The quote I posted is from the state court's opinion; not mine.
The court overturned a ban on homosexual marriage.
It’s not the individual part that’s the problem.
It is the problem. Equating individual sexual orientation as a race or gender issue is flawed simply because race and gender are determined by DNA. Homosexuality is an action. There is no homo gene, as much as the gay community would like to think so.
Also from the quote I posted, where is there a "fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship?"
It's just a truly absurd ruling.
As I said, the part about “the constitutional right to form a family relationship” is the more serious difficulty with the ruling.
It is not entirely irrational to judge equality of rights to individuals, but it makes no sense to project rights to a union of two individuals.
The studies put out are very deceptive, I assume intentionally. They show positive correlations and rely on people not understanding the difference between a positive correlation and a causal factor. I got into this big argument with one of my friends over this issue who insisted that the studies show their are certain genetic markers found in the majority of gays.
So, I had to resort to an obvious example and said “what if a study was done at the death row of a prison to determine if more murderers had blue eyes or brown eyes? One category of eye color would have more murderers. So what if more than half of the murderers have blue eyes? Does that mean that having blue eyes CAUSES one to be a murderer?”
She had to answer but still insisted so I pointed out that a study showing more blue eyed people are murderers is a study that shows a positive correlation between blue eyes and murder, not a study that shows that blue eyes is a causal factor. She went off from our walk in a tiff but has been nice to me since........LOL.
Even if there is a homo gene, it is still abnormal pathology. There is a gene for Parkinson’s disease too. People don’t choose to have Parkinson’s disease. But we treat it and we recognize it as a disease. We try to help people with it the best we can but we don’t say that it is natural and normal to have Parkinson’s because it’s not.