Replies

You're confusing what I report with what I personally prefer. And you are confusing your opinions (some of which I even share) with fact.

The fact is that the majority agree to abide by the rulings of the Supreme Court, even if they disagree with them, and that includes agreeing with the way the Constitution sets up for judicial review. That's an example of what I said - which is that laws codify the rules by which the majority agree to abide - not that laws codify majority opinion. It is not unusual to have laws that the majority of people don't really like, but with which they agree to abide anyway.

Taxes are an obvious example. The majority don't want to pay taxes, but they do it anyway. If the majority refused to send in their taxes, the whole system would break down, regardless of laws to the contrary, and the breakdown would be such that they couldn't really stop it with police, etc. Police are always a small minority of the population, and they have a chance only if a small minority of the population is breaking the law.

In fact, your comments reflect the success the homosexuals have in changing public opinion - which is then reflected in Supreme Court decisions. What difference does it make if homosexuality is inherent or a choice? Your argument already accepts their main contention, which is that sexual indulgence is a right, and the only question is whether the flavor of indulgence is a choice or unchangeable. Yet in stating your argument that you believe it is a choice, you make that the key issue, and they have already won.

They will draw a distinction between their 'orientation' and the 'choice' to do such things as pedophilia based on the very point you've already handed to them. If they can convince the majority that homosexuality is not a choice (and despite your opinion and the evidence of those who have changed their mind, by and large they've managed to convince the majority that it is not a 'choice' but intrinsinc) then they 'deserve' their 'right' to sexual happiness. Why?

Why isn't your argument that regardless of whether homosexuality is a choice or intrinsic, sexual relations should be limited to one man and one woman - next issue? Instead, by focusing your discussion on your opinion that it is a choice, your support their argument with everyone they've managed to convince it is not a choice.

And that is what I meant by saying the laws follow public opinion. They've managed to convince the majority that sexual indulgence is acceptable, and that homosexuality is inherent (despite your individual opinion to the contrary) and so they win in the courts.

Finally, you misrepresented my point on the Constitution to the point of speciousness. My logic is not that all those perversions should receive 'special rights'. I exactly and explicitly and unambiguously said just the opposite. My clearly stated point was that there is no Constitutional basis for refusing them the same secular privileges of other citizens. I did not and do not advocate 'special rights' for them.