http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/03/25/us/ap-us-xgr-religious-objections.html
I say this only because in the past, this same political social movement wouldn't characteristically hide behind the language of a belief system, for instance, deciding that discrimination against some one of different sexual orientation because they had 'chosen' a given existence, but happenstance, in the age old racist/discriminatory view, such differences were so intrinsic as to define someone as being subhuman or not fully human. Of course, in the modern legal view of things, these views are easily challenged, put down, thrown out of courts, at least for a given modern view having embraced all manner of sciences, philosophy, and legal reasoning alone, it would seem guidance to better thought were not so much to greater ignorance.
It could be well reasoned that the phenomenological nature of sexuality is neither given in so clear cut binary ways as has been argued by many in the sciences, and what should be clear cut intrinsic human behavior defined by environment versus genetics is not a given, or at least in airing to the side of legal conservation, one at least argues the point that in such an age, of course, it is possible, that one's genetics may strongly play a role in describing, yes, sexual desires. It is, of course, the same role of genetics, that describe why some children despite best parents to break carbohydrate fixations, manage to find their children gravitating yet to such carbohydrates, or at least why, irrespective of parent's having certain predominant characteristics, find an odd duck of an offspring in the mix. Of course, conveniently in all other spheres of life, it seems more quickly one might find others embracing the notion, that yes, maybe I shouldn't be punished for the sin of consuming too many carbohydrates, or at least potentially I were born with more strongly predominant genetic characteristics that had one gravitating to certain preferences in life relative to others, and when so predominant, moving against the grain were essentially moving against the grain of one's biology. Obviously, and then there is much unstated about what preferences in life one shouldn't versus should have, and so much more potentially the freedom providing one's respect for the freedom of others, and such freedom in essence is given by the right to self existence.
Certainly if it is that the matter of behaviors of another inhibit or violate the freedoms of others, it seems legal tolerance should wane. Thus potentially violent genetic predispositions may neither be considered beyond the scope of legal tolerance in so far as personal actions. On the other hand, that a free democracy would tolerate the control and stricture on every day choice and preference of its own citizens, when such choices are neither given to impacting direct harm or clearly violating the rights of others is an anathema to free and democratic societies.
I hope in time our courts nationwide will only further bolster and affirm conservatively the rights of people irrespective of sexuality, its an affront stating that discriminating and restricting the rights of others should be a protected 'freedom'.
I say this only because in the past, this same political social movement wouldn't characteristically hide behind the language of a belief system, for instance, deciding that discrimination against some one of different sexual orientation because they had 'chosen' a given existence, but happenstance, in the age old racist/discriminatory view, such differences were so intrinsic as to define someone as being subhuman or not fully human. Of course, in the modern legal view of things, these views are easily challenged, put down, thrown out of courts, at least for a given modern view having embraced all manner of sciences, philosophy, and legal reasoning alone, it would seem guidance to better thought were not so much to greater ignorance.
It could be well reasoned that the phenomenological nature of sexuality is neither given in so clear cut binary ways as has been argued by many in the sciences, and what should be clear cut intrinsic human behavior defined by environment versus genetics is not a given, or at least in airing to the side of legal conservation, one at least argues the point that in such an age, of course, it is possible, that one's genetics may strongly play a role in describing, yes, sexual desires. It is, of course, the same role of genetics, that describe why some children despite best parents to break carbohydrate fixations, manage to find their children gravitating yet to such carbohydrates, or at least why, irrespective of parent's having certain predominant characteristics, find an odd duck of an offspring in the mix. Of course, conveniently in all other spheres of life, it seems more quickly one might find others embracing the notion, that yes, maybe I shouldn't be punished for the sin of consuming too many carbohydrates, or at least potentially I were born with more strongly predominant genetic characteristics that had one gravitating to certain preferences in life relative to others, and when so predominant, moving against the grain were essentially moving against the grain of one's biology. Obviously, and then there is much unstated about what preferences in life one shouldn't versus should have, and so much more potentially the freedom providing one's respect for the freedom of others, and such freedom in essence is given by the right to self existence.
Certainly if it is that the matter of behaviors of another inhibit or violate the freedoms of others, it seems legal tolerance should wane. Thus potentially violent genetic predispositions may neither be considered beyond the scope of legal tolerance in so far as personal actions. On the other hand, that a free democracy would tolerate the control and stricture on every day choice and preference of its own citizens, when such choices are neither given to impacting direct harm or clearly violating the rights of others is an anathema to free and democratic societies.
I hope in time our courts nationwide will only further bolster and affirm conservatively the rights of people irrespective of sexuality, its an affront stating that discriminating and restricting the rights of others should be a protected 'freedom'.
No comments:
Post a Comment