Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[jb_1430]

Yo! A man and a woman aren't the only combination capable of raising a child! How dense can you get? You have no argument so you resort to repeating the mantra:

Only men and women can have children
Only men and women can have children
Only men and women can have children


Get a grip!

I said PRODUCE children.

 

[invest07]

Coyote

You and I have a different definition of the "slippery slope".

Nothing inevitably follows any event on a slippery slope. My definition follows this line of reasoning:

If event "A" occurs, then Event "B" may also follow. This does not mean it automatically will but the occurrence of event "A" increases the odds of event "B" occurring.

The point I was making is that once you redefine marriage, you may very well have established a legal precedent to define marriage any way a person desires.

There are perverts now that advocate sex with animals and chilrdren under 10. How long will it take them to realize that the definition of marriage is now wide open for revision. And once you redefine it for one group, how to you deny another group the same right? Once redefinition is on the table, how do you stop it?

This is a slippery slope and it is my opinion that this Pandora's Box should remain closed.

 

[invest07]

Mare T
I understand you are not calling for polygamy or incest or interspecies wedding. But that does not change the central point I am making here.

Once you redefine marriage legally for one group, how do you deny another group the same right?

I have never known a homosexual I considered to be a prevert. I'm sure there are some but I've never known one. I am well aware that gays/lesbos do not advocate perversion. But once you redefine marriage, how do you stop the redefinition? You and I won't have any input. It will be settled in the courts.

Advocates of a particular definition will shop courts to increase their odds of a favorable decision. Once this is in the courts, suits will fly right and left and any definition of marriage is possible.

Redefining marriage is a slippery slope and the ultimate outcome of any redefinition cannot be known. It is my opinion this Pandora's Box should remain closed.

 

[Segep]

Coyote

You and I have a different definition of the "slippery slope".

Nothing inevitably follows any event on a slippery slope. My definition follows this line of reasoning:

If event "A" occurs, then Event "B" may also follow. This does not mean it automatically will but the occurrence of event "A" increases the odds of event "B" occurring.

The point I was making is that once you redefine marriage, you may very well have established a legal precedent to define marriage any way a person desires.

There are perverts now that advocate sex with animals and chilrdren under 10. How long will it take them to realize that the definition of marriage is now wide open for revision. And once you redefine it for one group, how to you deny another group the same right? Once redefinition is on the table, how do you stop it?

This is a slippery slope and it is my opinion that this Pandora's Box should remain closed.

Moral boundaries are defined by the majority. The majority will never allow interspecies marriage. If they do, you and I will be long gone before that happens. You have nothing to worry about. Now go crusade against something that really matters, like child porn or MySpace.

 

[invest07]

Segep

My point about this matter is that you and I will have no say in the matter. It will be decided in the courts, as was Roe v Wade.

Once the decision to redefine marriage is made there will be litigation and more litigation until every wacko pervert group out there has had his/her day in court. The ultimate definition of marriage will not be set by you or me. It will be set by a judge.

These pervert groups would like to have their actions made legal. What better way to do so than with a twisted redefinition of marriage.

And your post only addressed interspecies marraige. What about the other possibilities (polygamy, mother/son, brother sister)

Once marriage is redefined, the Pandora's Box is opened and nothing you or I can do will shut it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare T
I understand you are not calling for polygamy or incest or interspecies wedding. But that does not change the central point I am making here.

Once you redefine marriage legally for one group, how do you deny another group the same right?

I have never known a homosexual I considered to be a prevert. I'm sure there are some but I've never known one. I am well aware that gays/lesbos do not advocate perversion. But once you redefine marriage, how do you stop the redefinition? You and I won't have any input. It will be settled in the courts.

Advocates of a particular definition will shop courts to increase their odds of a favorable decision. Once this is in the courts, suits will fly right and left and any definition of marriage is possible.

Redefining marriage is a slippery slope and the ultimate outcome of any redefinition cannot be known. It is my opinion this Pandora's Box should remain closed.

If defining it wasn't a slippery slope, then how can redefining it be one? The idea that an issue can only be addressed once in human history is patent nonsense. An excellent case can be made for homosexual people to receive the same treatment as heterosexual people. If at some point a good case can be made for polygamy, then we--as a people--should look at it and make an informed decision. The idea that changing a law makes it open to easier and easier changes is not supported by experience. People were really unhappy when women got the vote too, and they said that pretty soon animals would be voting. It's a fear-based argument without rational basis.

Incest is recognized as being a bad choice for very clear biological reasons, no one is campaigning for that--it's a strawman. Homosexuality between consenting adults does them no harm and does society no harm. Incest has clear biological harms associated with it, but homosexuality does not.

 

[jb_1430]

An excellent case can be made for homosexual people to receive the same treatment as heterosexual people.

Other than the fact that the gays REALLY want it and the statement that gays should be treated the same just because, nobody has even attempted to even make a case. Any one care to? Whats the purpose? What possible benefit to society? You know, other than just helping gays feel a little better about themselves.

 

[Segep]

Segep

My point about this matter is that you and I will have no say in the matter. It will be decided in the courts, as was Roe v Wade.

Who put those people on the courts? Who?

Once the decision to redefine marriage is made there will be litigation and more litigation until every wacko pervert group out there has had his/her day in court. The ultimate definition of marriage will not be set by you or me. It will be set by a judge.

In the immortal words of Douglas Adams, DON'T PANIC

These pervert groups would like to have their actions made legal. What better way to do so than with a twisted redefinition of marriage.

I stopped believing in the boogeyman when I was 8.

And your post only addressed interspecies marraige. What about the other possibilities (polygamy, mother/son, brother sister)

Who really cares about polygamy anyway? And I got news for you. It wouldn't be the first time mothers have married their sons or sisters have married their brothers. Last time I checked, the sun still rises in the East and sets in the West like always.

Once marriage is redefined, the Pandora's Box is opened and nothing you or I can do will shut it.

Homeboy, marriage is constantly redefined. Seriously, get over it. The world will go on.

 

[Segep]

Other than the fact that the gays REALLY want it and the statement that gays should be treated the same just because, nobody has even attempted to even make a case. Any one care to? Whats the purpose? What possible benefit to society? You know, other than just helping gays feel a little better about themselves.

Because, finklestein, REAL families face REAL discrimination and threats every day. Like my family.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Other than the fact that the gays REALLY want it and the statement that gays should be treated the same just because, nobody has even attempted to even make a case. Any one care to? Whats the purpose? What possible benefit to society? You know, other than just helping gays feel a little better about themselves.

How about obeying the US Constitution? You know the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment where it talks about "equal protection under the law". American government was set up to allow people life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness as long as it didn't hurt anyone else. Homosexual people don't hurt anyone else--THEY are not contributing to holocaust of aborted babies for instance--and there doesn't seem to be any more reason to discriminate against them than there was to discriminate against black people, or deny interracial marriage, or prevent women from voting, or prevent women from owning property, all of those rights were intially denied by the Christian church just like the church is now denying homosexuals equal rights.

 

[jb_1430]

How about obeying the US Constitution? You know the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment where it talks about "equal protection under the law".

Weve been over this. The courts say otherwise. They get to interpret our laws, not you.
Can anybody verbalize a reason? I mean the purpose of such a licensing and regulation scheme for gay marriages in the first place. Im really just asking to demonstrate nobody has an answer.
Opposite sex couples in an intimate relationship frequently produce children. Same sex couples can never produce a child. Promoting the raising of children by their biological parents is a worthy goal of government. Helping gays to feel better about themselves is not a valid role of government in my opinion.

 

[vyo476]

Can anybody verbalize a reason? I mean the purpose of such a licensing and regulation scheme for gay marriages in the first place. Im really just asking to demonstrate nobody has an answer.

We've all answered you. Because it would be fair. Because it would allow homosexuals to have families. Because abandoned children are and always will be a problem and the more families willing and/or eager to take them in, the better.

Opposite sex couples in an intimate relationship frequently produce children. Same sex couples can never produce a child. Promoting the raising of children by their biological parents is a worthy goal of government.

Well, it's a worthy goal. Why should the government do it?

Helping gays to feel better about themselves is not a valid role of government in my opinion.

Allowing them to feel equal is within the purview of our government.

 

[jb_1430]

Because, finklestein, REAL families face REAL discrimination and threats every day. Like my family.

Two guys doing each other in the ass, or women munching carpet do not a family make. And do you really think a piece of paper is going to change societies views towards gays?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Weve been over this. The courts say otherwise. They get to interpret our laws, not you.
Can anybody verbalize a reason? I mean the purpose of such a licensing and regulation scheme for gay marriages in the first place. Im really just asking to demonstrate nobody has an answer.
Opposite sex couples in an intimate relationship frequently produce children. Same sex couples can never produce a child. Promoting the raising of children by their biological parents is a worthy goal of government. Helping gays to feel better about themselves is not a valid role of government in my opinion.

Well, before we make the "court" into God we should realize that the court recognized slavery and the total lack of black rights in the Dred Scott case, the court has accepted and then rejected denying women the right to own property and the right to vote. Are you arguing that the whole Civil Rights movement was just about black people being able to feel better about themselves?

As cultures grow and mature they also learn. Science has collected an impressive body of evidence that human sexual orientation is an innate trait, thus discrimination against them is no different than discrimination against people on the basis of gender or skin color.

Your argument that gay people never have children is based on throwing out a portion of reality, there are gay people who have children by the usual biological process and also by the same medical processes that infertile heterosexual couples use. Are you going to argue that infertile hetero couples should be denied marriage because they used in vitro fertilization or surrogacy?

I think you are being dishonest, you are fabricating an argument to push an emotion stance that you have rather than just stating your position and admitting that it's an emotional one.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Two guys doing each other in the ass, or women munching carpet do not a family make. And do you really think a piece of paper is going to change societies views towards gays?

This is a good example of the emotional nature of your position. You have reduced millions of people to nothing more than putative sex acts--reductio ad absurdum. Hetero couples who decide not to have children or who are infertile engage in sex acts that will not produce children--are you including them in your orgy of reductionism?

Love and caring are what make a family. Homosexual people are no different in their ability to love and care for others than heterosexual people. Did the law change the way people felt about black people? Did giving women the right to vote change any man's mind about the value of women? It's irrelevant, it's the legal rights that are the issue despite your denial of that.