or hormonal origin. And it’s also not beneficial and does not stand the definition of marriage, used for millennia – that is, the act of consummation. It’s another sad fact of homosexual behavior that two men or two women can never consummate a marriage; they can never conceive children together.”
[So, since my wife and I cannot have children, we should have not gotten married.]
One of the first steps to genocide is to declare a group of people as sub-human or a non-person.-James.
James, you and your wife can have children. By a miracle of god, like Abraham and Sarah, even tho they were both elderly at the time. And Sarah was Abraham's sister. Just don't do an Abraham and have a baby first with your wife's slave - no longer politically correct, although it would count as traditional marriage since it was Abraham who was running the show, although incest as traditional marriage is not something the christianists often discuss. Maybe Mrs. Harvey can weigh in on brother:sister marriage and polygamy as the christian tradition.
It's also a bit odd she thinks gay people cant consummate. Isn't that sex? Gay people don't have sex? I'm confused.
Whereas, even though god can create the heavens and the earth, divide the Red Sea, rain down frogs and grasshoppers on the Pharaoh and convert a loaf and a fish into enough for the multitudes, and convert water into wine, he can't make a baby for 2 gay guys, or 2 lesbians. Not natural. Or something.
It's pretty mean of Linda Harvey to not think that gays are at least, say, 3/5 human. The country has experience with that concept. But even tho "Linda" means "pretty", Mrs. Harvey is a famous harridan. And that's not pretty.
I can see it now: my sister announces she is pregnant with the child of her (female) spouse. Boy wouldn't that blow Mrs. Harvey's argument out of the water.
Our country also has experience with declaring people 0/5 of a person (natives). Result: Genocide, at least until Ponca Chief Standing Bear won his Supreme Court case making natives both people and citizens.
Maybe. But not likely. Poor Mrs. Harvey.
But in-vitro fertilisation is unGodly doncha know. I do not understand why two loving individuals, who happen to be the same sex, could ever threaten the stable marriage of a heterosexual couple. I just don't get it.
The only justification I can see for the position is religion, which has no place in secular law. If you take the religious argument out of opposition to same-sex marriage, there is no opposition left.
It is being done here at Texas A&M as we speak. Not with humans, of course, but with animals. It is the next step in our cloning research.
I think it is a matter of time...
Religious people will start crying if it does. Right after they stomp around and holler for it to be made illegal. When two women produce a child together, will it also not be a real person? The possibilities go on and on.
I think they would regard her as a real person. "Her" because no Y chromosome. Although there are challenges with the epigenetics, and it might be tragically unhealthy to do. Might even result in an entire new entirely male-free ethnic group.
I'm looking forward to meeting some humanzees. That will be equally interesting. What would Mrs. Harvey say about them?
How do we label marriages between any two of these: a pre-op tranny, a post-op tranny, an intersexual (hermaphrodite)?
Trannies are unGodly. Intersex should suck it up and behave in the manner their parents and physicians select for them shortly after birth.
In reality, the Bible has no answers to these questions of course, but the religious do not let piddlin' little things like their holy book get in the way of good rhetoric.
I say the neocons and Religious Reich types are not people. They have no empathy, they care for no one other than their own kind and they even snipe at THEM about the slightest disagreements in dogma. These people seem to be too much in it and and not much at all OF it.
I sure wouldn't want 'em as neighbors.
My neighbour the gun shop owner is okay (he's the fellow who lost his seat on the village board by a card deck cut). But he is quite the uber-neocon.
For every rule, there is an exception ... and for every exception, a rule. [shrug]