Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[palerider]

...Because Marriage is defined by history as between a man and a woman right?...Even though it wasnt until 1995-96 that the Defense of Marriage Act was passed to define marriage in the US. Since we are a nation of laws, wouldn't the DOMA be granting special rights to heterosexuals then? Since by law it was creating a special right to marriage for heterosexuals only.



Race is genetics, and we agree that homosexuality is genetics. so the Defense of Marriage Act is discrimination.

Marriage is what marriage is. Marriage is a contract between a male of the human species and a female of the human species. If you are asking that marriage be redefined and the law support that redefinition, you are asking for special rights based on sexual preference and sexual preference is not a valid reason to grant special rights.

Wring your hands all you like, but it is what it is. Since marriage does not, and never has been an institution for men to marry men or women to marry women, simply stating what is in the form of law is not a descriminatory act. Making a law stating that the grass is green is not descriminatory against the color flourescent pink since the grass has never been flourescent pink.

 

[vyo476]

Marriage is what marriage is. Marriage is a contract between a male of the human species and a female of the human species.

Yes, Mr. Gump. Let's not forget that "stupid is as stupid does" as well.

Why is marriage a contract between a man and woman?

If you are asking that marriage be redefined and the law support that redefinition, you are asking for special rights based on sexual preference and sexual preference is not a valid reason to grant special rights.

Because you don't recognize sexual preference as something that sets people apart?

Wring your hands all you like, but it is what it is. Since marriage does not, and never has been an institution for men to marry men or women to marry women, simply stating what is in the form of law is not a descriminatory act.

Oh, please. Up until 140 years ago, blacks were not and never had been considered people rather than property. I suppose slavery wasn't discriminatory.

Making a law stating that the grass is green is not descriminatory against the color flourescent pink since the grass has never been flourescent pink.

The grass has no desire to be flourescent pink. If it did, making a law to allow it to be pink would be conducive to maintaining a state of equality.

 

[palerider]

Why is marriage a contract between a man and woman?

Why is water composed of two atoms of hydrogen and one atom of oxygen? Why don't we call dogs cats? Why don't we call cars trees? Why don't we call fence posts, catamarans?

Because they are what they are.

Because you don't recognize sexual preference as something that sets people apart?

Of course I recognize that sexual preference makes homosexuals different (at least in that respect) from heterosexuals. Sexual preference, however is simply not a valid reason to grant special rights.

Oh, please. Up until 140 years ago, blacks were not and never had been considered people rather than property. I suppose slavery wasn't discriminatory.

How do you get that out of anything that I have said? Letting black men and white women and white women and black men marry did not redefine anything or grant anyone a special right. Marriage did not have to be redefined and a constitutional amendment was not required to make it legal in every state. Color was simply negated as a factor.

What you are asking is that the definition of marriage be scrapped and replaced with an entirely new meaning and a constitutional amendment to cement the redefinition. Sexual preference is not a rational reason to grant special rights.

The grass has no desire to be flourescent pink. If it did, making a law to allow it to be pink would be conducive to maintaining a state of equality.

Would it matter if it did? Would you write a constitutional amendment redefining what green is to satisfy the color flourescent pink? And this issue has nothing to do with equality. Everyone has equal rights. You are asking for SPECIAL rights which would tip the balance away from equality.

 

[jb_1430]

Palerider, without the anthropological history of male/female relations and marriage, would you have any argument whatsoever against the right for consenting adults to marry other consenting adults?

Well, there is the biological fact that same sex couples can never produce a child. But, I guess if we were to ignore biology, history, anthropology and culture, then there would be no arguement.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

How do you get that out of anything that I have said? Letting black men and white women and white women and black men marry did not redefine anything or grant anyone a special right. Marriage did not have to be redefined and a constitutional amendment was not required to make it legal in every state. Color was simply negated as a factor.

You are using history to say that marriage was defined as between a man and a woman. that same history of mankind didnt define marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race?

i believe under your historical definition of marriage letting mixed race marriages would be granting a special right.

 

[Coyote]

Actually, that isn't entirely true. Humans have what is known as a hidden cycle. It is thought that this evolved because the males of the species would never be sure whether or not his female was in season and because of this uncertainty, nothing would be gained by leaving his female unguarded to go in search of others. There are other animals that have this hidden cycle besides human beings.



You have not done adequate research then. I did a research paper while I was in college and had no less than 10 pages of bibliographical references.



None the less, true homosexual behavior is exhibited among social animals at almost precicely the same rate as true homosexuality exists in human beings.



This is because of the female's hidden cycle, no more and no less. Because we don't get scent or sight queues as to when our females are in season, if pleasure were not a factor, we would have no motivation to mate. The release of endorphins upon orgasm in us is the biological equivalent of smelling a female in heat in most animals. That endorphin release is nature's way of making sure that we continue the species.

By the way, in the animals that also have hidden cycles, they have sex when the females are not in heat and endorpin releases are part of their sexual activity.

You never cease to surprise me

 

[palerider]

You are using history to say that marriage was defined as between a man and a woman. that same history of mankind didnt define marriage as between a man and a woman of the same race?

i believe under your historical definition of marriage letting mixed race marriages would be granting a special right.

Actually, we were behind on the race issue. Not many cultures had a problem with interracial marriages.

And the fact remains that the very definition of marriage didn't have to be changed.

 

[palerider]

You never cease to surprise me

That's my job. What was surprising about that though?

You didn't answer about the non related couples that are capable of passing on far worse genetic defects than would be seen by inbreeding. Are you willing to genetically screen all couples to see if they can pass on genetic defects or just go ahead and let close family members marry?

 

[Coyote]

That's my job. What was surprising about that though?

You didn't answer about the non related couples that are capable of passing on far worse genetic defects than would be seen by inbreeding. Are you willing to genetically screen all couples to see if they can pass on genetic defects or just go ahead and let close family members marry?

Careful. Don't ruin your macho misogynist image.

No...I see no reason to screen couples. I suppose there is no logical reason not to let close family members marry...I just don't think it's a good idea. Again - slippery slope - but that doesn't mean it has to go that far.

IF the government is going to get involved in marriage - then it should give equal rights and benefits to homosexual couples. Equality. Right now special rights are given to heterosexual couples.

 

[palerider]

Careful. Don't ruin your macho misogynist image.

If I have any such image, it is the fanciful fabrication of hand wringing, sky is falling, liberals who find that they are unable to knock the legs out from under a simple, straight forward, honest argument.

No...I see no reason to screen couples. I suppose there is no logical reason not to let close family members marry...I just don't think it's a good idea. Again - slippery slope - but that doesn't mean it has to go that far.

IF the government is going to get involved in marriage - then it should give equal rights and benefits to homosexual couples. Equality. Right now special rights are given to heterosexual couples.

You can not rationally claim "equal rights" if you would draw a line anywhere in the possible universe of marriage combinations. You can certainly make an emotional appeal, but then an emotional appeal is no valid reason to grant special rights.

Think about all of the possibilites if you are prepared to essentially scrap marriage and invent a new thing which is not marriage but you are going to call marriage. Is there any where among all of those possibilities that you would say no, that is just wrong? If there is, you have invalidated your own equal rights argument.

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Actually, we were behind on the race issue. Not many cultures had a problem with interracial marriages.

And the fact remains that the very definition of marriage didn't have to be changed.

you are saying that in the history of man-kind, interacial marriages were common? so common as to be assumed in your historical definition of marriage. give me a break.

 

[palerider]

you are saying that in the history of man-kind, interacial marriages were common? so common as to be assumed in your historical definition of marriage. give me a break.

Yes. Read some history. Interracial marriages were often arranged to avoid war. I will give you a break when you earn one.

 

[Coyote]

Think about all of the possibilites if you are prepared to essentially scrap marriage and invent a new thing which is not marriage but you are going to call marriage.

Marriage has been redefined before.

It has meant one man, many women.

It has meant one man, one child.

It has meant one woman, many men.

It has not YET meant one man, one man or one woman, one woman.


But given that it HAS changed before - why can it not change again?

 

[TVoffBrainOn]

Yes. Read some history. Interracial marriages were often arranged to avoid war. I will give you a break when you earn one.

Interracial marriages were arranged to avoid war. good one. that's a great representation of the historical norm that you cast as defining marriage

Gay Marriages were just as often and recognized in ancient Sparta, 2nd century Rome (particular under Pagan religions), Aristotle wrote about Gay Marriage amongst the Gauls, the Mollies in 18th century london, etc

 

[Coyote]

Interracial marriages were arranged to avoid war. good one. that's a great representation of the historical norm that you cast as defining marriage

Gay Marriages were just as often and recognized in ancient Sparta, 2nd century Rome (particular under Pagan religions), Aristotle wrote about Gay Marriage amongst the Gauls, the Mollies in 18th century london, etc

I didn't know that - interesting!