Why does something having a primarily

[Archaea]

genetic component necessarily convey the sentiment attaching a sense of entitlement for legal protection by virtue of that genetic condition?

The linkage doesn't necessarily follow in my mind.

[woot]

The idea is that if it's genetic, then discriminating against gays is as bad as discriminating against non-whites, women, cripples, ugly people, or anybody else that can't help what they are. There actually is some indication that there is a genetic component to homosexuality, but I don't think it matters whether it's nature or nurture. Discriminating against someone on the basis of sexual orientation is just unenlightened thinking.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by woot

The idea is that if it's genetic, then discriminating against gays is as bad as discriminating against non-whites, women, cripples, ugly people, or anybody else that can't help what they are. There actually is some indication that there is a genetic component to homosexuality, but I don't think it matters whether it's nature or nurture. Discriminating against someone on the basis of sexual orientation is just unenlightened thinking.

Why? Because progressives say so?

I'm not a big rights guy and telling that a French philosopher decided it be so, and to be like him, we must join him isn't overly persuasive to me.

Why does the field of expanding the protected group under 1983 benefit us?

Color? People were made slaves on that basis. Not good. A child can see that.

Gender? Yes, this makes sense.

Creed? Lots of rampant horrible stuff on that basis, so it will stop a lot of bloodshed.

Then we get age.

Short people. Fat people. Tall skinny people. Midgets.

Sexual orientation.

When does the segmentation of society stop? An argument that 'you gotta do it to be on the in crowd" doesn't really work for me. People should follow me, not vice versa.

[malapert]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Why? Because progressives say so?

When does the segmentation of society stop? An argument that 'you gotta do it to be on the in crowd" doesn't really work for me. People should follow me, not vice versa.

There is validity to woot's distinction. But, Arch asks a salient question, where does it end?

The slope gets mighty slippery when the law is employed mandating behavior and establishing legal consequences. More laws, more compliance with the concomitant regulatory rules and more morality cops enforcing these laws cannot be a good thing.

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by woot

The idea is that if it's genetic, then discriminating against gays is as bad as discriminating against non-whites, women, cripples, ugly people, or anybody else that can't help what they are. There actually is some indication that there is a genetic component to homosexuality, but I don't think it matters whether it's nature or nurture. Discriminating against someone on the basis of sexual orientation is just unenlightened thinking.

Is it possible that the main distinction in the gay marriage argument is not whether discrimination should exist, but exactly what defines discrimination?

I'm on the fence on the gay marriage issue, but it seems logical to me that saying marriage is something to be limited to a man-woman coupling isn't discrimination, so long as it doesn't provide benefits not afforded to same-sex couplings.

If that makes any sense at all...

[MikeWaters]

Who says being gay is "primarily" genetic?

Genetic + in utero conditions + birth order + early formative experiences

If this all is true, not much of it involves any choice. Yet it isn't necessarily "primary genetic".

[SeattleUte]

All they want is equal treatment. They don't want special status. It's heterosexuals who want special status. Why is this so hard? They want the right to marry like you have. They want no more, no less than you have.