The 5-4 Supreme Court decision in favor of gay marriage was too close for my taste: I predicted 6-3. Too many decisions are being decided by that 5-4 vote—a serious sign of political polarization in the highest court of the U.S. And the problem is that the conservative justices show no sign of retiring, while many of the liberal ones are old. At least Hillary will be around to fill any vacancies.
In this week’s Secular Sermon, brother Tayler discusses the reaction to the court’s ruling in his Salon piece, “Let’s kick God off the Court: Marriage isn’t the only place where the law has been infected by religion.” It’s larded with telling quotes, from the Justices and others. Thomas’s and Scalia’s opinions were particularly invidious:
The dissenters, led by Justice John Roberts, presented their counter-argument. Roberts worried that “stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept.”
. . . Justice Samuel Alito announced that, “Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed.”
Justice Antonin Scalia, a hard-line Roman Catholic, joined Roberts in objecting to the ruling. In his telling, “The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie.” Well, to a rationalist, talismanic reverence for his cult’s holy book looks a lot like belief in fortune cookies. No one should take either seriously.
Justice Clarence Thomas bizarrely reasoned that “human dignity cannot be taken away by the government” – even by, say, chattel bondage. “Slaves,” he held, “did not lose their dignity (any more than they lost their humanity) because the government allowed them to be enslaved . . . . The government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away.” This from a justice so faith-deranged he isn’t sure the First Amendment should do what it is supposed to do – prevent the government from establishing an official religion.
Seriously? The government can neither bestow nor remove dignity? What was the 1964 Civil Rights Act all about? Thomas has always been a lost cause, but, following Scalia, I see that the man has either totally lost it or hid his religious delusions much better earlier in his term. As for Alito, I’m not sure why he considers this an “abuse of authority”. Marriage is, in the U.S. a matter of law, and the law must ultimately adjudicate who can get married. That it did so in the right way, despite the split vote, is a testimony on how fast public opinion can change when what is right is so obvious.
To those who oppose gay marriage, I say this: Is it really hurting you? What does an opponent have to lose if two homosexuals get married? I suppose they could say it could lead to the dissolution of society, but that’s clearly not the case.
No, the ultimate objection must be a religious one—or a feeling that gay marriage is somehow “unnatural.” But it’s unconscionable to run America based on religious dictates, and we’ve progressed beyond the point where we should equate naturalness with rightness. To my mind, a consequentialist one, “rightness” is largely (à la Sam Harris) what increases the well being of society. And clearly allowing people who love each other to have the same marriage rights as everyone else is good for society.
Tayler goes on, recounting the predictably negative reactions of religionists and the sour-grapes journalism by people like Rod Dreher, and reaches an eminently sane conclusion:
What ultimately transpires through all the Christian objections to the Supreme Court’s decision is their mean-spiritedness. Recourse to rancid old myths and “divine” injunctions that would be laughable were they not so pernicious only makes our days on Earth less pleasant, less livable. Some context: In some 5 billion years, our sun is destined to die in a supernova, which will incinerate whatever life remains on our planet. In the extremely improbable event that we humans still exist then, we will have evolved beyond anything recognizable as human today; evolution never stops, never slows. Our habits, customs, and laws need to evolve too.
Some astro-nitpicking: Our Sun isn’t going to die as a supernova but will instead expand and bloat out as a red giant, which is a comparatively gentle event. I’ve read that the planets may even still remain in their orbits from within this glowing red envelope. The details can be argued about, but the point is that Sun is never going to explode.
I’m afraid things are worse than you think. The Sun is getting hotter and brighter at the rate of about 10% every billion years, as it burns up its supply of hydrogen fuel. In less than two billion years, the Earth will be too hot for liquid water to exist. Since liquid water is the one absolute pre-requisite for life, this is bad news.
Worse than I think? Oh, I never meant to imply that life will be fine and dandy as the Sun continues to evolve, only that there is a huge difference between a red giant and a supernova!
I believe you’re right, but geckzilla has a point, the Sun won’t die in a supernova. And hey, on the bright side, we’ve probably got at least another billion years to figure out an escape plan. Unless we manage to do ourselves in before that (Umm, so much for the bright side, I guess).
http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Lectures/vistas97.html
Actually it’s worse than that.
Because the main greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapour, things will rapidly heat up long before we reach the boiling point of water. The drying out could only be a billion years away. But still long before the Sun gets anywhere near going ‘red giant’. Supernova isn’t going to happen without adding at least a solar mass to the central solar system. Which isn’t an event the Earth is likely to see finish.
Tayler is recirculating an old tidbit as an upper bound for when the planet is inhabitable. A more precise date is found by observing the atmosphere CO2 fugacity (roughly, partial pressure) vs erosion rates due to increased solar irradiation. (As the Sun traverses the main sequence towards the red giant phase.)
In 0.5 – 1.5 billion years or so the atmosphere CO2 content will go below what plants need. At that point all complex multicellular life will go extinct with these primary providers.
The evolution of so called swansong biospheres, where prokaryotes will eke out a life in crustal refugia, is an active area of research in astrobiology. The interest comes from the possibility to estimate habitability in the galaxy, in which case biosphere lifetimes goes into the models.
“Swansong biospheres”–what a concept!
You know, I couldn’t think of an example of an SF ‘swansong biosphere’ when I started typing. Barsoom.
There are many limits (theoretically), but I have heard that the CO2 may be the nearest end point for earth, but not necessarily human beings (as we have shown, already that we can leave).
Supernova, no. This is one of the few things Taylor has ever gotten wrong.
That’s horrifying, I had no idea we had so little time. Jebus, maybe only 500 million years!
Fear not. 500 million years is not so bad. That could be time for us to evolve toward a simpler form, like amoebi and parimecii. When that happens, we will approach our tragic end with soulless equanimity.
Reblogged this on Fairy JerBear's Queer World News, Views & More From The City Different – Santa Fe, NM and commented:
Well worth reading…
What we should be doing with every court decision is talking about Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Keagan. Without these four sane individuals that no one seems to notice, we would all be well on our way back to the Dark Ages.
Why waste so much time and ink on those other mostly extremely poor judges and even worse individuals. The vote on the marriage issue, by the way, went our way so lets spend time saying good job to the winners.
The only thing that can be done about the losers is hope for bad health and early retirement.
+1
Yep
Justice Samuel Alito announced that, “Today’s decision shows that decades of attempts to restrain this Court’s abuse of its authority have failed.”
Hey jackass, I have two words for you: Citizens United. You have lost your restraint and abused your authority long before this ruling.
Two mord words Mark R — Hobby Lobby. In what universe was that judicial restraint?
+1
I can only assume Alito uses “restraint” in some sort of technical sense to mean “refrain from doing things I don’t like”.
precisely
Yeah, it would appear as though the court is only reactionary and in need of restraining when Alito is the author of a dissenting opinion.
I think it comes down to gay people make these people feel icky. They think only in terms of gay sex and that to them is gross. They developed this ick factor because religion emphasized it and then made it okay for them to become bigoted. They’d prefer if people just stayed in the closet so they didn’t have to think about all the ickiness. They need to make some gay friends.
To me it says something about their minds and characters that the only thing they can think of when it comes to two people in a same-sex relationship, is how they have sex. It also says to me that if that is what they dwell on, they are not capable of a normal relationship where they see their partner as an equal.
More often than it says anything about gay sex, the Bible tells us a kid (goat) should not be cooked in its mother’s milk. As the Bible clearly considers this more worthy of comment and therefore more important, it’s time religion focused on that vital matter.
They do focus on what other people are doing behind closed doors a lot. Think about all the comments they make about women having access to birth control or abortions. I think they feel that only they are allowed to have sex.
I don’t ask my ‘straight’ friends what they do in their bedrooms, so I don’t see why I should worry, or comment, about what my gay friends do in theirs.
I used to live a few blocks from an abortion clinic. It was regularly picketed by anti-abortion fruitcakes. One day I was walking past and one of them tried to force a pamphlet into my hand. I started to brush past him and he said “aren’t you curious about our position?” I replied “the only thing I’m curious about is why you are so obsessed with other peoples’ sex lives”. His jaw dropped as if I’d hit him and he backed away.
🙂
I work very near an abortion clinic (our parking lots share a border), and next to it is a “New Life” center, a.k.a crisis pregnancy center. There are frequently protesters in front of the clinic, praying, and asking anyone entering to reconsider their decision.
A couple weeks ago some local idiot phoned in a bomb threat, and we were confined to our building most of the morning.
Who knew I was observing biblical dietary rules? No desire ever to break the baby goat and the milk rule. Now tell me which fabric I’m not supposed to wear biblically. If it’s polyester, I’m in good shape, despite my disbelief and disinterest. Only care that it is used to make people suffer.
Or to at least not think about what consenting adults do behind closed doors. It’s not like there’s a big gay orgy and the Supreme Court is invited.
But if there is, I probably won’t think about it. At least not too much.
Tubby ” It’s not like there’s a big gay orgy and the Supreme Court is invited…. But if there is, I probably won’t think about it. At least not too much”
There is nothing like a good laugh to clear the morning head and THAT made me laugh.
For the humour value some of these people seem so repressed it would probably not hurt for them to attend such an event.
Recently two apparently straight men (work related) with families have outed themselves and are full on trans-gendered, so I ask, can you be sure about anyone’s orientation but your own and only if your honest and comfortable with who you are.
I think it comes down more to knowing that gay marriages threaten the idea of male dominance, which threatens the whole structure of the conservative faiths.
I’m sure the whole pater familiasidea is wrapped up in there. How can it not with Christianity?
That does seem to be fairly typical, and it has always puzzled me. It seems to me that every gay male reduces the competition for females. Macho males should be encouraging other males to be gay!
I said that once to an otherwise broad minded work mate. But unfortunately I think the ick factor had him, and his wife, by his description.
The other thing is that, despite this supposed patriarchy and male dominance everywhere, where more available females would translate, directly, as a benefit, such is not the case, and it is far more complicated than simple numbers. And difficult, such that, that argument doesn’t seem to work.
Ah, but don’t forget the threatening lesbian unions!
Othering is also a factor. Why are you a woman and I a homosexual? Why are we not simply citizens with equal rights?
If we are all equal citizens who work, pay taxes and vote, why do we need to be subcategorized?
As a woman I think I’m usually put in one of two categories: fuckable or unfuckable. I think when you age and reach the latter, you may be further sub categorized. Other img is something humans do really well, especially around sex.
Actress’s last fuckable day.
http://tinyurl.com/pvkmm7f
Yeah that’s a good one. I believe Jerry posted it as well.
Ah yes, the categories that great legal mind Clarence Thomas once used to classify Anita Hill. And the more strenuously Ms. Hill objected to being treated under the rubric of such classification the more the republicans found Thomas qualified as SCJ.
Are you saying that all women under a certain age are fuckable and that then after a certain age they become unfuckable?
Such that, the ‘only’ characteristic any women, up to said age, is evaluated by, is fuckability?
That seems to be the implication if there are only two categories delineated by ‘when you age and reach the latter’.
I think I disagree.
Get a second X chromosome and think again.
No, all women at any age are typically categorized as “fuckable” or “unfuckable”. It’s interesting to have this said to you by strangers as well in the street.
Once you begin to age, you become less and less fuckable so you slowly migrate into the “unfuckable” category. Of course, these categories are not certain since different people categorize differently. But, ultimately these are the main categories when dealing with women. My own experiences as a young woman working in IT include being chastized by a manager about how my hair was “horrible” because I had cut it. He never went on and on like that to the males. I told him I wasn’t there to look pretty for him. It didn’t go over well.
Been there: I wore slacks, rather than skirts, in one training location, and when urged to change, I said he’d have to pay for the stockings, as they weren’t on my budget as a trainee. That also didn’t go over well.
What about those who don’t work and don’t pay taxes?
Why indeed?
You’ve changed your screen name. 🙂
I’ve got two 😀
How merveilleux is that?!
I created this new one after we got the place in Southwest France 🙂
You do life with great style. Must visit your blog again soon.
When it ends, that’s it, so I’ve got to drink and eat and laugh as much as I can meanwhile!
Yeah, but gay or straight, who’d want to be friends with Thomas, Alito, Scalia or Roberts? That’s not exactly the cool kids table in the lunch room if you ask me.
I, for one, and that the least number of people the Constitution was created to protect, appreciate the SC’s decision and your agreement with it. Calling God-based religions what they are, cults, may horrify to some, but clarifying to others. My son’s homosexual marriage at which I officiated has not effected my marriage to the woman I adore. It has only brought our family closer and increased the love we have to share.
So Justices Alito, Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts, blow it out your asses.
geoffrey stone, university of chicago law professor, calls out scalia, thomas, alito, and roberts on their hypocrisy.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geoffrey-r-stone/the-same-sex-marriage-dec_b_7679502.html
The only way I can even begin to make sense of Thomas’ claim that “…the government cannot bestow dignity, and it cannot take it away” is with some kind of Kantian interpretation. Kant seemed to think that rational agents (beings with free will and self-conscious desires) have a kind of inherent value (as opposed to instrumental value) because they are rational agents. This inherent value is sometimes referred to as “human dignity.”
The idea (not unlike that of moral right) is that your dignity cannot be bestowed or removed by others. You will possess it as long as you’re a rational agent. Some argue that moral right are like this also. For example, your liberty can be forcibly taken from you, but not your right to liberty.
Anyway, I don’t know if this is Thomas’ reasoning.
Yeah, I was thinking that (though I am far too uncultured to know it was Kantian). So human beings who are chained, abused, and denied basic human rights need no protection prescribed in law since they already have as much dignity as the next person.
Good to know.
Kant would not agree with Thomas’ conclusion though (e.g. your 2nd sentence above). I believe Kant would conclude that the role of government in this case would be to protect those whose inherent worth (human dignity) is being trampled on by administering punishment to those who do the trampling.
So if Thomas is using some sort of Kantian reasoning it seems he draws a flawed conclusion.
One thing is absolutely certain. Thomas is flawed. He is a disgrace. He is so far detached from reality that he is dangerous. Alito is right there with him.
Oops, correction. I meant Scalia not Alito. Antonin Scalia.
Well why not throw the three of them in together now that we’re naming names. The rogues gallery:
Thomas, Scalia, Alito.
Sub
PCC, in case you didn’t see this, and I do not want to clutter up your inbox:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/religion-science-coexist-faith-versus-fact-coyne/396362/
Jeffrey Tayler on Faith vs Fact!!
Good write up too!
And sub.
It’s a great review, but I couldn’t help cringing at “he published a bestseller, Why Evolution Is True, that was based on his blog of the same name.”
Yes, there are two things wrong with that!
“And the problem is that the conservative justices show no sign of retiring, while many of the liberal ones are old.”
Exactly, and I’m afraid Bill Clinton is to blame. The two justices he appointed were older than the two appointed by his *predecessor*, Bush 41. That’s just dumb.
Well, Scalia and Kennedy aren’t exactly spring chickens, the former being 79 and the latter 78.
There is of course a Scalia insult generator in case anyone needs more abuse.
It occurs to me the conservative commentators have no serious complaint. The decision basically voids laws prohibiting same sex marriage. The only people directly affected are same sex couples. Huckabee is exactly right. You, as an individual or private church, can ignore this law. You don’t have to become gay and your church doesn’t have to provide a marriage service if you don’t want to. Gays can go elsewhere, or, better still, just get the licence from the city clerk and be done with it. What a bunch of rancid steam!
Well, but they really are concerned about the business owners who’ll have to provide services for the newly-approved couples. It always comes down to business, you know…
As far as I am concerned, business owners can refuse gays if they want. By putting a sign in their window and advertising their bigotry, they will be turning away a lot of customers. Not just gays, but any fair-minded sympathizers as well. Then, if the business somehow survives, they can pass it on to their children who will doubtless have more liberal views.
Don’t just think Hillary Clinton is a lock. The election is a year and a half away, that is almost forever in the American election cycle. BUT, voting for the Democratic candidate for President will be the only way to ensure the small steps we have made toward a “more perfect union” will continue to be made.
PCC said: “At least Hillary will be around to fill any vacancies.”
I’m not sure why the idea of a Clinton presidency would fill anyone with sanguinity, other than the same oligarchs who run both major parties. Clinton has never had any principled position on ANYTHING, let alone on this issue. (See http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/.)
Clinton is just a warmongering corporatist tool who will do or say anything expedient, little different than most in the GOP clown car. As a libertarian, I still hope that Rand Paul can redeem himself, but that’s a long shot. One bright note is that the other day, a client (also a libertarian) mentioned that he was hoping for a Rand Paul/Bernie Sanders ticket. I was quite surprised, as that pretty much expresses my views…although I’d be OK with a Sanders/Paul ticket as well. I mentioned the other day how screwed up the GOP field has to be that a libertarian prefers Sanders…but one could make the exact same statement about the Dems’ position with Clinton. A month ago, I would have said that if it came down to Clinton v. Bush (or whoever from the clown car), I’d probably write in Gary Johnson. Now I’m thinking that under those circumstances I’ll probably write in Sanders.
I already decided to write in Sanders, in that case, too.
Here’s what really worries me about Clinton, and what likely underlies the stuff that worries you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhM-S2KMaHI.
Hiliary is a Dominionist. Though she likely has direct connections to the movers and shakers of the Dominionist movement, those are hidden. After all, she’s merely a woman, a tool to be used by the men, to serve their needs, not someone to be seen as equal, thanks to their interpretations of the bible. Those same movers and shakers have strong connections (via prayer meetings) inside Congress, the Pentagon, and more. They teach classes on leadership, holding up as good examples some of the worst dictators in history.
Jeff Sharlet has investigated this part of the Dominionist movement (the puppeteer-to-the-puppet-politicians part) from the inside, and his take on it is far more measured and less emotional than mine, so read his books.
Seen from across the Pond , SCOTUS appears infected with Right Wing Religiously based Bias, something I doubt they would get away with here ,as for Hillary redressing the balance I personally think it will be Bernie Sanders and for myself there couldn’t be a better President for the sake of the USA and the rest of the World, if Hillary gets it I,m afraid the Oligarchs will continue to own Congress and the Senate and there will be very little done for the benefit of the American People.
Hear, hear!
“…I personally think it will be Bernie Sanders…”
Oh, do make it so.
Agreed. His ideas, though, make too much sense.
The high impact, low cost response coming from the huge crowds coming out to hear him speak just might help, though. Imagine running a presidential campaign so wildly popular, a huge amount of effort is freely given by volunteers, so Sanders doesn’t even have to beg for money — especially from banksters, corporations too big to fail, et al. That seems to be where and how his campaign is going, with donations averaging $31.
Oh, right. We can’t have that!
Professor Coyne,
Here’s how gay marriage hurts everyone. And why you’re likely not in favor of marriage for everyone either.
1. If marriage is a right that everyone is entitled to then polygamists and consanguinists are entitled to it, too.
2. It’s likely you have no opposition to polygamists marrying. You may or may not write a post supporting this.
3. It’s likely you oppose consenting adults who are close blood relatives from marrying.
4. If you do it’s because you think it’s yucky.
5. But you’d realize that’s the same objection some have to gay marriage so you’ll drop it.
6. You’d then probably argue that incestuous marriage would lead to unhealthy progeny.
7. But then you’d realize that unrelated people sometimes have genetic predispositions that increase the chances of their having unhealthy progeny. Down’s syndrome, alzheimer’s, sickle cell and cancer come to mind.
8. Because you’re sensible and just you know that it would be unfair to deny the folks in point 6 the right to marry when those in point 7 carry the same, if not higher, risks.
9. Also, you’d ask yourself “who am I to determine what kinds of children others should or shouldn’t have?” and “If I believe women have the right to abort healthy children then I must support their right to give birth unhealthy one’s if they so choose” and “what do I have against the handicapped anyway that I think they shouldn’t be born?”.
9. You’d also think “who gets to determine what handicaps are acceptable? What if homosexuality turns out to be a genetic abnormality?”
10. Slowly, you’d drop every possible objection to incest.
11. You’d likely never write a column advocating consanguineous marriage, however.
12. Or you just might because you’re conscience would remind you that you’d be a hypocrite not to.
13. Either way, seeing as how there is no objection you could raise against consanguineous marriage that couldn’t be raised against same sex marriage, and if you did you’d end up arguing against the existence of the handicapped and/or a woman’s right to choose, let’s agree that you nor anyone else in your camp *should* object to consensual incest.
14. Now, if public schools start indoctrinating children on the normalcy of having two parents of the same gender you’d not object.
15. And if those same schools teach children that having parents who are also siblings or parent and child you *shouldn’t* object because of the whole hypocrisy thing.
So, here’s how it same sex marriage hurts everyone.
1. Logically speaking, it makes normalizes polygamy and consensual incest.
2. If you don’t support polygamy and consensual incest then it makes you a hypocrite.
3. But if you do support polygamy and consensual interest then you’re, well, kind of yucky in a moral sense.
4. The possibility of consanguinity being sold as a normal relationship to children in schools (or even outside of them).
I don’t know. I ran out of steam somewhere around point 7. It’s late. No offense meant by any of it, of course. Apologies all around, however, if it did. Oh, lest I forget: I’m not just for gay marriage. I’m for equal rights.
Ipadron…I fear that you may be overthinking this. And that your analysis may raise more questions than it answers. You may be looking for more consistency than is possible; in fact, it puts me in mind of Emerson’s famous quotation on the subject.
But I’ll let others point out the flaws in your argument. I will merely note that I adhere to the fairly doctrinaire libertarian position on marriage. It’s easy to argue that the government cannot rationally (or at least Constitutionally) grant rights to straights that it withholds from gays. (And of course one can cite similar pairings in any number of contexts.)But in the context of marriage, it merely begs the question as to whether marriage should exist at all–it doesn’t answer the question.
The libertarian view is that the government has no business whatsoëver denoting some people as “married,” and others as “unmarried,” and handing out goodies in line with those statuses. A week ago, governments could discriminate against gays; now they can go on merrily discriminating against single people–straight, gay, black, white, polygamous, consanguinous, left-handed, whatever.
The “institution of marriage” as a governmental perk has never served any rational purpose and it still doesn’t.
Save for one purpose that readily comes to my mind: Denoting one’s partner as being equally close as any immediate blood relative for instances of hospital visitation and closer for when there is no advance directive document and the patient cannot make his or her own medical decisions. Marriage as a legal right is very helpful there.
Yes, of course. Marriage as a legal right IS very helpful there. But as you note, so is an advance directive–what we call in California a Durable Power of Attorney for Health Care.
Surely someone who can fill out the paperwork for a marriage license can handle the paperwork for an advance directive. But what if the unmarried want the income-tax advantages of marriage?
The marriage license exists not to help the married, but only as a means to deny rights to the unmarried. (Yes–one can argue that this is rather tautological–that these are but two sides of the same coin–but whence the right to EITHER confer special rights on married people OR deny them to the unmarried?)
There, and as an unmarried person, myself, I must whole-heartedly agree with you.
Consensual incest and polygamy should not be illegal regardless of anyone’s “ick” factor. I fully support gay marriage and the fact that I don’t find it appealing to watch two men have sex has nothing whatsoever to do with whether I should support equal rights and personal liberty. Discussions along these lines have occurred in the comments on this site in the past and I can assure you thst Jerry, as well as most of the commenter here, would not base the morality of an action on someone’s subjective disgust with it. I’m sure there are plenty of gay people who have a personal “ick” factor regarding heterosexual sex as well, but they don’t go out trying to ban straight marriage.
Your arguments about the risk of genetic abnormalities are also disturbingly close to the religious argument that marriage is only for procreation. Finally, you speak of “normalizing” the behavior. I think you’re off base with that notion–personal freedom and equal rights have nothing to do with normalcy, whether you mean it statistically or colloquially. “Abnormal” people (define that however you like) should not be discriminated against, period.
ipadron wrote: 9. You’d also think “who gets to determine what handicaps are acceptable? What if homosexuality turns out to be a genetic abnormality?”
Some of your argument rests on the assumption that genetic abnormalities are harmful.
My green eyes are (or once were) a genetic abnormality, but that does not in any way make my green eyes harmful, to myself or to others.
Left handedness is abnormal by the definition of being a small percent of the population. As is red hair, freckles and green eyes. Are those genetic abnormalities, or simply the diversity of the human genome? If homosexuality has a genetic component, does that automatically make it bad because it’s different from the majority of the population? Clearly not when we compare with red hair, freckles and green eyes.
Abnormality needs to be measured by what if any harm it causes, rather than it being classed as harmful just by being different. It’s better to say it’s a genetic abnormality when it’s harmful rather than saying it’s harmful just because it’s a genetic abnormality.