Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[numinus]

They're not talking about law. I can see you didn't read a word of it. They're talking about the overall health of children. Something you are obviously a world class expert on.

/sarcasm

And yet they documented a thousand cases where they deem the law discriminatory!

 

[Segep]

And yet they documented a thousand cases where they deem the law discriminatory!

If you're not going to read the sources I provide to support my argument, you have no business pretending you know something. You're just going to be outclassed, and appear even more inflexible, intolerant and bigoted to the rest of the forum.


Let's analyze this, shall we?

Civil marriage is a legal status through which societal recognition and support are given to couples and families.

Do you agree with this statement? Do you agree that society should support and recognize one man/one woman relationships, especially when they are raising children? Of course you do. I think we can both agree that this statement is pretty true. Nowhere have they yet offered an opinion on marriage itself.

It provides a context for legal, financial, and psychosocial well-being, an endorsement of interdependent care, and a form of public acknowledgment and respect for personal bonds.

Again, pretty much true, wouldn't you say?

Opponents of same-gender civil marriage often suggest that the legal recognition afforded by civil marriage for same-gender couples is unnecessary, noting that all of the rights and protections that are needed can be obtained by drawing up legal agreements with an attorney.

Do you agree with this?

In reality, same-gender partners can secure only a small number of very basic agreements, such as power of attorney, naming the survivor in one's will (at the risk of paying an inheritance tax, which does not apply to heterosexual married couples), and protecting assets in a trust. Even these agreements, however, represent only the "best guesses" of the legal community and may not withstand challenges from extended family members of the couple.

Here is the only point you have to argue against. Do you agree with their sources that there 1138 discrete government granted benefits to marriage? If not, why? What sources do you have to refute this? Be specific.

Such challenges are not rare given the lack of societal understanding and acceptance of homosexuality and same-gender partnerships. Moreover, legal agreements cannot win for the couple and their children access to the rights, benefits, and protections afforded by the federal and state governments to heterosexual married couples.

Again, they are just stating facts. You can quibble with the facts if you have sources to back them up.

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.

Prove these facts are wrong.


Now let's look at the actual commentary section of the article I quoted. If the AAP is going to offer any kind of official position on the law, it would be here.

COMMENTARY

In all its work, the AAP is committed to calling attention to the inextricable link between the health and well-being of all children, the support and encouragement of all parents, and the protection of strong family relationships. This analysis was prepared to bring to light the legal, financial, and psychosocial ramifications of recent and proposed public-policy initiatives affecting same-gender parents and their children.

Civil marriage is a legal status that promotes healthy families by conferring a powerful set of rights, benefits, and protections that cannot be obtained by other means. Civil marriage can help foster financial and legal security, psychosocial stability, and an augmented sense of societal acceptance and support. Legal recognition of a spouse can increase the ability of adult couples to provide and care for one another and fosters a nurturing and secure environment for their children. Children who are raised by civilly married parents benefit from the legal status granted to their parents.

Gay and lesbian people have been raising children for many years and will continue to do so in the future; the issue is whether these children will be raised by parents who have the rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage. Same-gender couples are denied the right to civil marriage in every state except Massachusetts and the right to civil union except in Connecticut and Vermont. The federal government and other state governments do not recognize those civil marriages and civil unions.

There is ample evidence to show that children raised by same-gender parents fare as well as those raised by heterosexual parents. More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.

Did you read it carefully? There's going to be a quiz.




Q: Did the AAP take an official position that the federal Defense of Marriage Act and other state laws against gay marriage and domestic partnerships were discriminatory?


A: No, they only enumerated the various benefits to children whose parents are married and gave their expert opinion on the health and welfare effects of discrimination itself on the children of gay parents. They left the reader to draw the conclusion that the laws were discriminatory for him or herself, and it looks like you were able to pick up on that. There are over 1000 cases where the law is discriminatory.



Looks like you may have learned something in spite of yourself.

 

[numinus]

If you're not going to read the sources I provide to support my argument, you have no business pretending you know something. You're just going to be outclassed, and appear even more inflexible, intolerant and bigoted to the rest of the forum.


Let's analyze this, shall we?

Ok. Lets.

Do you agree with this statement? Do you agree that society should support and recognize one man/one woman relationships, especially when they are raising children? Of course you do. I think we can both agree that this statement is pretty true. Nowhere have they yet offered an opinion on marriage itself.

Nope. Society should support a woman's right to MOTHERHOOD. The relationship is secondary.

Again, pretty much true, wouldn't you say?

Not in the marital institution's entirety - but correct.

Do you agree with this?

That is just one of the criticisms - but also correct.

Here is the only point you have to argue against. Do you agree with their sources that there 1138 discrete government granted benefits to marriage? If not, why? What sources do you have to refute this? Be specific.

All transfer of real property ownership IS subject to taxes.

If it is bought, then it's called capital gains tax. If it is inherited - inheritance or estate taxes. If it is donated - donation tax. So the form of taxes to be assessed are subject to the instrument of transfer.

Specific enough for you?

Again, they are just stating facts. You can quibble with the facts if you have sources to back them up.

Homosexual couples have children WITHIN the union?! Absolutely NOT. And that is FACT.

You keep ignoring this FACT and I keep reminding you of it.

That's the point, isn't it? Understand that the right to motherhood is the only thing that is inalienable in this discussion. Paternity and legal guardianship are dependent on the family relations that ensue from this inalienable right.

Much less when you speak of homosexual unions and adoptions.

Prove these facts are wrong.

Those aren't facts but opinions, and of a legal nature at that.

Don't pretend to speak to me about facts if you couldn't recognize them yourself if it ran smack at your face.

Now let's look at the actual commentary section of the article I quoted. If the AAP is going to offer any kind of official position on the law, it would be here.



Did you read it carefully? There's going to be a quiz.

LOL

And you feel you are up to the task of quizzing me?

Q: Did the AAP take an official position that the federal Defense of Marriage Act and other state laws against gay marriage and domestic partnerships were discriminatory?


A: No, they only enumerated the various benefits to children whose parents are married and gave their expert opinion on the health and welfare effects of discrimination itself on the children of gay parents. They left the reader to draw the conclusion that the laws were discriminatory for him or herself, and it looks like you were able to pick up on that. There are over 1000 cases where the law is discriminatory.

Of course they did. They took the position that the laws are discriminatory against homosexual relationships vis-a-vis, those that are the RESULT of MOTHERHOOD AND FAMILY RELATIONS.

Or are you denying this?

Looks like you may have learned something in spite of yourself.

And you pretend to teach me as well?!

Unbelieveable!

 

[Segep]

Ok. Lets.



Nope. Society should support a woman's right to MOTHERHOOD. The relationship is secondary.



Not in the marital institution's entirety - but correct.



That is just one of the criticisms - but also correct.



All transfer of real property ownership IS subject to taxes.

If it is bought, then it's called capital gains tax. If it is inherited - inheritance or estate taxes. If it is donated - donation tax. So the form of taxes to be assessed are subject to the instrument of transfer.

Specific enough for you?



Homosexual couples have children WITHIN the union?! Absolutely NOT. And that is FACT.

You keep ignoring this FACT and I keep reminding you of it.

That's the point, isn't it? Understand that the right to motherhood is the only thing that is inalienable in this discussion. Paternity and legal guardianship are dependent on the family relations that ensue from this inalienable right.

Then why do they give marriage licenses to couples who absolutely cannot have children within the union?

Much less when you speak of homosexual unions and adoptions.



Those aren't facts but opinions, and of a legal nature at that.

Don't pretend to speak to me about facts if you couldn't recognize them yourself if it ran smack at your face.



LOL

And you feel you are up to the task of quizzing me?



Of course they did. They took the position that the laws are discriminatory against homosexual relationships vis-a-vis, those that are the RESULT of MOTHERHOOD AND FAMILY RELATIONS.



And you pretend to teach me as well?!

Unbelieveable!

True, it is unbelievable. You have proven yourself incapable of being taught.

 

[jb_1430]

Q: Did the AAP take an official position that the federal Defense of Marriage Act and other state laws against gay marriage and domestic partnerships were discriminatory?


A: No, they only enumerated the various benefits to children whose parents are married and gave their expert opinion on the health and welfare effects of discrimination itself on the children of gay 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.

Not only alleged they were discriminatory but also made allegations as to the motives. Riiiight,(sarcasm) like some legislator back in the 1800s who wrote marriage laws for husbands and wives did so because he thought homos raising kids would be detrimental to their well being.
The disparate treatment is based upon the biological fact that an intimate, heterosexual couple can produce a child. And the corresponding fact that a homosexual couple cannot. The law presumes a child, born to a married heterosexual couple is the biological child of that couple, and they the biological parents, because, it is likely, that in fact they are. In the case of homosexual couples, it is a scientific impossibility.

 

[Segep]

Not only alleged they were discriminatory but also made allegations as to the motives. Riiiight,(sarcasm) like some legislator back in the 1800s who wrote marriage laws for husbands and wives did so because he thought homos raising kids would be detrimental to their well being.
The disparate treatment is based upon the biological fact that an intimate, heterosexual couple can produce a child. And the corresponding fact that a homosexual couple cannot. The law presumes a child, born to a married heterosexual couple is the biological child of that couple, and they the biological parents, because, it is likely, that in fact they are. In the case of homosexual couples, it is a scientific impossibility.

I'm starting to feel like a broken record.

The disparate treatment is based upon the biological fact that an intimate, sterile, heterosexual couple, or couples past their childbearing age, can not produce a child. And the corresponding fact that a homosexual couple cannot. The law presumes a child, born to a married heterosexual couple is the biological child of that couple, and they the biological parents, because, it is likely, that in fact they are. In the case of sterile couples, it is a scientific impossibility.

Yet they still issue those licenses to sterile, heterosexual "toy cap gun" marriages....

 

[jb_1430]

Then why do they give marriage licenses to couples who absolutely cannot have children within the union?

Had you read the Washington Supreme Court case, you would have seen

http://www.courts.wa.gov/newsinfo/content/pdf/759341opn.pdf

on page 34, the court applying MATHEWS v. LUCAS and directly answering your question,

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=427&invol=495

where a statute, that automatically presumed that a legitimate child whose parent dies, was "dependent" on that parent and therefore entitled to SS benefits, was upheld. Even though the operation of the law would automatically give benefits to children who were not actually dependent on the deceased parent, the statute withstands rational basis analysis. EVEN THOUGH "Congress' purpose in adopting the statutory presumptions of dependency was obviously to serve administrative convenience."
For "administrative convenience" the state can give benefits to all heterosexual couples who get married even though doing so for some of those couples, doesnt serve the purpose of the law because they do not procreate. And since a good portion of births arent necessarily planned, the intent of the statutes are to encourage heterosexual couples to get married because they might procreate. It just isnt ever going to happen in a homosexual relationship. To include them would only make the marriage laws even more imprecise, which was the complaint in the first place.

 

[jb_1430]

If a child is born to a sterile couple, its pretty obvious the woman isnt so sterile.

I'm starting to feel like a broken record.

The disparate treatment is based upon the biological fact that an intimate, sterile, heterosexual couple, or couples past their childbearing age, can not produce a child. And the corresponding fact that a homosexual couple cannot. The law presumes a child, born to a married heterosexual couple is the biological child of that couple, and they the biological parents, because, it is likely, that in fact they are. In the case of sterile couples, it is a scientific impossibility.

Yet they still issue those licenses to sterile, heterosexual "toy cap gun" marriages....

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Not only alleged they were discriminatory but also made allegations as to the motives. Riiiight,(sarcasm) like some legislator back in the 1800s who wrote marriage laws for husbands and wives did so because he thought homos raising kids would be detrimental to their well being.
The disparate treatment is based upon the biological fact that an intimate, heterosexual couple can produce a child. And the corresponding fact that a homosexual couple cannot. The law presumes a child, born to a married heterosexual couple is the biological child of that couple, and they the biological parents, because, it is likely, that in fact they are. In the case of homosexual couples, it is a scientific impossibility.

If that were the case then marriage would denied to sterile heterosexual couples because we would KNOW that they could not produce a child. Your argument is nonsense because the only group of consenting adults not allowed to marry are homosexuals, even death row inmates can marry and THEY have no chance to produce offspring either.

 

[jb_1430]

If that were the case then marriage would denied to sterile heterosexual couples because we would KNOW that they could not produce a child. Your argument is nonsense because the only group of consenting adults not allowed to marry are homosexuals, even death row inmates can marry and THEY have no chance to produce offspring either.

I see that the Washington Court case and its application of MATHEWS v. LUCAS to the gay marriage situation COMPLETELY escapes both of you.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I see that the Washington Court case and its application of MATHEWS v. LUCAS to the gay marriage situation COMPLETELY escapes both of you.

This is just a State Court, other State Courts have decided differently. Even the US Supreme Court has made bad decisions: the Dred Scott case comes immediately to mind. You like this case because it fits your argument.

 

[ilikeboobs]

Choice.
You can choose to hump someone with the same plumbing as you, or you can choose not to.

i always hear the argument that homos are akin to blacks in terms of their civil rights struggles.

uh...last time i checked black folks CAN NOT choose to not be black. they're stuck with it.

i choose to hump hot chicks. but deep down, i'm a lesbian.

 

[FRYandBENDER]

I don't see what it matters if it is choice or genetic. I hear of a lot of gays saying that it is who they are (genetically or physiologically), and it almost seems like they're using that argument to justify their behavior. Why even go that far. Last time I checked America was all about having choices. Whether you choose to be gay, straight, or whatever. Granted, the OP might not have only been curious as to whether or not it was genetic or choice only, but IMO it doesn't really matter as far as justifying homosexuality goes. If people want to bang a door knob then let them have at it.

 

[Segep]

Choice.
You can choose to hump someone with the same plumbing as you, or you can choose not to.

i always hear the argument that homos are akin to blacks in terms of their civil rights struggles.

uh...last time i checked black folks CAN NOT choose to not be black. they're stuck with it.

i choose to hump hot chicks. but deep down, i'm a lesbian.

Then you can tell me honestly that my ass would turn you on if you really wanted it to?

 

[numinus]

Then why do they give marriage licenses to couples who absolutely cannot have children within the union?

And so the marriage can be annulled (not simply dissolved) on the strenght of this fact alone.

How long must I say this before you finally give yourself leave to comprehend, eh?

True, it is unbelievable. You have proven yourself incapable of being taught.

Depends on who's doing the teaching.

Although one can just as easily pretend to teach when there is simply nothing of intellectual value to be had from one's posts.