Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[ilikeboobs]

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

Honestly, yes. If I get horny enough I'll screw just about anything!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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

I believe that you have just supplied one of the most unabashedly honest self-evaluations that I have ever had the good fortune to read. Thank you.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Honestly, yes. If I get horny enough I'll screw just about anything!

And YOU are against gay people getting married? If that's not hypocrisy then I have never seen it.

 

[palerider]

And YOU are against gay people getting married? If that's not hypocrisy then I have never seen it.

Gay people can get married. There is no law preventing them from getting married under the same conditions as anyone else.

In the gay marriage issue, you are asking for SPECIAL rights based on sexual preference, and sexual preference is no basis upon which to grant any right. If my sexual preference is for tall, sexy blue eyed, big busted blonds who are way out of my league, are you prepared to grant me special rights to satisfy my sexual preferences? If you are willing to grant one group special rights to satisfy theirs, then you are obligated to satisfy others as well

 

[Segep]

If my sexual preference is for tall, sexy blue eyed, big busted blonds who are way out of my league, are you prepared to grant me special rights to satisfy my sexual preferences? If you are willing to grant one group special rights to satisfy theirs, then you are obligated to satisfy others as well

Your group already has special rights. You can marry exclusively tall, sexy blue eyed big busted blonds if that is what turns you on. That is your special right to satisfy your [hetero]sexual preference.

How many times do I have to post this before you give yourself leave to understand?

 

[Coyote]

Gay people can get married. There is no law preventing them from getting married under the same conditions as anyone else.

In the gay marriage issue, you are asking for SPECIAL rights based on sexual preference, and sexual preference is no basis upon which to grant any right. If my sexual preference is for tall, sexy blue eyed, big busted blonds who are way out of my league, are you prepared to grant me special rights to satisfy my sexual preferences? If you are willing to grant one group special rights to satisfy theirs, then you are obligated to satisfy others as well

How is that different then the arguments for and against interracial marriage? Would you consider those "special rights"?

If gay marriage does no harm, and confers benefit by legitimizing more families - then what difference does it make?

If indeed sexual preference is not merely a "preference" but a biological imperitive - then what? Are rights being denied since it's not simply a "preference"? If it's not simply a "preference" then why do heterosexuals get special rights and benefits? It appears that for a substantial group of those who call themselves homosexual, the "preference" is hardwired.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Gay people can get married. There is no law preventing them from getting married under the same conditions as anyone else.

In the gay marriage issue, you are asking for SPECIAL rights based on sexual preference, and sexual preference is no basis upon which to grant any right. If my sexual preference is for tall, sexy blue eyed, big busted blonds who are way out of my league, are you prepared to grant me special rights to satisfy my sexual preferences? If you are willing to grant one group special rights to satisfy theirs, then you are obligated to satisfy others as well

I have to admit that I get tired of your idiotic arguments. Haven't you ever read ANY history? The same tired nonsense was bruited about by bigots about interracial marriage: everyone had the same rights, a white man could marry a white woman and a black man could marry a black woman. It was stupid then and you haven't improved it any.

Please understand me here, Pale, I am going to try very hard not to lie to you and instead I'm going to tell you the truth as best I can and as clearly as I can with no caveats and no ambiguous euphemisms that you might be able to misunderstand, okay?

You continually deny your religious underpinnings, but you just as continually bleat the religious lines like any other sodden Catholic. You have the Special right to marry the kind of people that you like to screw because the majority of people like to screw the same way you do, so you have enshrined your particular form of screwing into the law, and you are adamant that no one else should have that same Special right. Makes you a bigoted asshole in my book. Am I making myself clear to you?

 

[vyo476]

Gay people can get married. There is no law preventing them from getting married under the same conditions as anyone else.

So let's change the conditions everyone can get married under.

In the gay marriage issue, you are asking for SPECIAL rights based on sexual preference, and sexual preference is no basis upon which to grant any right.

Why isn't it? Heterosexuals were granted the right to get married according to their sexual preference. At the time of our government's formation, when they first started legally recognizing marriages, homosexuality was considered, at best, a disease. The only way you can argue that our government chose to recognize marriage only as a union between a man and a woman for reasons other than discriminating against homosexuality (by recognizing the marriages exclusively as heterosexual unions) is by arguing that homosexuality was so severely restricted in other ways that it never even crossed the minds of those legislators that someday gay people might want to get married. That's pretty weak.

If my sexual preference is for tall, sexy blue eyed, big busted blonds who are way out of my league, are you prepared to grant me special rights to satisfy my sexual preferences? If you are willing to grant one group special rights to satisfy theirs, then you are obligated to satisfy others as well.

What type of "special rights" would we be able to grant you, based on your preference for "sexy blue eyed, big busted blonds?" So long as she's consenting, you can "satisfy your sexual preferences" with her any way you like. We're talking about legalizing marriage between two consenting adults - not legalizing rape.

 

[palerider]

How is that different then the arguments for and against interracial marriage? Would you consider those "special rights"?

If gay marriage does no harm, and confers benefit by legitimizing more families - then what difference does it make?

If indeed sexual preference is not merely a "preference" but a biological imperitive - then what? Are rights being denied since it's not simply a "preference"? If it's not simply a "preference" then why do heterosexuals get special rights and benefits? It appears that for a substantial group of those who call themselves homosexual, the "preference" is hardwired.

You are asking for special rights based on sexual preference. Sexual preference is not a rational basis for granting rights.

And there is no science that proves that pedophiles and sociopaths are not also "hardwired" are you prepared to grant special rights based on their "wiring" as well?

 

[palerider]

I have to admit that I get tired of your idiotic arguments.

No. You are tired of my arguments because you are unable to effectively argue against them. Once again, rather than defeat my position, you attack me personall.

You continually deny your religious underpinnings, but you just as continually bleat the religious lines like any other sodden Catholic. You have the Special right to marry the kind of people that you like to screw because the majority of people like to screw the same way you do, so you have enshrined your particular form of screwing into the law, and you are adamant that no one else should have that same Special right. Makes you a bigoted asshole in my book. Am I making myself clear to you?

I love it when you attack me personally mare. It tells me that you are beaten and are completely unable to assail my position.

 

[palerider]

So let's change the conditions everyone can get married under.

So you favor granting special rights based on sexual preference. Tell me, where would you draw the line?

Why isn't it? Heterosexuals were granted the right to get married according to their sexual preference. At the time of our government's formation, when they first started legally recognizing marriages, homosexuality was considered, at best, a disease. The only way you can argue that our government chose to recognize marriage only as a union between a man and a woman for reasons other than discriminating against homosexuality (by recognizing the marriages exclusively as heterosexual unions) is by arguing that homosexuality was so severely restricted in other ways that it never even crossed the minds of those legislators that someday gay people might want to get married. That's pretty weak.

Go back through time vyo and show me a living culture that was based on both heterosexual and homosexual marriage. Failure to do so is evidence enough that you are asking for special rights based on sexual preference.

Some research on your part is in order on the anthropological origins of marriage. Once you understand the origin of the institution, the flaw in your argument will become apparent.

What type of "special rights" would we be able to grant you, based on your preference for "sexy blue eyed, big busted blonds?" So long as she's consenting, you can "satisfy your sexual preferences" with her any way you like. We're talking about legalizing marriage between two consenting adults - not legalizing rape.

No special rights vyo. That is my point. My sexual, or any other preferences are not valid reasons for granting any rights.

 

[jb_1430]

How is that different then the arguments for and against interracial marriage?

Interracial couples make babies just fine. The governmetal interest served by the licensing and regulating of same race marriages is also served by the licensing and regulating interracial marriages. The exclusion of interracial couples is nothing but the insidious discrimination based upon the color of skin that the 14th amendment was meant to eliminate.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

No. You are tired of my arguments because you are unable to effectively argue against them. Once again, rather than defeat my position, you attack me personall.

I love it when you attack me personally mare. It tells me that you are beaten and are completely unable to assail my position.

I love it when you ignore my arguments and just claim victory. Answer the questions Pale:You continually deny your religious underpinnings, but you just as continually bleat the religious lines like any other sodden Catholic. You have the Special right to marry the kind of people that you like to screw because the majority of people like to screw the same way you do, so you have enshrined your particular form of screwing into the law, and you are adamant that no one else should have that same Special right. Makes you a bigoted asshole in my book. Am I making myself clear to you?

You want to deny that to others and you bring in pedophiles and sociopaths because you don't want to deal with the real issue. Why don't you bring up the idea of people marrying dogs and refrigerators too? Address the issue Pale or shut up and go away.

"... you attack me personall." I attack you "personally", there is a "y" on the end. It always looks better if you spell things correctly when whining about personal attacks.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So you favor granting special rights based on sexual preference. Tell me, where would you draw the line?

At consenting adults, just like the law says.

Go back through time vyo and show me a living culture that was based on both heterosexual and homosexual marriage. Failure to do so is evidence enough that you are asking for special rights based on sexual preference.

Almost all the indigenous people's were completely accepting of homosexual and transsexual people. In fact in many cultures transsexual people were considered a valuable asset because they had the opportunity to experience both sides of the gender divide. Most of the hate and intolerance towards homosexuals came out of the desert religions, the first codified example I'm aware of is in the Code of Hammurabi, much of which was plaigarized and put into the Old Testament and called the Law of Moses. The American Indians had many transsexual people serving as shamans and healers, the South Pacific Islanders still recognize their value and none of these groups resorts to the religious hate put forth by people like you. Do you still wonder that people think you are a Catholic?

Some research on your part is in order on the anthropological origins of marriage. Once you understand the origin of the institution, the flaw in your argument will become apparent.

If you restrict your "anthropological" research narrowly enough to get only Ozzie and Harriet marriages you will only be getting a razor-thin slice of history. I studied anthropology in college, marriage has meant so many things to so many people in so many places down through history that there is no way to argue truthfully that it should be restricted the way you are arguing.

No special rights vyo. That is my point. My sexual, or any other preferences are not valid reasons for granting any rights.

You keep repeating a sound-byte mantra in an attempt to make reality into your version of the truth. You are sounding pretty Catholic again, Pale. Do you ride around in a Popemobile wearing a tall, pointy hat?

 

[vyo476]

Interracial couples make babies just fine. The governmetal interest served by the licensing and regulating of same race marriages is also served by the licensing and regulating interracial marriages. The exclusion of interracial couples is nothing but the insidious discrimination based upon the color of skin that the 14th amendment was meant to eliminate.

You've said that the point of marriage is to encourage biological parents to raise their own children, right? Okay. Worthy goal.

Shouldn't it follow that marriage should be used to make sure that the children are raised, period? I mean, would extending marriage to give more people the ability to provide a stable family structure for children not their own somehow detract from marriage's other purpose?

In less confusing language: Would allowing gays to marry somehow discourage heterosexuals from marrying?