Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Segep]

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?

Your juvenile phrasing aside, you are correct to some extent. Sex alone does not a family make, whether it's a man and a woman having a one night stand or same sex tertiary couplings. However, commitment to each other for better or worse through thick and thin until death do us part DO a family make, and I defy you to tell me I'm wrong.

 

[jb_1430]

How? Blacks can marry blacks and whites can marry whites. Why do you need interracial marriage? Why did you need to change the definition of marriage? hmmm?

???? You asked

How does interracial marriage benefit society

Not why society needs interacial marriage. It benefits society because interacial couples are in intimate relationships that can produce children. Encoraging the raising of those children by the parents who created them benefits the children and society, regardless of their skin color.

Marriage neither encourages nor discourages sex.

I never said it did. I said gay sex has been more prevalent in societies that accepted and endorsed gay sex. I believe societies acceptance and endorsement of gay sex would encourage more to participate. But then again you would argue that all the gays have already been compelled by their biology and genetics to have gay sex because they have no choice in the matter.

 

[jb_1430]

Your juvenile phrasing aside, you are correct to some extent. Sex alone does not a family make, whether it's a man and a woman having a one night stand or same sex tertiary couplings.

Uuuuuuhhhhh???? Many a family have been created by one night stands between a man and a woman. AAAAAAnd not even one in the history of mankind has been created from a same sex tertiary couplings. Its biology. MARK

 

[Segep]

Uuuuuuhhhhh???? Many a family have been created by one night stands between a man and a woman. AAAAAAnd not even one in the history of mankind has been created from a same sex tertiary couplings. Its biology. MARK

So again you come back to the exclusive definition of a family as two people who have a child together. You sure like to contradict yourself. That's OK, it happens when people don't have an argument so they fall all over themselves trying to deny the obvious.

 

[jb_1430]

However, commitment to each other for better or worse through thick and thin until death do us part DO a family make, and I defy you to tell me I'm wrong.

Hmmmm? "Family"? Is a husband and a wife without kids a family? Doesnt the term generally apply to parents and children? Or related people. People use the phrase "starting a family" to refer to beginning to have children. No matter how much Bill loves Bob, neither is going to be popping any babies out of any orifice any time soon. As well, a total lack of commitment in any circumstance, between a man and a woman CAN STILL PRODUCE A FAMILY. If they got 5 kids, even if they hate each others guts, its still a family.
So yeah, your wrong.

 

[Segep]

So an older couple who cannot have kids shouldn't marry.


A younger couple who cannot have kids shouldn't marry.


A couple who consciously decides not to have kids shouldn't marry.


So why do we let them marry? Why haven't you written your representatives to stop this terrible travesty?

They met in a coffee shop a month ago but Phyllis Daniels and Wray Tatman are already engaged and planning to get married by June.

Both 63 and widowed, the couple figured there was no point in waiting.

``We feel comfortable with each other,'' said Daniels, a widow for 14 years and mother of a grown daughter. ``We have a lot of the same interests. We both like to fish and garden.''

Besides that, ``it ain't no fun being alone,'' added Tatman, a retired Navy chief petty officer whose wife of 32 years died last October.

Tatman and Daniels are looking forward to being part of a couple again, but they have a lot of hard decisions to make. That's why they attended the Senior Issues ``Remarriage'' discussion at Kempsville Library last week, sponsored by the Kempsville AARP Chapter.

Getting Married Again Popular With Older Adults in America

I'll tell you why. Because you're exercising a double standard. You say gays shouldn't get married because they can't have children and therefore aren't a family (stupid and untrue--perhaps you've heard of adoption), yet I don't see you railing against sterile couples getting married. I have a child and my partner and I are raising him, so we are, in fact, a family whether you like it or not.


Oh, and we got married on February 16, 2004. It has not harmed you in any way, yet you still insist on arguing your point as if it matters.


I'm still waiting for your proof that it has harmed you or anyone else.

 

[Coyote]

lol I was just about to point that out, Sister Coyote.


Mare and I go way back so she's used to referring to me as Coyote....

lol....even funnier...at another place I occupy, I have a good friend named Mare (for Marebear)

 

[Coyote]

Here's a thought. You have all these children in orphanages, without families. You've got all these couples getting married so they can procreate like bunnies.

Weeeellllllllll.....right here we have a niche for gay marriage so they can adopt all these kids and create families!


Whatcha think?

 

[vyo476]

Nothing is stopping homosexuals from having families... well, other than that one distinction that they dont have the biological ability to create a family.

So when a heterosexual couple goes through the rigorous process it takes to adopt, they aren't creating a family?

Once again, you're playing around with meanings. Creating a child is one thing; creating a family is something totally separate.

If there are any state adoption laws that prevent unmarried homosexuals from adopting, your problems are with the adoption law. But I doubt there are any such laws.

It has been said that the point of tax breaks and incentives that are given to married couples are there to assist them in the raising of a family. Homosexuals can adopt, but they do not have access to the monetary assistance afforded heterosexual couples.

If all those rights are there to encourage heterosexuals to marry (and thereby create a family), then to deny homosexuals those same rights is to discourage them from creating a family. The clear message is, "we want straight people bringing up children and not gay people." That is discrimination.

But I think you seem to be agreeing with what Ive said all along in that it is to allow homosexuals to "feel equal", or as I said it, feel better about themselves.

Damn those homosexuals and their desire for equality. Tell me, how do you feel about blacks and women demanding equality? Just messes up your day, doesn't it?

Other than the same ole arguement that if Heteros can marry its only "fair" that homos be allowed to as well, there is nothing here. Nobody can verbalize an underlying purpose for licensing and regulating gay couples. Kind of like demanding a license for your toy cap gun because your feeling inadequate compared to the real gun owners.

I have given you reasons, and moreover I've given you reasons that I shouldn't have to give you reasons. Your prejudice blinds you.

 

[vyo476]

Here's a thought. You have all these children in orphanages, without families. You've got all these couples getting married so they can procreate like bunnies.

Weeeellllllllll.....right here we have a niche for gay marriage so they can adopt all these kids and create families!


Whatcha think?

Simply and succinctly put. Coyote, you've wrapped it up in a nutshell here. Congrats.

 

[jb_1430]

So when a heterosexual couple goes through the rigorous process it takes to adopt, they aren't creating a family?

Well, arent they adopting a family?

Once again, you're playing around with meanings. Creating a child is one thing; creating a family is something totally separate.

I think you are playing around with the meaning of create.

It has been said that the point of tax breaks and incentives that are given to married couples are there to assist them in the raising of a family.

Exemptions go to the head of the household regardless if they are married or not.

Homosexuals can adopt, but they do not have access to the monetary assistance afforded heterosexual couples.

"Monetary assistance"??? What are you refering to? Some state welfare benefit? I suspect any instance of differing assistance probably presents an arguement for not discriminating against non married people. Not an arguement for not discriminating against gays.

If all those rights are there to encourage heterosexuals to marry (and thereby create a family),

I never said they were all to encourage heteros to marry, and never said they were to encourage them to create a family. Intimate hetero couples frequently produce children and families, sometimes even when they dont plan to, so government encourages them to marry.

then to deny homosexuals those same rights is to discourage them from creating a family. The clear message is, "we want straight people bringing up children and not gay people." That is discrimination.

Its a clear message that we prefer that biological parents raise their children. Two is better than one and one is better than none. If thats not going to happen , of course we prefer someone other than the biological parents to raise the children. If adoption laws in some states discriminate against non married people, thats an arguement to change the adoption laws, not the marriage laws.

Damn those homosexuals and their desire for equality. Tell me, how do you feel about blacks and women demanding equality? Just messes up your day, doesn't it?

getting desparate, huh?

I have given you reasons, and moreover I've given you reasons that I shouldn't have to give you reasons. Your prejudice blinds you.

Homosexual couples are not equal to Heterosexual couples. They dont produce children. If they were equal, bottom boy would need to get a prescription of birth control pills to keep from getting pregnant.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Well, arent they adopting a family? I think you are playing around with the meaning of create.

You seem to be arguing both sides of the equation. If the law is to encourage the creation of families then homosexual families should qualify shouldn't they?

"Monetary assistance"??? What are you refering to? Some state welfare benefit? I suspect any instance of differing assistance probably presents an arguement for not discriminating against non married people. Not an arguement for not discriminating against gays.

You are being deliberately obtuse because you can't find a real argument against gay people getting married for all the same reasons that heterosexual people get married. There are 1049 legal rights and privileges reserved for legally married people and these provide much assistance and protection for married people. There appears to be no rational reason for denying these rights and privileges to any couple since stable marriages are a boon to society and provide security not only to the participants but also to their extended families. Marriage is a good thing and there is no reason to deny it to consenting adult homosexuals in this country.

getting desparate, huh?

Actually, you are the one who seems to be getting desperate, when you have to ignore valid questions about equality, questions that have been fought over in this country and have been settled by finally granting rights hitherto denied to select groups it seems a valid query for you to address. You are advocating just like the KKK used to do, the same kinds of vague arguments and the same dismissal of any question that would make you truly look at what you are proposing.

Homosexual couples are not equal to Heterosexual couples. They dont produce children. If they were equal, bottom boy would need to get a prescription of birth control pills to keep from getting pregnant.

So that is the final measure of human value. Sterile people should be denied rights along with homosexuals then, old people should have their marriages annulled as soon as the wife reaches menopause. Yep, you are in the KKK class of mental defectives (for your sake I hope it's congenital and not something you did to yourself with drugs).

 

[Segep]

Well, arent they adopting a family?

You have stated yourself that your definition of a family is a man and a woman together with their blood child. How could they adopt two adults and a kid?

I think you are playing around with the meaning of create.

Play with this--

cre·ate (kr-t)
tr.v. cre·at·ed, cre·at·ing, cre·ates
1. To cause to exist; bring into being.
2. To give rise to; produce:
3. To invest with an office or title; appoint.
4. To produce through artistic or imaginative effort: create a poem; create a role.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/create

Two is better than one and one is better than none.

*raised eyebrow*

Indeed.

getting desparate, huh?

Mark


You are the one looking desperate right now.


Jules

Homosexual couples are not equal to Heterosexual couples. They dont produce children. If they were equal, bottom boy would need to get a prescription of birth control pills to keep from getting pregnant.

Resorting to more juvenile attempts at insult humor. Truly the sign of a man desperately trying to regain the upper hand in an argument he knows he has already lost.




Still won't join my thread, eh? Well, I can't say that I blame you. You know you got nothin'. I wouldn't do it either, if I were you. You would only come off looking even more desperate.

 

[jb_1430]

You seem to be arguing both sides of the equation. If the law is to encourage the creation of families then homosexual families should qualify shouldn't they?

????? Strange interpretation of

I never said they were all to encourage heteros to marry, and never said they were to encourage them to create a family. Intimate hetero couples frequently produce children and families, sometimes even when they dont plan to, so government encourages them to marry.

I understand your inability to address my arguements, but please dont make up arguements that you attribute to me, in hopes of creating an arguement you can addresss.

 

[jb_1430]

Still won't join my thread, eh? Well, I can't say that I blame you. You know you got nothin'. I wouldn't do it either, if I were you. You would only come off looking even more desperate.

???? Ok, I'll bite. What thread havent I joined