On Illogical Judicial Rulings Regarding Homosexuality

The June 2015 controversial decision by a divided (5-4) Supreme Court to invent (basically out of nothing) a constitutional "right" to so-called homosexual "marriage" won't be the last word on the subject. The ideologically based, politically biased decision, which basically puts heterophobic homosexuals on the same level as normal heterosexuals, so flies in the face of reason that it will eventually be overturned by more intelligent, less biased judges.

Five pro-homosexual judges basically just got on their high horses and autocratically decreed, with no logic to back them up, that homosexual "marriage" was equal to heterosexual marriage and should be treated equally under the law. In other words, five pro-homosexual justices imposed their pro-homosexual prejudices on the country; five justices let their prejudices and ignorance prevail over reason.

Their decision is so absurd it almost rivals the absurdity of a previous Supreme Court's decision on slavery, the so-called "Dred Scott Decision." In both cases, you have bigoted justices imposing their (different) prejudices on the general public. The 2015 decision is so illogical that it seems to be motivated by little more than strong animus against decent, moral people. Let's recall who appoints Supreme Court Justices (they are appointed by politicians); and let's recall who gives big bucks to politicians so they can get elected (for example, millions of dollars are given to politicians by sleazy Hollywood actors, actresses, producers, directors, by some morally challenged businessmen who expect political favors in return, etc., etc.); and let's note that the credibility of politicians in this country has been embarrassingly low for years. If we wind up with some morally challenged judges who are essentially liberal bigots trying to impose their liberal prejudices on everyone, we shouldn't be surprised. The justices' ridiculous decision on homosexual "marriage" won't end the debate on homosexuality, just like a controversial decision on abortion by a previous Supreme Court didn't come close to ending the debate on abortion. The truth will eventually win out.

The world these justices are trying to create is so upside-down and backward that decent, moral people are now being discriminated against, penalized, and made into criminals merely because they didn't cater to the immoral! For example, businesses that don't want to rent apartments to openly homosexual people or businesses that don't want to provide wedding cakes for homosexuals have been discriminated against and penalized in some perverse, extremist states. Liberal bigotry and discrimination are now quite alright with the benighted "politically correct" crowd. Hypocrisy reigns.

The Supreme Court's offensive decision on homosexual "marriage" will ultimately be reversed by better minds. (It's offensive because---just like millions of black people are offended when liberals compare them to sexual deviates, when liberals compare their fight for freedom to the homosexual fight for sexual license---so decent and moral people are offended when people compare homosexual "marriage" to heterosexual marriage. That's one bogus comparison, kind of like comparing or equating morality with immorality.) It's just a matter of time before this bizarre decision is overturned. Until then, we need to keep fighting the good fight.

And another truly bizarre decision (in the case Bostock v. Clayton County) the Supreme Court made in 2020 is this beauty: The court somehow decided that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act protects gay and transgender workers from being fired on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity.

To try and rationalize that quaint decision the court majority oddly wrote: "We agree that homosexuality and transgender status are distinct concepts from sex." Hey! So far so good! There are obviously only two true human sexes: males and females. Transgenders and heterophobic homosexuals are clearly not "sexes" or "different sexes" (transgenderism and homosexuality are obviously disorders).

But then the court majority goes on to bizarrely maintain that "discrimination based on homosexuality or transgender status necessarily entails discrimination based on sex." What? Hello! Patently false! It's not "discrimination" based on sex. It's "discrimination" based on the fact that a sane society logically treats disorders and disordered behaviors differently than non-disorders and non-disordered behaviors. Generally speaking, a sane society does not normalize and enable disorders and disordered behaviors. A sane society discourages disordered behavior, immoral behavior, illegal behavior, etc. A sane society tries to fix or cure disorders. The geniuses on the Supreme Court who are behind this pro-homosexual and pro-transgender decision don't seem to recognize the difference between disordered behavior and "normal" non-disordered behavior, and also seem to conflate "sex" (males and females) with disorders (homosexuality and transgenderism).

It is quite one thing to hire a person with a homosexual orientation who does NOT engage in disordered homosexual behavior because the person deems it wrong, especially if that person is in therapy to try to change their orientation to a heterosexual one; and it is a VERY DIFFERENT THING to hire a person with a homosexual orientation who admits to engaging in disordered homosexual behavior, especially if that person publicly takes PRIDE in engaging in disordered homosexual behavior. The former can easily be justified because the person isn't doing anything wrong, while the latter clearly cannot be justified because the person IS doing something wrong (the person is irrationally and immorally treating disordered behavior as if it was non-disordered or "normal" behavior). The majority on the Supreme Court cannot see the obvious difference, and cannot see that it is NOT "discrimination" based on sex (however they define "sex" in their seemingly confused minds).

There are people who unfortunately have disorders (e.g., sadists, masochists, exhibitionists, pedophiles, coprophiliacs, necrophiliacs, etc., etc., etc.). If a doctor was to treat a disorder, like cancer or diabetes or claustrophobia, as if it was a non-disorder and as if it was a normal or healthy thing---in other words, if a doctor found (say) cancer in a patient and did NOT tell the patient he/she has cancer because the doctor did NOT view cancer as a disease that needs to be treated---that doctor would be unethically and irrationally malpracticing and should lose his/her license. The geniuses on the Supreme Court want to force businesses to immorally and irrationally enable disorders by forcing businesses to hire people who immorally and irrationally insist on engaging in disordered behavior (homosexual behavior and transgender behavior). Bostock v. Clayton County is another ridiculous decision that will eventually be overturned by wiser, less biased judges.

And while we're on the subject of odd judicial decisions, some judges have actually ruled that a state's sodomy laws are unconstitutional if those laws only target homosexual sodomy and not heterosexual sodomy. Those judges apparently are not discerning enough to see a significant difference between the two.

Next I suppose those "brilliant" judges will rule that a French kiss between a non-blood-related man and woman is no different than a French kiss between an adult brother and adult sister or a French kiss between a father and his adult son/daughter or a French kiss between two men or a man French kissing a little girl or, to get a little ridiculous---and to illustrate the absurd with the absurd---a human French kissing an animal. Clearly, not all French kisses are equal, even if the physical features of them---lips on lips, tongue in mouth---are identical. Similarly, not all sodomitic acts are equal either.

There are big and obvious differences between heterosexual activity and homosexual activity (and incestuous activity and pedophilic activity and human-animal sex). We seem almost forced to conclude that judges who cannot see those obvious differences must be blinded by pro-homosexual prejudices. Why else would they make such irrational and ridiculous declarations? Why else would these regressive judges be trying to take this country back thousands of years to the primitive Roman and Greek societies which ignorantly valued homosexual activity? Pro-homosexual judges are a national embarrassment. Talk about being on the wrong side of history! Unreal.

Incidentally, we do not mean to imply by the above that we recommend heterosexual sodomy. To the contrary. The anal cancer rate for homosexuals is way above normal because of homosexual sodomy (and because of HPV---human papillomavirus). Sodomy can damage the anus and rectum. We are just stressing the difference between heterosexual sodomy and homosexual sodomy, and stressing that heterosexual activity is not illegalizeable---generally speaking---while homosexual activity is definitely illegalizeable as we explain cogently in the section of our website titled "The Case Against Homosexual Activity."

One last relevant point here: A couple things may help to explain why there are so many irrational extremists running the Democrat Party and so many irrational extremists on the Supreme Court (who were appointed by extremist Democrats). Number one is a truism famously stated by Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." And number two is a fact pointed out in an article in Psychology Today, which fact others have noted in the past, and which fact is that "people with mental disorders so easily rise to positions of power" (Steve Taylor, "In the Seat of Pathocracy," Nov./Dec. 2019, p. 28).

Some people with mental disorders are strongly driven by their psychological demons to acquire power and influence. Psychologically normal people are not so obsessively driven (though we should all humbly keep in mind that none of us are perfectly "normal" or perfectly anything). In a way, that explains why the so-called "silent majority" are silent. They are not obsessively driven, like so many psychologically disturbed people, to protest, and/or to fanatically try to change society, and/or to get elected to political offices, and/or to acquire great wealth and influence and power.

Normal or non-disordered people are at a huge disadvantage in life to some psychologically disturbed people because normal people don't have the neurotic energy and motivation that comes with certain psychological demons. For example, to overcompensate for a nagging feeling that something is wrong with them some homosexuals feel a powerful urge to prove to everyone that they are at least as "good" as, if not better than, more normal or non-disordered people, and so they strive very hard to be successful at work or to be successful at politics, etc. Unfortunately there are plenty of people who work and there are plenty of politicians and there are plenty of rich people who are not "good," who are not moral. This advantage, this powerful energy, that some psychologically disturbed people have, helps explain how people like Stalin and Hitler rise to power, and helps explain how certain corrupt politicians in this country rise to power. That's just an unfortunate fact of life.