I don’t see how or why sexual orientation deserves protection. It’s this weird equation of it as if it’s “born this way” when it’s not. On the topic of changing it it’s clear that in prisons, in an all male populace men will be more likely to sleep with each other, and with women the college lesbian is a thing.
If sex gets protection, so must sexual orientation, as being able to marry Susan entirely depends on your sex. So sayth the supreme court. Absolutely nothing to do with whether it is innate (though it is, as multiple studies have shown, and we've been over this before).
.... that you can find atheists who are anti-gay? I also specifically made mention that I don’t agree with them?
Why would I do this? It's you who put forward the stupid argument, so it's your job to fix it. I just blew up citing communists not liking it.
I mean I elaborated that men and women have natural differences between one another, that it doesn’t line up scientifically as something you are born with, what the purpose of marriage societally has been for virtually everyone, that the family should be seen as the fundamental building block of society, that gay marriage impacts all of that. Do recall you set the bar stupid low in that you just need a reason that isn’t purely religious to pass a law, btw. I could also easily say that a cultish devotion to libertarianism and liberty is a religion unto itself, if we say communism is.
Couple things wrong here.
First, what I was saying with the not only religious reason is that you needed that
at a minimum. The reasons still have to pass through other bars as well. It's not like the only part of the constitution is the first amendment. Second, you've just said that a bunch of stuff is true, but haven't even bothered to show the link between them and gay marriage. But I'll address them anyway.
So dealing with your objections:
Natural differences: So what? There's a ban on discrimination on the basis of sex, which extends to sexual orientation. In addition, under equal protection under the law, the same argument used to toss the Virginia interracial marriage bans, so must gay marriage bans fall.
At birth: Studies have repeatedly found that sexuality is pretty fixed by environmental factors, with some exceptions. Also, there isn't evidence able to show people changing sexuality on purpose. So this is crap as well, as it's deliberately cherrypicking an issue that's technically right, but for all practical purposes wrong. And I know you are doing this deliberately, because I've
pointed out you doing this before,
in this thread,
and you never, ever, actually contradict this, just dance around it. Finally, even if people chose their sexuality every day at 5am EST, this still doesn't allow escaping the
Bostock test.
What the purpose of marriage is (assuming you mean having kids): Given that sterile couples are allowed to wed, why not gays? Doesn't pass the smell test.
Family being the building block of society: Totally agree, that's why without one, LGBTs were dysfunctional, but as they've become more family oriented, they've become useful members of society. Alternatively, I could flop this and point out that people thought that many wrong things were the bedrock of society, from slavery (admittedly, that was true, it was society that was fucked up then) to only intraracial marriage being legal.
www.pewforum.org
