Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[vyo476]

Rights superior to the rights of my girlfriend and I, seemingly, without any rational purpose for doing so.

Let me get this straight. We want to allow people to marry other people of the same gender. This is because homosexual couples cannot have the same rights as married heterosexual couples. You believe that this would not be fair to you and your girlfriend, because you don't currently enjoy the rights of a married couple.

GROW UP.

If you want the rights of a married couple, you have to get married. That isn't changing. If you and your girlfriend wanted to get married, you could. Once you get married, you'll have all the rights of a married couple. Homosexual couples are not so lucky; they cannot go out and get married, and are therefore disallowed those marital rights.

 

[jb_1430]

This is your bias speaking. Plain and simple. Anti-gay rhetoric. Marriage has nothing to do with "motherhood", if you even think that..I have about 30 friends I'd like you to meet of mine who have no marriage and children. To say that marriage has anything to do with children is ridiculous.

Marriage is the state of being a married couple voluntarily joined for life (or until divorce); a close and intimate union.

And can you verbalize ANY RATIONAL PURPOSE WHATSOEVER as to why the government would need to license and regulate "close and intimate union"s?... you know, other than helping the gays to feel better about themselves.

 

[vyo476]

Let's just put it out there, shall we?

Is there any really good reason to keep homosexuals from getting married? Can any of you clearly and succinctly come up with a decent reason to prevent them from marrying each other?

Is it because marriage is supposed to be about producing children? Well boohoo, so homosexual couples won't be able to produce their own children. There are a lot of children out there that don't have homes, and a married homosexual couple would be better equipped to care for such a child than an unmarried homosexual couple. The purpose of marriage is to provide a framework for the family - not to create the family.

 

[jb_1430]

GROW UP.

???? Im 47. And I can grow up, while you will always be stupid.
Soooo if I understand your arguement, the issuance of the peace of paper by the government magically creates the valid governmental interest in regulating intimate relationships???? Can you verbalize what this interest is and how it is created by a piece of paper?

 

[vyo476]

???? Im 47. And I can grow up, while you will always be stupid.

At least I'm smart enough to actually read peoples' posts.

Soooo if I understand your arguement, the issuance of the peace of paper by the government magically creates the valid governmental interest in regulating intimate relationships???? Can you verbalize what this interest is and how it is created by a piece of paper?

Oh look, you didn't read my post. Imagine that.

Here's how it works: if you want to get married and enjoy the various rights of married couples, you can. If homosexuals want to get married and enjoy the various rights of married couples, they can't - or at least, they can't marry the consenting person of their choice, because hundreds of years ago someone decided that marriage can only be between a man and a woman for reasons that are no longer valid today.

And allowing homosexual marriage would not be regulating it. Making it illegal is regulating it. Legalizing it puts it in the hands of the individuals to do with as they would. Think about it - the Second Amendment makes owning firearms legal, but doesn't "regulate" that ownership; it took further legislation to "regulate" firearms ownership. Making homosexual marriage legal wouldn't regulate marriage; it would take further legislation to narrow down who can legally marry, and we're not talking about that right now.

 

[jb_1430]

Soooo, again, can you verbalize ANY RATIONAL PURPOSE WHATSOEVER as to why the government would need to license and regulate "close and intimate union"s?... you know, other than helping the gays to feel better about themselves.

And I dont know what kind of alternate reality that you dwell in but I can assure you that marriages are both licensed and regulated in the US.

At least I'm smart enough to actually read peoples' posts.



Oh look, you didn't read my post. Imagine that.

Here's how it works: if you want to get married and enjoy the various rights of married couples, you can. If homosexuals want to get married and enjoy the various rights of married couples, they can't - or at least, they can't marry the consenting person of their choice, because hundreds of years ago someone decided that marriage can only be between a man and a woman for reasons that are no longer valid today.

And allowing homosexual marriage would not be regulating it. Making it illegal is regulating it. Legalizing it puts it in the hands of the individuals to do with as they would. Think about it - the Second Amendment makes owning firearms legal, but doesn't "regulate" that ownership; it took further legislation to "regulate" firearms ownership. Making homosexual marriage legal wouldn't regulate marriage; it would take further legislation to narrow down who can legally marry, and we're not talking about that right now.

 

[r0beph]

Soooo, again, can you verbalize ANY RATIONAL PURPOSE WHATSOEVER as to why the government would need to license and regulate "close and intimate union"s?... you know, other than helping the gays to feel better about themselves.

And I dont know what kind of alternate reality that you dwell in but I can assure you that marriages are both licensed and regulated in the US.

You're still missing the point and your arguments are losing my interest. But let me give you a little hypothetical.

A gay couple walks into a resturaunt, asking for a table.
The Maitre D' informs them, sorry, even though this restaurant is full of other couples consisting of men and women, you are not allowed to come in. I needn't even mention there is tons of legal precedence adversely supporting the rights of a homosexual[couple] in this type of action on the behalf of the restaurant. Cue the insurance companies. A homosexual couple MAY NOT walk into their human resources department, apply for the spousal insurance their work offers, and because they are GAY, are denied this right that EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE, REGARDLESS OF GENDER.

• The institution of marriage is not "sacred" except in the eyes of the religious zealot. a persons marriage itself may be sacred to them, but the institution is not.
• Please show reasons they should not be allowed to married, I needn't prove further that they as humans have the right to create what they consider a sacred bond between them and their love.
• Please show me what marriage has to do with "a child" "children" or whatever the hell you're talking about earlier, this still goes over my head....

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

There is no fallacy.

Children can never come from a homosexual union.

You need to procreate OUTSIDE the union for that.



And family relations derive from this single 'utilitarian value', which by some stroke of coincidence, is also the one thing that makes the family 'the NATURAL AND FUNDAMENTAL group unit of society'.

Thus spake the infallible NUMINUS--speaking ex cathedra from his belly-button. You make pronouncements but you can't prove them, thus you are one of the religious sheeple bleating in the wilderness.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

See how logical the law operates!

A defective law made null.

She never got her son back, in fact she's never seen him again. Jesus must be proud.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

"I was using the term space metaphorically"

"If something is expanding then there must be space into which it CAN EXPAND, that space is part of the Universe for which their is not even a theoretical end."

Do you deny having said any of the above?

Please refrain from dishonest debate and from ridiculing my comprehension of simple english.
Please spare me the run-around.

The run-around was the explanation that you apparently cannot comprehend. Just like you quoted correctly (this time) I was using the term "space" metaphorically to delineate an area where YOU said God's Will exists. Too bad you can't comprehend such a simple concept--go back to Kant.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I did say produce "their child", not "a" child.
You seem to start with the presumption that government should license and regulate everything, and must have a reason NOT to regulate to support any decision not to. I start from the other perspective, that government needs some valid governmental interest before they regulate a human relationship. And I dont think helping gays feel a little bit better about themselves is a valid governmental interest.
As well, absent the governmental interest involved in the procreation of children, there is no rational reason to deny my girlfriend and I the rights and privilidges granted to married couples.

Except the Law, and the Law is what I wish to see changed. Right now it legislates a bunch of religious myths and forces us all to abide by them--that should change.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Noooo you are arguing for unequal rights. Rights superior to the rights of my girlfriend and I, seemingly, without any rational purpose for doing so.
And I am an atheist, Im just familiar with the purpose of marriage laws.

Equal rights means that everyone is treated equally under the law, you and she get married and the law grants things to you that are denied to anyone that isn't legally married. How is it "unequal" for ALL consenting adults to have the same right to marry the consenting adult of their choice when YOU have that right?

As an atheist, what is the purpose of marriage law?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

And can you verbalize ANY RATIONAL PURPOSE WHATSOEVER as to why the government would need to license and regulate "close and intimate union"s?... you know, other than helping the gays to feel better about themselves.

Yes, I can. One thousand forty nine legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities codified into US law and granted only to LEGALLY MARRIED couples in the United States of America. Is that rational enough for you? Legal rights! Equality! How much more rational can it get?

 

[vyo476]

Yes, I can. One thousand forty nine legal rights, privileges, and responsibilities codified into US law and granted only to LEGALLY MARRIED couples in the United States of America. Is that rational enough for you? Legal rights! Equality! How much more rational can it get?

Exactly, Mare.

Jb, Numinus, why don't you just admit that you don't like gay people, or that the idea of gay people getting married just bothers you? Honesty is best.

Gentlemen, answer me this: Why would it be bad to allow homosexuals to marry? What are the negative consequences?

 

[Coyote]

Exactly, Mare.

Jb, Numinus, why don't you just admit that you don't like gay people, or that the idea of gay people getting married just bothers you? Honesty is best.

Gentlemen, answer me this: Why would it be bad to allow homosexuals to marry? What are the negative consequences?

They're going to breed like rabbits?