Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Dr.Who]

It seems that you do not understand the problem. Marriage is not just about raising children.

But it is. From the stand point of a state that makes laws it places upon a whole population that is exactly whey they do it.

The Federal marriage law

Why don't you show us what the law says the purpose of regulating marriage is.

and the marriage vows do not even mention children.

Private individuals can get married for whatever reason they want to and it has no bearing on why the state makes the laws they make.

Many of the legal protections in the Federal laws have nothing to do with children, but deal with protecting the relationship.

Because stable marriages are good for children. In fact, stable marriages between people who don't plan to have children, but might is also good for children. But when couples don't have children the state allows them to dissolve the marriage very easily.

If you wanted to argue that stable gay marriages strengthen stable straight marriages that would be a better argument than saying a restriction the state imposes on people is a right.

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.

Don't forget duties. When people get married they have duties. It is the duties that makes the state give them the privileges. But the state can't give rights because those exist prior to any action the state may take.

But if you want to discuss any of those duties and privileges that straight married people get and gay married people do not get then have at it. If you list any that are clearly related to childrearing or motherhood they don't count.

Only homosexuals are denied the legal rights and privileges accorded to legally married people.

Again lets list and discuss them one by one.

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

From the state point of view it is one size fits all. All, gay or straight, who might produce kids need a license to get married. Any who might not produce kids are free to marry however they want with no need for permission from the state.

 

[Dr.Who]

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).

No the state can't be that intrusive as to demand medical records to determine who might and who might not be sterile and even if they did our science is not advanced enough to know.

The state must make a one size fits all kind of law that applies to everyone who reasonable might produce kids. It is completely ridiculous to think that any two men or any two women will produce kids when they get married to each other. but if any of those gay men or gay women start making kids with people of the opposite gender then the laws apply equally to them.

 

[Dr.Who]

Or over 70.

Just like people who are adopting "could" be sterile the usse of the word could means that they could not be sterile, also people over the age of 70 have had kids. the state was wise to write the laws so that it did not need to determine who was going to have kids and who was not except in the most general of ways.

 

[PLC1]

Just like people who are adopting "could" be sterile the usse of the word could means that they could not be sterile, also people over the age of 70 have had kids. the state was wise to write the laws so that it did not need to determine who was going to have kids and who was not except in the most general of ways.

It's pretty easy to determine that neither same sex couples nor senior citizens are going to produce children.

 

[Dr.Who]

It's pretty easy to determine that neither same sex couples nor senior citizens are going to produce children.

There have been a number of times that senior citizens have produced children but virtually none in which same sex couples have. Certainly not without extraordinary technological measures.

the gov had to make a rule that would apply to all the people who might have children. Old couples fit the mold and same sex couples do not.

 

[samsara15]

Exrtraordinary technological measures can quickly become ordinary, where there is a market. Artificial insemination, for example, was once considered extraordinary. Some people have envisioned a future society where males were no longer necessary.

 

[PLC1]

There have been a number of times that senior citizens have produced children but virtually none in which same sex couples have. Certainly not without extraordinary technological measures.

the gov had to make a rule that would apply to all the people who might have children. Old couples fit the mold and same sex couples do not.

It is far more likely that a lesbian couple will have children through artificial insemination than it is that a couple in their seventh decade will do so through some medical miracle.

Marriage is not for the sole purpose of having children.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No the state can't be that intrusive as to demand medical records to determine who might and who might not be sterile and even if they did our science is not advanced enough to know.

The state must make a one size fits all kind of law that applies to everyone who reasonable might produce kids. It is completely ridiculous to think that any two men or any two women will produce kids when they get married to each other. but if any of those gay men or gay women start making kids with people of the opposite gender then the laws apply equally to them.

Not much point in this, we aren't discussing the same issue.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

But it is. From the stand point of a state that makes laws it places upon a whole population that is exactly whey they do it.
Why don't you show us what the law says the purpose of regulating marriage is.
Private individuals can get married for whatever reason they want to and it has no bearing on why the state makes the laws they make.
Because stable marriages are good for children. In fact, stable marriages between people who don't plan to have children, but might is also good for children. But when couples don't have children the state allows them to dissolve the marriage very easily.
If you wanted to argue that stable gay marriages strengthen stable straight marriages that would be a better argument than saying a restriction the state imposes on people is a right.
Don't forget duties. When people get married they have duties. It is the duties that makes the state give them the privileges. But the state can't give rights because those exist prior to any action the state may take.
But if you want to discuss any of those duties and privileges that straight married people get and gay married people do not get then have at it. If you list any that are clearly related to childrearing or motherhood they don't count.
Again lets list and discuss them one by one.
From the state point of view it is one size fits all. All, gay or straight, who might produce kids need a license to get married. Any who might not produce kids are free to marry however they want with no need for permission from the state.

Just as in the other post, we are not discussing the same thing so we end up talking at cross-purposes--which is pointless.

 

[Dr.Who]

Exrtraordinary technological measures can quickly become ordinary, where there is a market. Artificial insemination, for example, was once considered extraordinary. Some people have envisioned a future society where males were no longer necessary.

If that is where you want our policy to lead us then you are scarier than I thought. That should be an argument against this kind of technology and law.

 

[Dr.Who]

It is far more likely that a lesbian couple will have children through artificial insemination than it is that a couple in their seventh decade will do so through some medical miracle.

Marriage is not for the sole purpose of having children.

What other justification does the state have for restricting the rights of its citizens to mess around with whomever they want to?

If they have a child through artifical insemination then there was still a father involved. It is still a heterosexual coupling even if they did make the relatinship very artificial.

The laws are based on the categories that people fall into. People who produce children fall into two categories - male and female. 100% of the populations is covered when we talk about those categories.

 

[PLC1]

Exrtraordinary technological measures can quickly become ordinary, where there is a market. Artificial insemination, for example, was once considered extraordinary. Some people have envisioned a future society where males were no longer necessary.

Males no longer necessary?!?

I just finished fixing the sink, a job that not more than 0.1% of females could have done.

Moreover, who is going to kill spiders and trap mice?

EEEEEKKK Honey, it's a spider!! Kill it, kill it!!

(runs and ducks brickbats thrown by women on the forum)

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Males no longer necessary?!?

I just finished fixing the sink, a job that not more than 0.1% of females could have done.

Moreover, who is going to kill spiders and trap mice?

EEEEEKKK Honey, it's a spider!! Kill it, kill it!!

(runs and ducks brickbats thrown by women on the forum)

When you're all gone we'll make do just like we always have. Who kills spiders in your house during the playoffs?

I don't know anyone who is actually campaigning to get rid of men, there was a lesbian community in the Seattle area pushing this idea and working to find a way to make parthenogenisis a practical process, but that was 25-30 years ago and they have since disappeared. I think you guys are safe--for now, but WATCH IT!

 

[samsara15]

Are ideological, religious, and political leanings genetic, or are they a choice? Are we pre-disposed to view the world a certain way? Is there any proof that such things are a choice, or any way such an idea could be proven or disproven??

 

[PLC1]

Are ideological, religious, and political leanings genetic, or are they a choice? Are we pre-disposed to view the world a certain way? Is there any proof that such things are a choice, or any way such an idea could be proven or disproven??

Some things will probably never be proven nor disproved. It is likely that personality traits are part genetic and part learned in early childhood, and therefore we are predisposed to a certain world view.

Or, maybe not.

Or, perhaps the personality is really a manifestation of the human soul, and was a part of the individual before having been born.

Try proving or disproving any of the above.

As for whether gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage, consider this: