Similar claims can be made for tobacco smokers among others. Many people lead risky lifestyles, some for profit, some for entertainment, some for sexual pleasure. Some of those people are injured, killed, or have their health impaired because of their behavior. and sometimes the rest of us end up paying the bill for their behavior. Limiting someones rights because they are a subset of that group isn't a valid excuse for a Constitutional Amendment.
You haven't done anything to support a reason for why people shouldn't be allowed to live their lives as they please. You have only shown that you disapprove of people who have different sexual orientations than the norm. You have also shown that you believe your disapproval of their lifestyle is sufficent grounds to inhibit their pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.
In the long run their rights to those pursuits will prevail. Its only a matter of time.
That's indeed sad. But there aren't any organizations like GLSEN in the schools teaching kids to smoke tobacco. There aren't any television programs celebrating the homosexual lifestyle. There isn't anybody in the schools asking kids, how do you know you wouldn't like smoking if you've never tried it, as we have them asking kids the same question of homosexuality.
You haven't done anything to support a reason for why people shouldn't be allowed to live their lives as they please. You have only shown that you disapprove of people who have different sexual orientations than the norm. You have also shown that you believe your disapproval of their lifestyle is sufficent grounds to inhibit their pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.
You're not listening very well or you're poorly informed. AIDS targets homosexual behavior. That's a fact. AIDS is contagious and deadly and can contaminate the blood supply. When somebody tries to commit suicide we put them on 72 hour watch, so why don't you try to discourage a behavior that results in a deadly contagious disease?
In the long run their rights to those pursuits will prevail. Its only a matter of time.
Not when they try to push it off as some legitimate lifestyle that doesn't harm anybody, because it does. It can affect you and me. It can affect anybody.
There is no scientific evidence supporting any homosexual gene. None. You won't find any as it's all been discredited. All the evidence points to environment. Did you read that? The major factor behind homosexuality is environment. That means homosexuals can change. And the fact that thousands have left the homosexual lifestyle supports the environmental factor. Yeah, we should base rights on a behavior, and a behavior that can change. That's nonsense.
Why do you hate homosexuals so much you don't discourage this behavior that results in a contagious deadly disease?
Okay, your point is that some people CHOOSE to act in certain ways which are destructive because there' some pleasure involved. So those people therefore may suffer. Where does it follow that such people should enjoy special legal protection, thus allowing them "karma free" enjoyment? People choose poorly, let them take responsibility for their actions.
Some of those people are injured, killed, or have their health impaired because of their behavior.
Take drinking and driving. Such people not only (sometimes) kill themselves, but they kill OTHERS and therefore restrictions are put on such acts that adversely affect other people (i.e. society - which means LOTS of other people.)
and sometimes the rest of us end up paying the bill for their behavior.
If you're such a libertarian, why do you want to take responsibility for other peoples' destructive choices? I sure as he!! don't want to. It is neither right, nor kind.
Limiting someones rights because they are a subset of that group isn't a valid excuse for a Constitutional Amendment.
This statement is gobbledygook posing as rational speech. Whose rights are you talking about? And what rights? I suppose you mean the right of two men or two women to "marry". That is inventing "rights" out of whole cloth. Let's invent some more "rights" - I'd like the "right" to bulldoze my neighbor's house because they were mean to me. I'd like the "right" to make it so that no one will call me stupid or ugly. I'd like the "right" to marry my three cats, etc etc.
(The rest of your statements will be defeated in my next post.)
This radical "personal freedom to pursue untrammeled hedonism trumps over social good" philosophy is utopian and unworkable. No one can live life as they please". Ever heard of property taxes? Flu? Lice? Bad teeth? Taking care of elderly sick parents who are not in a good mood? Taking care of young children who aren't well-behaved? Etcetcetc.
You have only shown that you disapprove of people who have different sexual orientations than the norm. You have also shown that you believe your disapproval of their lifestyle is sufficent grounds to inhibit their pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness.
Why should someone whose pursuit of "happiness" involves recruiting children into homosexuality have the right to do so? This is not a rhetorical question.
Why would someone want to masturbate over something that didn't bring them sexual pleasure in the first place?
Just because an act gives some sexual pleasure does not enshrine said act as a worthy thing to do. No one is saying that people don't find any sexual pleasure in same sex acts. But sexual pleasure is not a yardstick to judge the worth of every human endeavor. Never has been, never will be. Except for the avowed hedonist. And a society composed of avowed hedonists is a society which will soon be chaos, then a very externally controlled society.