If homosexuality is genetic then family members would be less free as well. Imagine children being teased about the vile tastes of their relatives. Remember, "You can't change your mind if you don't have one."
Many websites note that in the early 1970s the American Psychiatric Association removed homosexuality from its "list" of named mental illnesses. What they usually fail to note is that the removal was based on a vote of 58 percent of member psychiatrists. They leave out the percentage because they prefer to believe that it is a "scientific fact" that homosexuality is not a mental disorder. There is no such "scientific fact." The fact is that it was long believed to be a disorder and even at the removal 42 percent of trained psychiatrists believed it should stay on the list as named. An older term used was "over inclusion of fantasy in reality." Such an emotional problem can be a serious disorder. The most serious problems of over inclusion of fantasy in reality are from homosexuality.
One of the two main reasons people fail to see homosexuality is a disorder is that they don't understand how homosexuals are interfering with others. They don't understand how for example homosexual marriages damage the definition of marriage for others. Complicating that problem is one where it is believed that homosexual marriages must be allowed as the only means of establishing consequences for sexual behavior. That is to say that if homosexuals are disallowed to marry they believe that would signal no consequences for sexual activity and that would damage the definition of marriage. Comparing recent laws defining marriage and Lawrence v. Texas shows a legal system with no answer either way.
The solution is to acknowledge that homosexuality is a disorder and establish consequences based on that. If a customer in a restaurant stuffed mashed potatoes down his pants it would alarm the other customers and the restaurant staff. I worked in restaurants in my early days and late at night when a big concert let out some intoxicated people would go to the restaurant where I worked. Sometimes their behavior was alarming. If one of them vomited in the restroom, or anywhere else really, I would have been the one to clean it up. I never saw anyone stuff mash potatoes down his pants, but that would certainly be very alarming. By the same argument homosexual behavior is, or at least was, very alarming, abnormal behavior. Similar arguments apply. Are homosexuals or people stuffing mashed potatoes down their pants "interfering" with others?
What appears true in both cases is their questionable association with reality. It is imperative that it be recognized as a disorder. We need to be able to ask constabulary personnel to remove alarming people from social settings and expect it done. Neither allowing nor disallowing homosexuals to "marry" will solve or even address the real problem, which is that homosexuality is a mental disorder.
Until cultural inversion is recognized, the necessary alarms will not be restored. Homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, other unnecessary deaths and other traditionally alarming ideas really no longer alarm as they should.
One solution might be the "start early" approach. Cut the boys' hair and let the girls' hair grow long starting from the earliest childhood where that is possible. Establish and enforce special roles for males and females. It seems a very good idea. If I thought it would work I would certainly be for it. I can't tell you it won't work, it might indeed. I can tell you it hasn't worked in the past and why. Take a look back at the world when Rome overran the Holy Land. Rome was the first "civilization" to make short hair on males a widespread custom. At that time in the Holy Land males did not ordinarily wear short hair. The practical and perhaps widely understood reason being that soldiers cut their hair for the advantage it gave them in battle, and not for any other reason. The Holy Land was at that time in a comparatively high degree of civilization meaning that violence was not a central focus as it was in upstart Rome. In past debates when I say "upstart" Rome I get quizzical and doubting stares. "But Rome was a great civilization," it is argued. Rome was a great military power and that is not the same thing. Rome was yet another in a long chain of military powers that "overthrew" civilization. Yes, the Roman Colosseum had blended architecture from three different cultures at least, but remember they killed people for entertainment there.
The notion that long hair was "for" women did not take much hold in the civilized world till later. Compare the Old Testament and the last book of the Bible.
Homosexuality occurred in Rome far more frequently than in the Holy Land. No historian argues that. I did meet a man once who seemed to think it was relevant in this context to note that there was homosexuality in the Holy Land. When? He said to look at the story of Lot. Indeed there was homosexuality in the story of Lot, but that was before the Jews took control of the area. After the Jews took control of the area homosexuality was not allowed. And while the initial contacts with uncivilized people perhaps required more use of force, civilization eventually established itself and reduced its dependence on force. Much later when Rome entered the picture the Holy Land was quite civilized and yet not homosexual.
Comparisons between the conflict Rome had with the Holy Land and the modern trouble between the United States and the Holy Land are remarkable. The United States is a very godless country behind its tawdry, disorderly facade of religiousness. Life is cheap; abortion, euthanasia and the death penalty say so. And the United States is a great military power, even the greatest in the world as Rome was. The people in the Holy Land, although Muslims in this case, are in desperation believing their way of life is threatened. And their religious leaders have long hair.
Important to note in passing new laws that might make homosexual marriage the same as any other is that the Equal Rights Amendment has not yet passed. There are two reasons. If it had passed as worded judges would have to award custody of children to males and females and the military would have to enlist males and females on an "equal" basis. Because that has never seemed realistic ERA did not pass. Unfortunately few people realize it did not pass and of course have no idea why not. Nevertheless there are the facts. That does not mean the women are considered inferior. If anything it means they are superior since they can avoid taking custody in appropriate circumstances and can enlist in the military. If therefore the ERA cannot pass, and it should not, how can anyone say a homosexual marriage is the same as any other?
A widespread belief is that news of a homosexual marriage should be joyful, and failing to be joyful would be considered unkind. That is completely wrong. News of a homosexual marriage is not joyful, and the nicest, kindest thing to do is to advise against it.
Several states have passed or attempted to pass laws that would define marriage as being between a man and a woman or ban homosexual marriage. Notably among them is California's Proposition 8. By Ruling California's proposition 8 unconstitutional Judge Vaughn Walker has made it necessary to appeal the issue to a higher court, and it would appear inevitable that it will be heard by the Supreme Court, serving not only California, but the entire country from that point in a clear and unmistakable way.
The Sunday talk shows were in support of Judge Vaughn Walker's ruling against Proposition 8. There were wild claims that "science" showed that homosexual marriages were "successful" as were children with homosexual guardians or "parents."
The problem with such "science" is that it is duped by skewed results.
How skewed? Consider earlier "successful" homosexuals. They were probably "successful" in ancient Greece. They were probably "successful" in ancient Rome. And let's be honest here, that's because those societies did not persecute homosexuality.
The problem is that those societies were not civilized, they were the violent overthrowers of civilization.
Beginning perhaps in Sumeria civilizations were overthrown by the violent, uncivilized fringe populations. The new rulers in time became civilized themselves, civilization expanded, and the new wider fringe then overthrew it again. Sumeria, Babylonia, Assyria, Persia, then, and here is the key, Greece and then Rome overthrew civilization. The homosexuality in both Greece and Rome was contemporaneous with, not civilized society, but lawless newcomers. But the Roman army had to dismount before entering the city, isn't that a sign of a higher civilization? Yes, in the ancient world is a mix of civilized and uncivilized elements, and the newcomers did have some signs of civilization, but on the whole their very success was a result of an insufficiency of rules, counter intuitive as that might seem.
So, could uncivilized patterns of behavior in the world today exist and engender "successful" homosexuals and children in their care? Perhaps, but there is an immediacy of civilization here that is already causing problems that was far less trouble in slower, ancient societies.
The true science of the matter is that civilized societies governed by rules have not been as favorable to homosexuals. The long haired civilized Jews did not like the short haired violent Romans and even the Christians accused Romans of a reprobate mind. But it took quite some time for Rome to fall.
We have respect for real science, but most of the "science" of the left in America today is nothing but myths and fables made out of whole cloth to control people. They can't cure a cold or the flu, much less cancer; life did not begin when lightning struck mud; and in a world where people understand those things homosexuals might not be so "successful."
A story on the news today was about a divorced man who didn't want his wife to breast feed their infant child. I can picture the thoughts of the judge, "I went to law school, I made good grades, how did I end up here?" People often complain that they don't want the government in their bedrooms. There really isn't anything to worry about. The law does not want to be in their bedrooms. It never has and never will. It can't regulate you in your shower either. In can regulate you in public though. It can't guarantee your husband isn't having sex with other women. It can make it difficult. It can make private rooms difficult to get for people intending to have sex they shouldn't. It can regulate communications with sexual innuendo in many public settings such as the workplace. It can regulate pornography. It can regulate public nudity. It can call homosexuality a mental illness. Psychiatrists have done that as noted here. They can also call viewing pornography an addictive behavior, describe some people addicts, and recommend cures on the advice of concerned parties. <
Homosexuality was never allowed except in primitive, militaristic societies. It has only gained acceptance lately because of the large increase in military population, especially in the middle of the last century. A flawed plan to reduce acceptance of homosexuality has been to promote the military on the theory that the military is more "manly." Unfortunately that led to a massive government that nearly eliminated the need for marriage, and made the problem even worse. The real solution is as described here, recognizing homosexuality as a mental illness.
A most curious development of 2016 was the election of Donald J. Trump. Considerable confusion appears as to what national conservatism, fiscal conservatism and social conservatism mean. The Democratic Party did not appear to advance social conservatism and that probably was a factor in their defeat. Neither is the Democratic Party especially fiscally conservative, except perhaps in comparison to Bernie Sanders. The Trump administration however has not addressed the issues important to social conservatives yet, except that he would assure them his choice of Neil Gorsuch for Supreme Court will one day be any help. Trump's primary focus appears to be national conservatism to the exclusion of social and fiscal conservatism. A case in point is the movement of the American embassy for Israel to Jerusalem. Perhaps that was intended to placate the religious in the United States. Why it fails is that the secular state of Israel is not a religion and not as "religious" as its neighbors. Arabs have more conservative views of abortion, marriage, and homosexuality than the secular state of Israel.