NC Amendment One - Gay Marriage Pro or Con?

[HairOfTheDog]

Normal has to have a baseline otherwise it would and could be called normal to eat the corn out of turds.

We have normal intelligence levels
normal cholesterol levels
normal rainfall amounts
normal temperatures
normal bodily functions
normal normal normal and yet we can't agree on what is normal as far as men and women are concerned.

I find that a bit odd.

Semantically, I think that your point is valid. Things that can be measured can be gauged and "normal" or "average" labels accurately applied. So, I can see the statement that it's normal to be attracted to the opposite sex and abnormal to be attracted to the same sex being accurate, lingusitically, if the average is defined by the majority. However, I understood you to be using "abnormal" to mean not right or unacceptable; you also appeared to be using "abnormal" synonomously with "unnatural". There, we disagree, even linguistically/semantically speaking.

"Unnatural" simply means going against nature. If one is born to naturally be attracted to the same sex and accepts that, it is natural for that person. If he/she rejects it, it's unnatural for that person. Penises fit into many orifices other than vaginas, of course, and vaginas don't require penises to be satisfied. So saying it's "biologically unnatural" to desire sex with someone of the same gender won't work either, unless your back to procreation being the only "natural" choice for everyone and the only reason for human sexuality. And, there, we'd have to agree to disagree.

Sally wrote: Financial benefits. If being gay is really a choice then why should they recieve the same benefits as a heterosexual married couple? You may as well give everyone the same tax breaks.

I agree that the organizational and financial impacts to legalizing gay marriage everywhere should be analyzed and addressed. These matters shouldn't stop gays from being allowed to marry, but the impact to beneficiary health care programs, for example, should be considered and adapted (if necessary) to minimze unanticipated costs and/or burden to the industry and those contributing to it. The impacts on tax revenues for an increase in "married/joint" households should also be analyzed and understood/anticpated by government and its taxpayers. But, these types of analysis needs to be done anytime a social law is passed or changed. Proactive change management is always prudent (yet seems to be handled much more efficiently in the private sector than the governmental sector, imo).