Quote:
Originally Posted by Lukas-vonderPfalz";p="
I support restricting the ability of Homosexuals to further their agenda on the basis that they are mentally deranged, and mentally deranged persons don't have the same rights as normal persons.
|
Okay, but on what basis do you justify their inclusion in that category? Homosexuality is no longer defined as a mental disorder. They are not a danger to themselves or others. They are able to function in society -- indeed, where they are not crushed by discrimination, gay households are among the most affluent thanks to higher income (two male earners) and lower expenses (no kids, and the resulting flexible schedule that allows them to devote as much time as they want to their career). That suggests, BTW, that in a totally free society and free economy, homosexuals would have a competitive advantage.
I can't think of any objective criteria that supports a "derangement" exception to the rights enjoyed by all citizens.
Quote:
|
while they should not face criminal charges for the activity of homosexuality itself, they should not have a right to parade, they should not have any influence as a voting bloc or special interest lobbying group on politics, they should not be around children in schools and their lifestyle should not be taught as normal and acceptable to impressionable children in Social Studies classes.
|
So a second-class citizenship sort of solution. As a practical matter, how do you propose to stop them from forming voting blocs? And what's the rationale for keeping them away from schools? Homosexuals aren't any more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.
Quote:
|
I don't believe they should have a right to marry either, but I am against the government defining what marriage is. I suggest civil unions, as that gets them what they claim to want while at the same time getting the real intention, the in-your-face insult to religion, neutralized.
|
I doubt their main intention is to insult religion; maybe they just really want to be married. But here I think you and I agree: civil unions for all, marriage for those who want it and can get a church to sanction it.
Quote:
|
Also, I am staunchly for the Don't-ask-don't-tell method staying in place in the army, and it being extended to holders of political office and government jobs
|
Am I understanding you correctly? Are you suggesting that a politician who is revealed to be gay should be removed from office and forbidden from running again?
Quote:
|
as well as removing homosexuals from the Affirmative Action rolls.
|
As a practical aside, they aren't on any AA rolls. In some places they are protected from discrimination, but I'm not aware of any program that gives *preference* to gays in an AA sense.