Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[jb_1430]

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.

Ive addressed them repeatedly. If you dont like my explanation, how about the Supreme court of the United States. Its the same as mine.

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

Marriage and procreation are so inextricably related that they form ONE fundamental right in the eyes of the law.

 

[jb_1430]

Play with this--
Quote:
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.

Your kind of making my arguement for me.

 

[jb_1430]

Ive addressed them repeatedly. If you dont like my explanation, how about the Supreme court of the United States. Its the same as mine.

We are dealing here with legislation which involves one of the basic civil rights of man. Marriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race.

Marriage and procreation are so inextricably related that they form ONE fundamental right in the eyes of the law.

Or here is the Washington Supreme Court just last year.

...
The Legislature was entitled to believe that limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples furthers procreation, essential to the survival of the human race and furthers the well-being of children by encouraging families where children are reared in homes headed by children's biological parents. Allowing same-sex couples to marry does not, in the legislature’s view, further these purposes.
....
There also is no violation of the state due process clause. DOMA bears a
reasonable relationship to legitimate state interests—procreation and child-rearing.
....

Nearly all United States Supreme Court decisions declaring marriage to be
a fundamental right expressly link marriage to fundamental rights of procreation, childbirth, abortion, and child-rearing.
...
t is not surprising that the decision to marry has been
placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to
procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships. . . .
t would make little sense to recognize a right of privacy with
respect to other matters of family life and not with respect to the
decision to enter the relationship that is the foundation of the family
in our society.
...
(marriage is “the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress”)
....

the “institution of opposite-sex marriage both encourages such couples to
enter into a stable relationship before having children and to remain in such a
relationship if children arrive during the marriage unexpectedly
...
In addition, the need to resolve the sometimes conflicting rights and obligations of the same-sex couple and the necessary third party in relation to a child also provides a rational basis for limiting traditional marriage to opposite-sex couples.
...
That is, the legislature was entitled to believe that providing that only opposite-sex couples may marry will encourage procreation and child-rearing in a “traditional” nuclear family where children tend to thrive.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

 

[numinus]

The slippery slope argument is fallacious.
Marriage laws are restricted to consenting adults, that's all that's being discussed. Animals, refridgerators, and children are not consenting adults.

The restrictions of a marriage DOES NOT define its PURPOSE.

You are arguing the LETTER of the law, and not its SPIRIT.

Why is it that we can have heterosexual marriage without the slippery slope of men marrying little girls?

Again - FAMILY AS THE NATURAL AND FUNDAMENATL UNIT OF SOCIETY.

In light of this PURPOSE, the restriction of 'consenting adults' takes on an unmistakeable meaning.

No one is asking for incestual marriage, in fact the only people who bring it up are the one's scrambling for SOME argument to disallow consenting homosexual adults to marry.

When you define the marriage as simply the agreement between consenting adults, then LOGIC dictates that you allow incestual marriages as well. Just because no one is asking for it doesn't mean that it does not logically follow.

There is no explicit right to privacy, for instance. It is IMPLIED in those mentioned in the bill of rights. Such is the logical operation of the law.

Polygamy is already practiced around the world and here in the US (albeit not legally) and it works just fine, but no one is asking for that either.

Exactly the point!

There is no reason not to recognize it legally IF marriage is merely an agreement between consenting adults.

Polygamy is at the other end of the spectrum being discussed. Marriage is BOTH UNITIVE AND PROCREATIVE.

If it were unitive alone, then why not homosexual relations? If it were procreative alone, then why not polygamy?

The defects of one or the other stems from BOTH these aspects.

All we are asking for is the same rights that all other consenting adults already have in this country--that's all--if you add anything else to the mix it is done for the sake of obfuscation since you have no REAL reason to ban gay marriage.

Marriage has been defined this way since god knows when!

It is for you to logically demonstrate how gay marriages serve the purpose for which marriage exists in the first place.

Talk about obfuscation, indeed!

 

[numinus]

We've all answered you. Because it would be fair.

No amount of 'fairness' can change the NATURAL FECUNDITY inherent in human nature.

Because it would allow homosexuals to have families.

This is so far, the height of absurdity concocted for gay marriages.

Children are not lost puppies available for anyone who wish to adopt. How can any state confer an inalienable right over another (and a child, at that) indiscriminately, eh?

And the reason why they are adopting in the first place is because they CHOSE NOT TO EXERCISE THEIR NATURAL FECUNDITY.

Simple nonsense!

Because abandoned children are and always will be a problem and the more families willing and/or eager to take them in, the better.

This is an over-simplification at best and an outright non-sequitur at worst!

The welfare of the children is the primary consideration - that is, the ability of the foster parent(s) to provide an environment that a child has a RIGHT to.

Adoption by itself is not an answer.

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

Where is the 'worth' in such a goal when there is no discernable logical purpose to it, eh?

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

The government is not obliged to make you 'feel' anything.

 

[numinus]

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.

Moral boundaries are defined by what LOGIC can discern.

No amount of majority anything can change that.

 

[numinus]

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

Now that would be a compeling reason to petition your government - if in fact the discriminations and threats are REAL.

 

[numinus]

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.

And the pursuit of their happiness just happens to be for the state (and everyone else for that matter) to attach legal and moral impetus to their sexual preference, eh?

Sorry. Nothing in the constitution obliges the government to do this.

 

[Segep]

Your kind of making my arguement for me.

O Rly?



Please explain how I have not "caused to exist" a three person family that was not there 5 years ago.

I have invested our little trio with the title of "family", have I not?

My neighbors, place of employment, and relatives from both sides seem to think we're a family. How is it that you know so much more than they do?

 

[Segep]

Now that would be a compeling reason to petition your government - if in fact the discriminations and threats are REAL.

This is by far the easiest evidentiary google search I've ever done.

Vernon Foeller's partner looked forward to visiting him at the California Medical Facility, even though it meant driving to Vacaville, sitting in an uncomfortable visiting room, and enduring the homophobic comments and attitudes of other prisoners, visitors and even prison staff. Foeller was serving 18 months for burglary.

Denied Visitation Rights
The two men were crushed, however, when California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) personnel refused their request for an overnight family visit, even though they met all the other family visitation requirements and were registered domestic partners – a union recognized by the state of California. Subsequently, Vernon’s partner contacted the ACLU.

Prisoners' Domestic Partners Have Family Visitation Rights - Its the Law

Christine Avramov, a 28-year-old from Riverside, and Jessica, a 21-year-old from Luxembourg, fell madly in love by e-mail during the summer of 2001. After Jessica surprised Christine with a visit to Los Angeles for her birthday that fall, they knew their long-distance romance wasn’t enough. “I was driving her back to LAX, and she said, ‘I don’t want to go. I want to stay on,’” Christine recalled.

Jessica applied for a student visa and enrolled in law school the following January. A month later, they registered as domestic partners to make their union official. But the happy life they hoped for has turned into a quagmire worthy of Kafka. Jessica’s visa has been denied twice. She’s appealing the decision, but any day now the government could tell her to leave. “We had a home, and now it’s threatened,” Christine said. “People think if you live in L.A., you shouldn’t worry. Hello, the INS can come pull you out of your house if they feel like it. That’s scary. They can just come in and ruin your life.”

While California law grants many of the rights of marriage to gay and lesbian domestic partners, federal immigration law denies bi-national, same-sex couples the most basic and fundamental right to live together in the United States.

If Jessica and Christine were straight, they could fly to Las Vegas to marry, and the next day Jessica would be eligible to work and reside here permanently. Instead, as a lesbian couple with no right to marry, they’ve exhausted their legal options, and they’re giving up on the United States to move to Canada.

Exiled By Love

Now that the Republicans have lost control of Congress, perhaps legislation such as the Uniting American Families Act will finally get passed. This bill would give U.S. citizens the right to give their loved ones citizenship.

Yes, this is a right that already exists, but only if you marry someone of the opposite sex.

Currently, U.S. citizens cannot extend citizenship rights to their same-sex, foreign-born partners. While some people want to “defend marriage,” they don’t seem concerned with defending the rights of real people who consider their relationships as valid as the latest 24-hour tabloid marriage or mail order bride.

Till Deportation Do Us Part

This has to continue in another post....

 

[Coyote]

Sounds like discrimmination to me...

 

[Segep]

Real threats and discrimination Part II

In 2005, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) Board of Directors commissioned the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health, the Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care, the Committee on Adolescence, the Committee on State Government Affairs, the Committee on Federal Government Affairs, and the Section on Adoption and Foster Care to develop an analysis examining the effects of marriage, civil union, and domestic partnership statutes and amendments on the legal, financial, and psychosocial health and well-being of children whose parents are gay or lesbian.

***

This analysis explores the unique and complex challenges that same-gender couples and their children face as a result of public policy that excludes them from civil marriage. In compiling this report it became clear to the contributing committees and section that the depth and breadth of these challenges are largely unknown to the general public and perhaps even to many pediatricians. As such, the AAP Board of Directors approved the broad dissemination of this analysis to assist pediatricians with addressing the complex issues related to same-gender couples and their children.

***

As noted earlier, the Government Accountability Office has identified a total of 1138 federal statutory provisions classified to the US Code in which marital status is a factor in determining or receiving rights, benefits, and protections.7 In addition, there are numerous state-based programs, benefits, rights, and protections that are based on marital status.

For same-gender couples and their children, enactment of marriage amendments halts the possibility of obtaining many legal and financial rights, benefits, and protections such as:

* legal recognition of the couple's commitment to and responsibility for one another;
* legal recognition of joint parenting rights when a child is born or adopted;
* legal recognition of a child's relationship to both parents;
* joint or coparent adoption (in most states);
* second-parent adoption (in most states);
* foster parenting (in some states);
* eligibility for public housing and housing subsidies;
* ability to own a home as "tenants by the entirety" (ie, a special kind of property ownership for married couples through which both spouses have the right to enjoy the entire property, and when one spouse dies, the surviving spouse gets title to the property [in some states]);
* protection of marital home from creditors (in some states);
* automatic financial decision-making authority on behalf of one's partner;
* access to employer-based health insurance and other benefits for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children (considered a taxable benefit for same-gender couples by the Internal Revenue Service, which is not the case for married heterosexual couples);
* access to spouse benefits under Medicare and certain Medicaid benefits (spouses are considered essential to individuals receiving Medicaid benefits and, therefore, are eligible for medical assistance themselves; family coverage programs would deny coverage to same-gender partners and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children);
* ability to enroll nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children in public and medical assistance programs;
* ability of both parents to consent to medical care or authorize emergency medical treatment for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* ability to make medical decisions for an incapacitated or ailing partner;
* recognition as next of kin for the purpose of visiting partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child in hospitals or other facilities;
* ability to take advantage of the federal Family Medical Leave Act to care for a sick partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* ability to obtain life insurance (because of findings of no insurable interest in one's partner or nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted child);
* ability to obtain joint homeowner and automobile insurance policies and take advantage of family discounts;
* recognition as an authority in educational settings to register a child for school, be involved in a child's education plan, and provide consent on waivers and sign permission forms;
* ability to travel with a child if it will require proof of being a legal parent;
* access to spousal benefits of worker's compensation;
* ability to file joint income tax returns and take advantage of family-related deductions;
* privilege afforded to married heterosexual couples that protects one spouse from testifying against another in court;
* immigration and residency privileges for partners and children from other countries;
* protections and compensation for families of crime victims (state and federal programs);
* access to the courts for a legally structured means of dissolution of the relationship (divorce is not recognized because marriage is not recognized);
* visitation rights and/or custody of children after the dissolution of a partnership;
* children's rights to financial support from and ongoing relationships with both parents should the partnership be dissolved;
* legal standing of one partner if a child is removed from the legal/adoptive parent and home by child protective services;
* domestic violence protections such as restraining orders;
* automatic, tax- and penalty-free inheritance from a deceased partner or parent of shared assets, property, or personal items by the surviving partner and nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* children's right to maintain a relationship with a nonbiological/not-jointly-adopting parent in the event of the death of the other parent;
* surviving parent's right to maintain custody of and care for nonbiological/not-jointly-adopted children;
* Social Security survivor benefits for a surviving partner and children after the death of one partner;
* exemptions from property tax increases in the event of the death of a partner (offered in some states to surviving spouses);
* automatic access to pensions and other retirement accounts by surviving partner;
* access to deceased partner's veteran's benefits;
* ability to roll deceased partner's 401(k) funds into an individual retirement account without paying up to 70% of it in taxes and penalties; and
* right to sue for wrongful death of a deceased partner.

Bear with me, it's almost over....

 

[Segep]

Reality Part III

...Continued from previous quote

Nationwide political and religious debate over same-gender marriage has intensified an already unstable climate for gay men and lesbians in our society. The lack of societal tolerance, acceptance, and support that gay and lesbian individuals, couples, and their children experience can and does affect their psychosocial and physical health and safety.

Indeed, the US Department of Justice, in its 1997 publication A Policymaker's Guide to Hate Crimes, noted that "[a] host of factors may create a climate in which people, motivated by their biases, take criminal action. Such factors include poor or uncertain economic conditions, racial stereotypes in films and on television, hate-filled discourse on talk shows or in political advertisements, the use of racial code language such as ‘welfare mothers’ and ‘inner city thugs,’ and an individual's personal experiences with members of particular minority groups."24

Similarly, children whose parents are of the same gender may experience social marginalization and become the objects of ridicule and harassment by other children and adults who do not understand or who disapprove of gay and lesbian parenting. Children experiencing this type of treatment may not know how to seek, or where to find, support. Although same-gender couples are raising children in 96% of all the counties in the United States, support services and trusted individuals are not available in all of these areas. Efforts to prohibit the establishment of student groups known as "gay-straight alliances" in various school districts and states may serve to worsen this situation.

***

Parenting Attitudes and Behavior, Personality, and Adjustment of Parents
Discriminatory practices are based on the assumption that lesbian mothers and gay fathers are different from heterosexual parents in ways that are detrimental to their children's well-being. However, few differences have been found in research conducted over the last 3 decades comparing lesbian and heterosexual mothers' self-esteem, psychological adjustment, and attitudes toward child rearing.25,26 Lesbian mothers fall within the range of normal psychological functioning on interviews and psychological assessments, and report scores on standardized measures of self-esteem, anxiety, depression, and parenting stress indistinguishable from those reported by heterosexual mothers.27

Lesbian mothers strongly endorse child-centered attitudes and commitment to their maternal roles28 and have been shown to be more concerned with providing male role models for their children than are divorced heterosexual mothers.29 Lesbian and heterosexual mothers describe themselves similarly in marital and maternal interests, current lifestyles, and child-rearing practices.29 They report similar role conflicts, social support networks, and coping strategies.30,31

Empirical evidence reveals that gay fathers have substantial evidence of nurturance and investment in their paternal role and no differences from heterosexual fathers in providing appropriate recreation or encouraging autonomy. Gay fathers have been described to adhere to strict disciplinary guidelines, to place an emphasis on guidance and the development of cognitive skills, and to be involved in their children's activities.32,33 Overall, there are more similarities than differences in the parenting styles and attitudes of gay and nongay fathers.34,35

The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children

Whew! You made it! Congratulations!


There was so much information in that last link I provided that I had to stop myself from pasting the whole damned thing here. Since I know you have no intention of checking out the link for yourself (or even reading it closely), let me just tell you that it comes direct from the American Academy of Pediatrics, and it is their position that my family does indeed face real threats and discrimination. One could reasonably argue that there is no more authoritative source on the health and well-being of children.

So tell me how you came to be possessed of such extraordinary knowledge that you know more than the AAP?

 

[vyo476]

Well, arent they adopting a family?

No, they're adopting a child. They're creating a family.

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

How so?

"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.

So...rather than allowing gay people to have the same married benefits as heterosexual couples, we'll give all people the same married benefits as heterosexual couples and continue to deny homosexuals the right to marry. Is that what you want?

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.

Why? The people make the babies and then the government encourages them to marry by making benefits. So what's the point of the marriage? The kid is already there, so it isn't to produce children. It's to provide a structure for the child's upbringing, yes?

The problem is that the people have made the babies without the structure. The kid already exists; the government is encouraging the people to make the structure. Why, then, shouldn't the government encourage other people to make the same structures for the kids who are inevitably abandoned by their biological parents?

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.

It is not the adoption laws (to the best of my knowledge - I've never tried to adopt) but the tax laws that discriminate. Mare knows more about this than I do, ask her.

getting desparate, huh?

I think "disgusted" would fit better.

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.

Homosexual couples are equal to heterosexual couples. They are capable of feeling the same love and commitment as heterosexuals. They are capable of being as loving towards children as heterosexuals. They cannot produce children biologically as heterosexual couples do; but that does not mean they cannot be parents.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

And the pursuit of their happiness just happens to be for the state (and everyone else for that matter) to attach legal and moral impetus to their sexual preference, eh?

Sorry. Nothing in the constitution obliges the government to do this.

Am I the only one who thinks that Numinus is Pale Rider's twin bother? (Yes, the spelling was intentional.)