Indeed. It seems that same-sex marriage is proposed to be a civil right on the same footing as interracial marriage, a/k/a miscegenation, which until fairly recently was "illegal" in many states. The conclusion we are supposed to draw from this: One cannot be held responsible for the way one was born; i.e., for one's gender or race. Equal justice/civil rights, therefore, have to be blind to such considerations.
Thus the argument that one cannot be held responsible for an accident of birth relating to gender, any more than one can be held responsible for being born black. But this line of reasoning seems specious to me. Race and gender are not equivalent — especially when "gender" is being self-defined; i.e., is therefore not a purely natural fact.
To put it another way, a black man is not the one who gets to decide whether he's black.
It has been noted that "freedom from responsibility [is] the most highly valued freedom of all" [Theodore Dalrymple, a frequent contributor to National Review and a psychiatrist, in his book Admirable Evasions.]
The "born with it" argument is premised in the attempt to assert the moral equivalency of apples and oranges....
Or so it seems to me, FWIW.
Thank you so much for writing dearest sister in Christ — and for your kind words of support.
The “born with it” argument is premised in the attempt to assert the moral equivalency of apples and oranges....
It’s true some idiots are indeed born idiots.....
BUT they can choose to become less of an idiot... or more..
Being human is all about choice....
Some men can act like women, some are good at it..
Some women can act like men, few are good at it..
What you do with your groin is also a choice...
Reality can care less what you choose...
What is..... “IS”.... What isn’t....... “ISN’T”...
***