Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[numinus]

Maybe you should look up the meaning of the word before you think it's ironic that I use it.

LOL

And what 'honesty' have you supplied, except the ridiculous assertion that gay men possess the right to motherhood, hmmm?

And you say this is an argument of intellectual substance, eh?

 

[numinus]

What is truly ironic is that you can give me grief for using the word "honest" and then post this kind of nonsense.

The only nonsense that is apparent is your more than liberal use of the word 'right' well beyond its academic meaning.

Do you find women sexually attractive? Can you marry a member of the gender you find attractive--if they're willing? Then you have a "special right" that is denied to homosexual people. They are not allowed, by law, to marry the people they find attractive. You are enjoying a right that you wish to deny to others, that's a "special right".

Marital institution is based on THE NATURE OF HUMAN FECUNDITY AND THE HUMAN RELATIONS THAT ACCRUE FROM IT. That nature is in all of us, although we are free to indulge our distinct sexual preferences.

Take note that the pursuit of sexual attraction has nothing to do with it. Otherwise, I'd be married to 10 different women right now.

 

[jb_1430]

This editing of history is also prominent in the "acceptable" scientific literature, any reference to homosexual behaviors in animals is verboten in schools, so kids grow up believing that homosexual activity is an evil lifestyle choice when in fact it's just another natural variation in the behavior patterns found in animals on this planet.

Infanticide and cannibalism occur in nature. Thats not an arguement that it should be promoted, licensed and regulated. MARK

 

[9sublime]

Wait wait wait... why don't we stop legislating straight marriage? Its not like the government really needs to get involved in that is it?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

LOL

And what 'honesty' have you supplied, except the ridiculous assertion that gay men possess the right to motherhood, hmmm?

And you say this is an argument of intellectual substance, eh?

If you tell a lie about someone, is that the same as telling the truth to you?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

The only nonsense that is apparent is your more than liberal use of the word 'right' well beyond its academic meaning.



Marital institution is based on THE NATURE OF HUMAN FECUNDITY AND THE HUMAN RELATIONS THAT ACCRUE FROM IT. That nature is in all of us, although we are free to indulge our distinct sexual preferences.

Take note that the pursuit of sexual attraction has nothing to do with it. Otherwise, I'd be married to 10 different women right now.

You make my point for me, thank you. If you were in the right Mormon group you COULD be married to 10 women. The law allows you to marry (in varying numbers) the people you find attractive. That is a special right that you enjoy and yet you deny it to others. Human fecundity is not an issue in US marriage law and never has been or we would not allow sterile people to marry. Tee hee, hoist on your own petard!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Infanticide and cannibalism occur in nature. Thats not an arguement that it should be promoted, licensed and regulated. MARK

That's true, but homosexuality between consenting adults (which is all we are discussing) harms no one. That's the issue, people keep trying to make homosexuality bad through guilt by association with all kinds of other things. We are talking about sexual activity between consenting adults and there is no harm involved and thus no reason to abrogate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment to ban it.

It would be good to note here that ritual cannibalism takes place every Sunday in Christian churches across this land. Are you up in arms about that? What kind of message does that send to our innocent children?
[/QUOTE]

 

[numinus]

Wait wait wait... why don't we stop legislating straight marriage? Its not like the government really needs to get involved in that is it?

There is a RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD that the state, being a signatory to the universal declaration of human rights, is obliged to protect.

How many more times do I need to say this before you give yourself leave to understand, eh?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

There is a RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD that the state, being a signatory to the universal declaration of human rights, is obliged to protect.

How many more times do I need to say this before you give yourself leave to understand, eh?

Obfuscation. You should change your name to the Numerous Obfuscator.

Excrement! The Right to Motherhood is not impacted in any way by allowing homosexual people to marry. You seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for mud to sling, Num.

 

[numinus]

You make my point for me, thank you. If you were in the right Mormon group you COULD be married to 10 women. The law allows you to marry (in varying numbers) the people you find attractive. That is a special right that you enjoy and yet you deny it to others. Human fecundity is not an issue in US marriage law and never has been or we would not allow sterile people to marry. Tee hee, hoist on your own petard!

Polygamy IS NOT covered by the free exercise clause of the 1st ammendment.

I have yet to hear of a marriage vow that includes sexual attraction.

You are living in a cheap x-rated movie if you wish to equate marriage with sex.

 

[numinus]

Obfuscation. You should change your name to the Numerous Obfuscator.

Excrement! The Right to Motherhood is not impacted in any way by allowing homosexual people to marry. You seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel for mud to sling, Num.

The right to motherhood is an integral basis of the marital institution. Homosexual unions will never result in motherhood hence can not be called marriages.

What could be simpler and more logical than that?

 

[numinus]

If you tell a lie about someone, is that the same as telling the truth to you?

I don't see how this statement can validate motherhood for gay men, nor give substance to your argument.

I suppose you were talking to yourself and there is no reason not to indulge you on this.

 

[vyo476]

The right to motherhood is an integral basis of the marital institution. Homosexual unions will never result in motherhood hence can not be called marriages.

What could be simpler and more logical than that?

So women who adopt are not mothers?

 

[vyo476]

Marital institution is based on THE NATURE OF HUMAN FECUNDITY AND THE HUMAN RELATIONS THAT ACCRUE FROM IT.

I have a question for you. Why does this matter?

 

[vyo476]

The right to motherhood is an integral basis of the marital institution. Homosexual unions will never result in motherhood hence can not be called marriages.

What could be simpler and more logical than that?

It is simple - in fact, it's an oversimplification. Marriage means a bit more today than that. It means something for the people who are getting married. The manifest function of marriage has changed. It is no longer the production of children - it is now the joining together of two people. The production of children is now considered by many to be a latent function of marriage.

Basically - people get married primarily because they love each other and wish to spend the rest of their lives together, not primarily because they plan to have children together. It's about them - not their hypothetical children.

That's how it is today, and that's why gays want to and should be allowed to get married - because marriage is largely seen as an expression of love and affection and they want to have equal rights to express themselves in that manner.