Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Utter nonsense. If I put only male urinals in my business establishment, I would perhaps be in violation of my business license for 'upholding human dignity' by treating people the same. Duh?

You ought to get your favorite word tattooed onto your forehead: "DUH". Putting urinals in bathrooms is not an issue of law, Jim Crow laws would be an example of what I'm talking about, or denying a tiny minority the legal right to marry based on nothing but religious dogma.

You can very well argue it is an innate human quality but IT IS ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT TO THE PURPOSE OF MARRIAGE.

You don't need to shout, there is nothing in American law that requires progeny to qualify for marriage. Your definition of the purpose of marriage is a deliberately narrow one that excludes anyone not producing children--this is a stupid position in light of the fact that so many couples don't want children, don't have children, or are so old when they marry that children are not a possiblility. Your position is an oft-repeated piece of bigotry and makes you look foolish.

Against supreme ignorance, even god contends in vain.

Maybe your god should have "DUH" tattooed on his forehead too. Rush will have his ditto-heads and your god can have his DUH-heads.

 

[Dr.Who]

Two points, Who, one: if the laws treat people differently then their dignity is compromised.

Nonsense. The law treats just about everyone differently based on what they do. Crminals for example are treated differently than law abiders based on their behavior. And there are numerous laws that treat women differently than men, this time based not on behavior. A reasonable person realized that the law must be flexible enough to be applied differently as needed.

Two: if homosexuality is an innate quality that harms no one, then there is no reason to treat people differently under the law.

False still. Many people are and should be treated differently. As long as they are treated with equal justice that is all the courts can aspire too in cases where they cannot be treated the same.

So do gays and straights need to be treated differently. Well since there are some things that straights do that should be regulated and which should not be regulated when gays do them - obviously yes.

Heterosexuals are not required to stop having sex even though the human population is too large, there is no reason to ask homosexuals to stop having sex, is there? Besides your religious taboos, I mean.

I do not support any laws that would ask gays to stop having sex. You are the one who wants their relationships to be regulated through marriage laws. Once they can get married then one partner can violate the marriage contract by having sex outside of marriage and be taken to court. You are the one who would advocate laws limiting their sexual behavior.

So far no one has given a valid reason for homosexuals to be treated differently under the law.

You obviously don't think that regulating childbearing is valid but the courts disagree with you.

 

[Dr.Who]

Heterosexuality is not a choice, either, but heterosexual activity is. Still, few choose to be celibate, but they most certainly have that right. Fewer still pretend to be homosexual, and act on that choice. Why would we expect homosexuals to either (1) remain celibate, or (2) pretend to be heterosexual? We don't expect that of heterosexuals.

As long as the law is silent on what gays can do or not then no one is expecting them to be celibate or pretend to be hetero. They can make those choices freely of their own accord if they want to, but I don't demand it of them.

It's interesting that you would bring up Christian morals, meaning that sex of any kind outside of wedlock is a sin, especially since 40% of all babies are now born outside of marriage. It seems to me that bringing children into the world without having a partner to help raise them is irresponsible at best. Most Christian churches would call it a sin.

Bringing a child into the world irresponsibly would seem to be wrong, would it not?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Nonsense. The law treats just about everyone differently based on what they do. Crminals for example are treated differently than law abiders based on their behavior. And there are numerous laws that treat women differently than men, this time based not on behavior. A reasonable person realized that the law must be flexible enough to be applied differently as needed.

I would have thought that arguing for the sake of it was beneath you, Who. As I posted to your friend and mine, Nums, we are not talking about those kinds of laws--you know that and so does everyone else. Jim Crow laws were used as an example and denial of marriage. Address the issue, don't waste my time with drivel.

False still. Many people are and should be treated differently. As long as they are treated with equal justice that is all the courts can aspire too in cases where they cannot be treated the same.

Equal justice, okay, how about equal protection under the law? You know what we are discussing, stop trying to obfuscate.

So do gays and straights need to be treated differently. Well since there are some things that straights do that should be regulated and which should not be regulated when gays do them - obviously yes.

Enumerate.

I do not support any laws that would ask gays to stop having sex. You are the one who wants their relationships to be regulated through marriage laws. Once they can get married then one partner can violate the marriage contract by having sex outside of marriage and be taken to court. You are the one who would advocate laws limiting their sexual behavior.

I wish for them to be treated the same under the law as anyone else who wishes to be married. You are being deliberately disingenuous and you know it. Cheap shots from you, Who, I expect this kind of behavior from some people on this site but not you.

You obviously don't think that regulating childbearing is valid but the courts disagree with you.

I have never said that child rearing should not be subject to some regulation. If you wish to misrepresent my position, at least provide a quote or something to pretend to back it up. This whole post of yours is a study in deliberate misdirection. Thanks a lot, it does wonders for your credibility.

 

[numinus]

You ought to get your favorite word tattooed onto your forehead: "DUH". Putting urinals in bathrooms is not an issue of law, Jim Crow laws would be an example of what I'm talking about, or denying a tiny minority the legal right to marry based on nothing but religious dogma.

LMAO

I just gave you an example of something that is discriminative to women for simply treating them like men.

Thet is exactly how idiotic your idea of equality really is.

You don't need to shout, there is nothing in American law that requires progeny to qualify for marriage. Your definition of the purpose of marriage is a deliberately narrow one that excludes anyone not producing children--this is a stupid position in light of the fact that so many couples don't want children, don't have children, or are so old when they marry that children are not a possiblility. Your position is an oft-repeated piece of bigotry and makes you look foolish.

Are you by any chance stupid?

I just gave you a piece of FACT -- that a marriage is voidable ab initio on the grounds of infertility.

If a marriage, in FACT, does not exist if one of the spouses is infertile, what does that say about the purpose of marriage, eh?

Unbelieveable! Facts and logic could very well be sitting on your face and you still wouldn't know.

Maybe your god should have "DUH" tattooed on his forehead too. Rush will have his ditto-heads and your god can have his DUH-heads.

All yor posts in this thread are patent nonsense, you might as well have typed 'DUH' and it would make absolutely no difference.

Duh?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I just gave you a piece of FACT -- that a marriage is voidable ab initio on the grounds of infertility.

If a marriage, in FACT, does not exist if one of the spouses is infertile, what does that say about the purpose of marriage, eh?

Unbelieveable! Facts and logic could very well be sitting on your face and you still wouldn't know.

Well, your facts are slightly skewed. I asked for an example in law which you didn't provide. I know a bunch of people who are legally married and can't have kids but are still legally married. So much for your facts. Either give us a citation of law or... adios Tonto.

 

[PLC1]

As long as the law is silent on what gays can do or not then no one is expecting them to be celibate or pretend to be hetero. They can make those choices freely of their own accord if they want to, but I don't demand it of them.

And yet, earlier you posted:

There is no doubt that homosexual behavior is a choice. Most churches state that the orientation is not a sin but that acting on it is.

Which led me to believe that you were saying that homosexuality is innate, but acting on that orientation is wrong, i.e., a sin.

That would leave the option to remain celibate, or the pretend to be straight and enter into a straight marriage, would it not?

Bringing a child into the world irresponsibly would seem to be wrong, would it not?

Absolutely. It not only seems to be wrong, it is wrong, and is a disservice to the child and to the rest of humanity.

 

[Dr.Who]

I would have thought that arguing for the sake of it was beneath you, Who. As I posted to your friend and mine, Nums, we are not talking about those kinds of laws--you know that and so does everyone else. Jim Crow laws were used as an example and denial of marriage. Address the issue, don't waste my time with drivel.


Equal justice, okay, how about equal protection under the law? You know what we are discussing, stop trying to obfuscate.


Enumerate.


I wish for them to be treated the same under the law as anyone else who wishes to be married. You are being deliberately disingenuous and you know it. Cheap shots from you, Who, I expect this kind of behavior from some people on this site but not you.


I have never said that child rearing should not be subject to some regulation. If you wish to misrepresent my position, at least provide a quote or something to pretend to back it up. This whole post of yours is a study in deliberate misdirection. Thanks a lot, it does wonders for your credibility.

I am afraid you are just not understanding the relevance. Perhaps the issue is too close to your heart. As for me I don't care if gays marry or not and this is just arguing for the sake of argument.

If you really want equal protection under the law then what could be less likely to cause harm than to have no law regulating your behavior? That is how it is now for gays. There is no law saying that when they get married they have to get permission from the state so they are at their free-est.

Child rearing and motherhood on the other hand do require some regulation so marriage laws for child producers makes sense.

To treat gays and child producers the same by making one size fits all laws and applying them to both groups will result in less freedom than now.

 

[Dr.Who]

Originally Posted by Dr.Who View Post
So do gays and straights need to be treated differently. Well since there are some things that straights do that should be regulated and which should not be regulated when gays do them - obviously yes.

Enumerate.

When a staight male puts his reproductive organs into the reproductive organs of a straight female that behavior needs to be regulated.

When a straight male or female unites his or her reproductive organs with those of another of the same gender that behavior does not need to be regulated as no third party is going to be, or likely to potentially, effected.

Likewise the contracts that straights engage in when they establish unions where they will habitually be uniting their organs need to be regulated whereas the contracts of gays do not. No third party is going to be effected nor is a third party at all likely to be effected. There will be no children, there will be no motherhood created, there will be no inheritance to pass on to the non-created children, there will be no need for divorce court to make sure that the children are protected when they divorce, there will be no abandoned children, there will be no grandmothers made, there will be no grandfathers made, no aunts, no uncles, etc.

 

[Dr.Who]

Which led me to believe that you were saying that homosexuality is innate, but acting on that orientation is wrong, i.e., a sin.

That would leave the option to remain celibate, or the pretend to be straight and enter into a straight marriage, would it not?

People with a homosexual orientation have a lot more options than that:

They can also not pretend to be straight and enter into a straight marriage,
they can remain unmarried but not be celibate
they can have sex with other gay people, or even straight people
They can marry in gay unions
or in civil unions
they can decide that any of the above is sin or not and still do it or not.

 

[PLC1]

People with a homosexual orientation have a lot more options than that:

They can also not pretend to be straight and enter into a straight marriage,
they can remain unmarried but not be celibate
they can have sex with other gay people, or even straight people
They can marry in gay unions
or in civil unions
they can decide that any of the above is sin or not and still do it or not.

Did I misinterpret your position, then?

Is homosexual activity between consenting adults OK?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I am afraid you are just not understanding the relevance. Perhaps the issue is too close to your heart. As for me I don't care if gays marry or not and this is just arguing for the sake of argument.

If you really want equal protection under the law then what could be less likely to cause harm than to have no law regulating your behavior? That is how it is now for gays. There is no law saying that when they get married they have to get permission from the state so they are at their free-est.

Child rearing and motherhood on the other hand do require some regulation so marriage laws for child producers makes sense.

To treat gays and child producers the same by making one size fits all laws and applying them to both groups will result in less freedom than now.

It seems that you do not understand the problem. Marriage is not just about raising children. The Federal marriage law and the marriage vows do not even mention children. Many of the legal protections in the Federal laws have nothing to do with children, but deal with protecting the relationship. Lots of heterosexuals marry with no plan to have children and many with no ability to have children--but they still get all the rights and privileges as everyone else. Only homosexuals are denied the legal rights and privileges accorded to legally married people.

Marriage SHOULD be one size fits all since it is a Federal contract only for consenting adults and is about love and commitment.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

When a staight male puts his reproductive organs into the reproductive organs of a straight female that behavior needs to be regulated.

When a straight male or female unites his or her reproductive organs with those of another of the same gender that behavior does not need to be regulated as no third party is going to be, or likely to potentially, effected.

Likewise the contracts that straights engage in when they establish unions where they will habitually be uniting their organs need to be regulated whereas the contracts of gays do not. No third party is going to be effected nor is a third party at all likely to be effected. There will be no children, there will be no motherhood created, there will be no inheritance to pass on to the non-created children, there will be no need for divorce court to make sure that the children are protected when they divorce, there will be no abandoned children, there will be no grandmothers made, there will be no grandfathers made, no aunts, no uncles, etc.

So you are advocating NO STERILE MARRIAGE laws, I'm okay with that if it applies to all consenting adults. No one gets to marry until they can prove that they are producing biological children. This would of course deny marriage to any couple who was just adopting since they could be sterile (or gay).

 

[PLC1]

So you are advocating NO STERILE MARRIAGE laws, I'm okay with that if it applies to all consenting adults. No one gets to marry until they can prove that they are producing biological children. This would of course deny marriage to any couple who was just adopting since they could be sterile (or gay).

Or over 70.

 

[Dr.Who]

Did I misinterpret your position, then?

Is homosexual activity between consenting adults OK?

That is between them and their God. But I do not advocate making any laws about it - pro or con unless the state has a compelling reason like the state does when it regulates those who produce children.