Quote:
Originally Posted by raytri";p="
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 justify their inclusion in that category on two fronts: One, the Pentagon legally considers homosexuality a mental illness and Two,
American Heritage Dictionary
mental illness
n. Any of various conditions characterized by impairment of an individual's normal cognitive, emotional, or behavioral functioning, and caused by social, psychological, biochemical, genetic, or other factors [/quote]
Quote:
|
I can't think of any objective criteria that supports a "derangement" exception to the rights enjoyed by all citizens.
|
Are the deranged permitted to vote or run for office? Or are they confined to an asylum? If anything Im going easy on the gays.
Quote:
|
So a second-class citizenship sort of solution. As a practical matter, how do you propose to stop them from forming voting blocs?
|
By not allowying them to vote.
Quote:
|
And what's the rationale for keeping them away from schools? Homosexuals aren't any more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals.
|
They are more likely to be pedophiles, the fact of the matter is that a man who is attracted to boys is not a heterosexual, he is a homosexual. Second, they impart there views and mores on impressionable children and further the gay agenda by affecting curriculum.
Quote:
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.
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?
|
Yes. I would have them classed not as citizens but "Legal Residents", and subject them to deportation if they commit criminal activities.
Quote:
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.
|
Perhaps. If they do not have gay quotas, and Im not convinced that they dont, they will soon. In the case that you are right, I did intend that to include discrimination laws.