That some researchers have pointed to epigenetics--how genes are expressed--as a basis for homosexuality does not mean that those scientists are arguing that homosexuality is a "birth defect."
True.
The valid scientists in the matter employing the scientific method presented the epigenetic etiology of homosexuality, which, so far, after many months, has not met with
any rational and scientific conjecture.
Then, when it was
crystal clear that what they are describing is the
same situation that created other known birth defects only with a different set of epi-markers, the birth defect reality of homosexuality
was obvious.
The scientists did not need to speak the
obvious, nor was it politically prudent at this time for them to do so.
Scientific research and theories should not be perverted beyond the scientific basis.
But that's just what
you are doing here.
You're taking an
obvious reality and denying it, perverting the correct conclusion based solely on your ideology.
In terms of practicality, normally-functioning people (people who can meet the "reasonable person" test under the law) should be afforded exactly the same protections under the law that are afforded to all other persons. Equal protection does not mean equal for some, but not others. By definition, that is unequal protection.
Equal protection does not apply here.
Would you give equal protection to a cat owner who insisted on entering his cat in a dog show?
Of course not, as the matter isn't yet one of equality, because before the equality test can be applied, the definitive propriety of the terms must be scrutinized .. and when you do that, you find that the cat owner's request is invalid, as a cat is simply not a dog .. so the issue never rightly moves on to the equality test.
Same is true here with respect to topical relevance. Before the equality test can be applied, the definitive propriety of the terms must be scrutinized .. and when you do that, you find that an SS couple's request for marriage is invalid, as a marriage is "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" .. so the issue never rightly moves on to the equality test.
As the cases that made it to the Supreme Court are legally sound, it is more likely than not that the Court's decision to be released tomorrow morning will take a step toward greater equality under the law with the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) being found to have violated the U.S. Constitution's protections. There is a smaller possibility that a somewhat broader ruling could be offered. Almost certainly, the parsed arguments by DOMA's backers that any person is free to marry--just of the opposite sex--won't be a relevant factor in the decision.
How a case is argued has no bearing on relevant realities.
Homosexuality remains a birth defect no matter what the SCOTUS decides on DOMA .. and "marriage" remains "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", as it has for over 12,000 years since the agricultural revolution, isolated pocketed violations notwithstanding and, obviously, unjustifiable to redefine "marriage", no matter what the SCOTUS decides on DOMA.
As you know, wrong decisions have been made under political and popular pressure.
In the wake of the decision, barriers for expanding the legal franchise of marriage will have been reduced. That reduction of barriers will not in any way harm my marriage or that of any other person who already enjoys the legal ability to marry in any way. In short, greater legal inclusiveness will benefit those who have not previously been included, while causing no harm to others' marriages. If some are psychologically unprepared to accept a step toward equality, that's not society's problem and it certainly is not sufficiently compelling to preclude the expansion of the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.
Your supposition and premises as to why many are adverse to "marriage" of SS couples is somewhat erroneous and completely irrelevant.
What matters is that "marriage" isn't and has never been anything other than "a man and a woman as husband and wife".
Though SS couples are constitutionally entitled to equal protection in their domestic partner civil unions, they simply cannot rightly call those domestic partner civil unions "marriage".
I would recommend the term "homarriage".
P.S. One of the papers you cite to back your argument (Rice, Friberg, and Gavrilets, "Homosexuality as a Consequence of Epigenetically Canalized Sexual Development," The Quarterly Review of Biology, December 2012, pp.343-368) and cite in another thread, does not use such terms as "abnormal," "defect," or "birth defect" in describing the authors' theory. Transposing such terminology does not reflect the paper nor science contained within it.
I, obviously, am doing no "transposing" of terminology.
In the "Homosexuality Is A Birth Defect Thread", my posts near the end of that thread simply illustrated how adding up all the factors involved leads to the
unmistakable consclusion that the epigenetically inculcated condition of homosexuality is
most certainly a birth defect, about which
no debater could
rationally refute.
This thread is about the impending decision on SSM, NOT about theories of homosexuality. Please stay on topic or consequences will occur.
