Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Coyote]

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

Is race then a rational basis for granting special 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?

Pedophiles pray on children - there are victims who are damaged.

Sociopaths likewise cause damage.

Are you saying homosexuals are in the same category? If so - why?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Does that really make any difference? Marriage is a "right" that is based on a certain sexual preference. That does not change regardless of whether history ever recognized marriage for any other sexual orientation. It does not seem very logical to argue on the one hand that special rights are being granted based on sexual orientation while on the other hand you are defining that institution in terms of one group's sexual orientation.

 

[Coyote]

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.

They can make babies just fine if they marry within their own race. So why are you granting them special rights?

 

[palerider]

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.

You try and make every argument against you into a religious argument mare. I suppose you believe that if I were making a religious argument, simply pointing out that it was religious would be enough and you would not need to refute the points. Not true. You can only win an argument if you successfully refute the points being made, whatever their nature.

I don't make religious arguments unless I am arguing religion. I have stated that you are asking for special rights based on sexual preference. You have not only NOT refuted that argument, you haven't touched it. Either rebutt the argument or admit defeat.

Spelling? That is the best you can do? You might want to check my punctuation for semicolon use when a comma would do.

 

[palerider]

At consenting adults, just like the law says.

Bring forward the law mare. Bring the statute here so we can see. Or is this just another fabrication on your part?

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?

Take a few courses in cultural anthropology mare. Learn how wrong you are. Marriage, anthropologically speaking, has existed in nearly every culture since we walked out of the jungle. It has always been between a man and a woman for a very specific reason. Our young (those that people like you don't abort) take a very long time to mature enough to be on thier own. The relationship that came to be known as marriage evolved and gained the support of the various societies in order to support a relationship that could reasonably be expected to last long enough to rear our young. If our kids could be on their own in a year or two, marriage would never have become a social institution.

 

[palerider]

Is race then a rational basis for granting special rights?

No. And the 14th amendment makes that perfectly clear.

Pedophiles pray on children - there are victims who are damaged.

Sociopaths likewise cause damage.

You suggested that we grant special rights to homosexuals because that is the way that they are wired. There are people who are wired in such ways that their behavior is criminal. Wiring is no rational basis for granting special rights either.

Are you saying homosexuals are in the same category? If so - why?

You are better than this coyote. I would expect such from a dishonest sort like mare, but not you. You said:

"It appears that for a substantial group of those who call themselves homosexual, the "preference" is hardwired."

This suggests that you believe that "hardwiring" is a valid reason to grant special rights. I merely pointed out that there are those who are also very likely "hardwired" to act in a way that we definately can't accept. The point was, that "hardwiring" is also not a rational basis upon which to grant special rights.

And if you grant a special right based on sexual preference, where would you draw the line?

 

[palerider]

Does that really make any difference? Marriage is a "right" that is based on a certain sexual preference. That does not change regardless of whether history ever recognized marriage for any other sexual orientation. It does not seem very logical to argue on the one hand that special rights are being granted based on sexual orientation while on the other hand you are defining that institution in terms of one group's sexual orientation.

Marriage is not a right.

 

[palerider]

They can make babies just fine if they marry within their own race. So why are you granting them special rights?

No offense coyote but you seem to be saying that there is something wrong with interracial children. Do you really believe that?

The truth is that we make children just fine so long as we marry within our own species.

 

[jb_1430]

They can make babies just fine if they marry within their own race. So why are you granting them special rights?

??? What special right would that be.

 

[Coyote]

=palerider;19978 No. And the 14th amendment makes that perfectly clear.

Where does the 14th amendment address marriage?

You suggested that we grant special rights to homosexuals because that is the way that they are wired. There are people who are wired in such ways that their behavior is criminal. Wiring is no rational basis for granting special rights either.

You are better than this coyote. I would expect such from a dishonest sort like mare, but not you. You said:

"It appears that for a substantial group of those who call themselves homosexual, the "preference" is hardwired."

This suggests that you believe that "hardwiring" is a valid reason to grant special rights. I merely pointed out that there are those who are also very likely "hardwired" to act in a way that we definately can't accept. The point was, that "hardwiring" is also not a rational basis upon which to grant special rights.

No, I was asking an honest question because some people (not necessarily you) do feel that homosexuality is in the same category as pedophilia for example. I have not debated this issue with you before so I do not know your positions.

If everyone has a right to marry the consenting adult partner of their choice (not a close relative) - why should homosexuals be denied that right?

If marriage itself is based on the fact that the majority of us are hard-wired a certain way is it not discrimminatory to those who are not wired that way?

Marriage itself I care less about then the fact that homosexual couples have substantially fewer legal protections in terms of custody of their children, adoption, inheritence, the ability to be considered "immediate family" if their partner is hospitalized. Isn't that discrimminatory? Why are heterosexual couples allowed this favored status?

And if you grant a special right based on sexual preference, where would you draw the line?

That is the slippery slope fallacy. It doesn't necessarily follow that one thing will lead to another and another until beastiality or child marriage becomes legal.

The definition of marriage has changed over the years. At one time bigomy was the norm. At one time child brides were the norm. The point is who is to say that the current model of one male/one female is the only feasible one?

I think marriage should be a secular legal contract between two consenting adult humans (not closely related). Beyond that, it is religious and what is allowed would be up to the religions involved.

 

[Coyote]

No offense coyote but you seem to be saying that there is something wrong with interracial children. Do you really believe that?

The truth is that we make children just fine so long as we marry within our own species.

Not in the least. I'm only using it as an example because at one time laws were made against interracial marriage.

 

[Coyote]

Marriage is not a right.

Once the government became involved in marriage it gave special legal and tax rights to married heterosexual couples. Those rights are denied to homosexual couples.

 

[palerider]

Where does the 14th amendment address marriage?

The equal protection clause is there. It covers practically everything under the sun. You aren't asking for equal protection of rights for homosexuals however, you are asking for special rights based on sexual preference. Sexual preference isn't a rational reason to give special rights.

No, I was asking an honest question because some people (not necessarily you) do feel that homosexuality is in the same category as pedophilia for example. I have not debated this issue with you before so I do not know your positions.

I don't have a problem with homosexuals. I believe that they are the way they are due to genetics because true homosexuality exists among humans at about the same rate that homosexuality expresses itself among social animals (canines, felines, simians etc.). Genetics is also not a valid reason to grant special rights.

If everyone has a right to marry the consenting adult partner of their choice (not a close relative) - why should homosexuals be denied that right?

No one has the "right" to marry a consenting partner of their choice today. I can not marry a man even if some situation should arise that would make such an arrangement very advantageous to me. I wouldn't be interested in sex, but can imagine senarios where there might be a tremendous financial advantage to be had by an arrangement like marriage that is sanctioned by the state.

If marriage itself is based on the fact that the majority of us are hard-wired a certain way is it not discrimminatory to those who are not wired that way?[/quote[

The institution arose for very specific anthropological reasons that you simply aren't going to be able to argue your way around. No one dreamed up marriage between men and women, it evolved and it evolved for particular reasons that have nothing to do with homosexuals.

Marriage itself I care less about then the fact that homosexual couples have substantially fewer legal protections in terms of custody of their children, adoption, inheritence, the ability to be considered "immediate family" if their partner is hospitalized. Isn't that discrimminatory? Why are heterosexual couples allowed this favored status?

Those issues can be addressed by a good lawyer in the form of a contract between the parties that offer far more protection to each than a marriage licence and an "I do" before a preacher or justice of the peace. The only thing that a homosexual couple can't get that heterosexual couples do get is the marriage tax on their income.

That is the slippery slope fallacy. It doesn't necessarily follow that one thing will lead to another and another until beastiality or child marriage becomes legal.

I asked you where you would draw the line. If you are going to grant special rights based on sexual preference for one group, how do you rationally deny the next.

And the slippery slope isn't necessarily a fallacy. When the court in Mass decreed that homosexuals could marry, a series of suits were filed on behalf of polygamists. You can't rationally call it a fallacy if action has already been taken that demonstrates the reality.

Once again, if you are going to grant special rights based on sexual preference, where would you draw the line and what rational reason would you give for where you would draw the line?

The definition of marriage has changed over the years. At one time bigomy was the norm. At one time child brides were the norm. The point is who is to say that the current model of one male/one female is the only feasible one?[/quote[

Always between a man or men and a woman or women. You are asking for special rights based on sexual preference. Where do you draw the line and what rational explanation do you give the next group who also wants special rights based on some preference whether it is sexual or something else?

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

I don't have a problem with homosexuals. I believe that they are the way they are due to genetics because true homosexuality exists among humans at about the same rate that homosexuality expresses itself among social animals (canines, felines, simians etc.). Genetics is also not a valid reason to grant special rights.

I asked you where you would draw the line. If you are going to grant special rights based on sexual preference for one group, how do you rationally deny the next.

How can homosexuality be "due to genetics" and "a sexual preferrence"?

You keep asking where the line should be drawn on your so called "special rights". I ask what are you afraid of? If Homosexual are given THE right to marry what's going to happen next? are people with green eyes going to get the Special Right to ride the subway for free? Maybe Asian-Americans will be given the special right to vote 6 times in an election. Maybe the precedent will be set for Dwarfs to marry their children. Special Rights is bull****.

it's too bad in America, the pursuit of happiness has been turned into semantics.

 

[palerider]

How can homosexuality be "due to genetics" and "a sexual preferrence"?

Preference is most likely genetic. Research is suggesting that the fact that I prefer beans to peas is in all likelyhood genetic. We like what we like for reasons.

You keep asking where the line should be drawn on your so called "special rights".

Not "so called" special rights. You are asking for special rights based on sexual preference. That is no basis upon which to grant any right at all.

I ask what are you afraid of? If Homosexual are given THE right to marry what's going to happen next? are people with green eyes going to get the Special Right to ride the subway for free? Maybe Asian-Americans will be given the special right to vote 6 times in an election. Maybe the precedent will be set for Dwarfs to marry their children. Special Rights is bull****.

I don't know what will happen next, or even if anything will happen next. I do know that upon the decision of the supreme court of Mass , suits were filed on behalf of people who wanted more than one wife or husband. There is a very good reason that liberals are known as the kings of unintended consequences. This is just one more opportunity for them to prove it.

And you are right, special rights is *ull**** so we shouldn't be granting them.

it's too bad in America, the pursuit of happiness has been turned into semantics.

Look who is talking about semantics. You just claimed that if sexual preference is genetic, that it couldn't be preference.