Originally Posted by
hydrotoxin
@Odlov,
While it's true that denying certain benefits to people based on something as seemingly arbitrary seems "unethical", think of it as a negative incentive of something that society as a whole still very much frowns upon. And for whoever mentioned the unconstitutionality of anti-homosexual laws, do you really think the law treats everyone equally? As much as some would like to think that the law views everything objectively and treats everyone with a general demeanour of egalitarianism, if everyone was equal in all respects, there wouldn't really be much of a need for those laws in the first place, would there?
And America will keep frowning upon homosexuality until the law gives homosexuals equal civil rights. Public opinion is
largely shaped by law. Until the law changes, bigots will use it as justification (and fuel), much like they use 'sacred texts' for the same purpose.
Redneck:
"Faggot marriage is illegal cuz it's a perversion, nd California law and GOD agrees wit me"
The whole purpose of "social development" thing is to minimize suffering and maximize efficiency. There is no serious drawback to letting gays marry, while not doing so would simply isolate a group and create unrest and hinder efficiency. From your posts it seems you think homosexuality is a strain of flu virus, that will just spread to everyone who grows up around gays. Clearly it's nonsense. Homosexuals are a minority, yet they were always present, even in societies who wouldn't even recognize that such thing existed (Soviet Union, for example). Hardwired sexual orientation > societal influence, always.