Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[numinus]

Are you telling us that you married someone to whom you are not sexually attracted? You're GAY? WOW! So all the crap you've been posting is just a cover so no one will suspect? Or is it hate that you have internalized and the only way to safely express it is to attack people like yourself? Isn't it sad how that works, I'm sorry for you. A friend once told me that it's better for others to hate you than it is to hate yourself. I think that's true, Num.

LOL

You're free to put people in neat little labels - straight, gay, catholics, atheists, etc. etc. - if it gives you comfort intellectually.

Save your sympathy for yourself is my advice.

 

[numinus]

All kinds of lesbians have kids,

And they do through the exercise of their natural fecundity, not from any homosexual act.

you will deny them the right of motherhood?

They have an inalienable right to motherhood through the exercise of their natural fecundity.

How many times do you need me to repeat this?

 

[numinus]

Considering Numinus' position on homosexuality I think it is very courageous of him to admit that he does not find women attractive. I am curious though, Num, is this just a new evil lifestyle choice that you've made or did you make it a long time ago?

Either way, I'm proud of you for being so forthright (finally) and I hope that other people will be more compassionate towards you than you have been towards others.

LOL

My wife thinks you're funny to the point of absurdity. She has ample evidence of my sexual attraction for her. She finds you impertinent for suggesting that sexual attraction, in whatever form, can be the sole basis of a marriage.

 

[numinus]

As far as I know, you are the only one who has ever written the words "validate motherhood for gay men" on this site (or any other site). Your attempt to attribute it to me is another example that the Numerous Obfuscator rides again!

So you admit that there is no motherhood for gay men in a homosexual union?

Why the frack do you wish to call a homosexual union a marriage, then?

Hmmm?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Because human society must be governed by the principles of human nature.

How could human society be controlled by anything BUT human nature, we have access to no other kind of nature since we are human?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

More lies mare. My position is that unborns are human beings and I provided ample credible, peer reviewed science that supports that position. My position is that human beings have a right to live. I have provided the very founding documents of this nation to support that position. My position is that all rights are secondary to the right to live. Again, that position is corroborated by the founding documents of this nation. As to your examples, you have yet to provide any or any credible corroboration to back them up. Nice to see that you still must resort to personal attack in lieu of any actual argument or support of that argument. You talk talk talk, but fail to back up any of it.

Is that the best you can do? Liar, liar? Good thing you don't do personal attacks. No, you've got it wrong, the follow up to your "bloviating" comment wasn't a personal attack, it was an appreciation of your onomatopoetic elegance.

You claim 1000 rights that married couples have that gay couples don't. Name a few for me if you don't mind and provide some corroboration to back up your claim. And as you are naming them, be sure to check to see if the "right" that you claim heterosexual couples have can't be had by homosexual couples via a decent lawyer or legal contract.

You don't read very well for a world-famous scientist and torture supporter, Pale. I said "MORE THAN 1000" on several occasions.

Here you go, Pale, straight from the horse's as... mouth, the Government Accounting Office:
From the GOA: (http://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf)
Tables of Laws in the United States Code
Involving Marital Status

The silly people at the GAO did a search of the US laws and delineated the ones that were written in such a way as to restrict the rights and benefits to LEGALLY MARRIED people ONLY.

There you go, I just pulled up the site to make sure that the link was still active and as of 11:29 Pacific Time it was operational. I'm anxious to see if you will resort to another non-personal attack and blame me for lying on the GAO site. Fun, fun!

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare there are no cultures that called any sort of homosexual relationship a marriage. There have beencultures that accepted homosexual relationships few cases certain relationships have even encouraged, but none of them have been called a marriage.

If you can't prove your statement, then by the "Pale laws of discussion" you, sir, are a liar, or at least that's how you apply the rules to others. Pony up, Pale, let's see you proof. You are using a semantic dodge that you can't prove and you, dear boy, know it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You believe that brothers and sisters should have the right to marry? You believe that fathers and daughters shoud have the right to marry? You believe that mothers and sons should have the right to marry? Do I have you right? You believe that grandfathers and grandaughters shoud have the right to marry?

I just want to be sure that I am understanding what you are saying.

You have been very aggressively MIS-understanding the things I write since I crossed you on the subject of your hobby of torture. You've been pissed at me for that and have been flipping me sh8t about it. This is just more of the same.

You are deliberately missing the point I was making by focusing ONLY on the incest taboo since you didn't mention mothers and daughters getting married like you usually do. How can anyone so dim be so transparent as you, Pale? Maybe it's because you are soooo pale.

I think that people having babies through incestual relationships are at far higher risk of negative consequences--for instance their children could turn out to be very pale--but that's not what's being discussed on this thread is it, Pale? This is the "Is Homosexuality a Choice or Is It Genetic" thread, are you on the wrong thread? In any case you are arguing for the sake of it--and not very well either.

Marriage rights should open to all consenting adults--even gay consenting adults. Torture on the other hand is a barbaric anachroism and should be outlawed in all cases. Try to focus on the issues at hand, Pale, we are getting tired of carrying you in this discussion.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Pay attention so that no one need repeat the obvious.The state doesn't give a rat's ass who you want to spend the rest of your life with, nor how you like your sex.The states obligation is to otherhood and the family relations consequent to it.There is no motherhood for gay men - only for women. Lesbians do not become mothers through a homosexual union. It is dictated by the biology of her gender.There is no equality in pretending that men could be mothers or women could be fathers for the simple reason that their genders are NOT the same. Motherhood and family relations proceed EXACTLY because their genders are NOT the same.Understand?

That's pretty good obfuscation there, Num, but your points are irrelevant to the discussion (is Pale helping you with your posts?)

I saw an interesting article the other day in which the author--a biologist--was suggesting that we now have the technology to allow a man to carry an ectopic pregnancy to tern and deliver the baby via C-section. More complicated but not really any different than in vitro fertilization.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

LOL

My wife thinks you're funny to the point of absurdity. She has ample evidence of my sexual attraction for her. She finds you impertinent for suggesting that sexual attraction, in whatever form, can be the sole basis of a marriage.

So you lied about not finding women attractive? Why? Was this your natural fecundity sneaking out. Natural fecundity can be satisfied through different processes to produce offspring, all of these offspring should be able to be raised by the people who wish to raise them. All of them deserve the opportunity to be raised with the legal protections written into law for that purpose no matter what gender or combination of genders their "raisers" (also known commonly in this culture as parents).

You are aiming to exclude, I am aiming to include. The difference is that you hate and I accept. Even you, I wouldn't take away any of your rights just because you are a bigot, but I would like to see laws that protect others from you. You must have some redeeming qualities or you wife wouldn't have married you, women can be so perceptive that they can find value in even the most degenerate men--lucky for you, isn't it?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So you admit that there is no motherhood for gay men in a homosexual union?

Why the frack do you wish to call a homosexual union a marriage, then?

Hmmm?

"...that sexual attraction, in whatever form, can be the sole basis of a marriage."

Do you recall this quote from your post where you made up that story about your wife thinking that I'm impertinent? If you recognize that sex is not the be all and end all of marriage, then why the frack are you TOTALLY focused on gay men's motherhood?

Marriage is about relationships, committment, love, legal rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES. Denying it to homosexuals on the basis of sex is ridiculous since the well-known debater Numinous has proven that marriage isn't JUST about sex.

 

[jb_1430]

Revealing that you equate his use of the word "motherhood" with "sex" and simultaneously remain oblivious to the differences.

 

[r0beph]

Marriage has nothing to do with motherhood, or any of your lousy definitions, I myself prefer to quote shaw in the matter...

"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part." G.B. Shaw

Motherhood even being related to marriage is a farce of the greatest degree. Marriage is the elevation of the relationship between two people as vowed eternal and usually monogamous (of course this is disputable in some cultures). Intent to bear or ever possess children is not a prerequisite for marriage, and I needn't provide any proof of marriage being prerequisite for children, fatherhood, or motherhood. To deny marriage to gays is in violation of most constitutions of most states of the union. From georgia as example:

1-16 Neither the State of Georgia, its agents, nor any of its
1-17 political subdivisions shall use race, color, creed,
1-18 gender, or national origin as a criterion for either
1-19 discriminating against or granting preferential treatment
1-20 to any individual or group."

Allowing a marriage to heterosexuals, less the sexual preference and insert gender, a male and a female, gives preference to a group (two individuals) over two males or two females who wish to marry. You cannot deny that it is preferential treatment since they are being allowed without contest the option to proceed with marriage while denying clearly the same right to two individuals who do not meet the bigots definition of 'marriage' which has roots less in the reality of current times and more in that of the historical religious lawmongering. Most states and the fed have similar portions to their constitutions and laws. Is it okay to deny these rights to someone?

 

[jb_1430]

YES!... except in Mass.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Revealing that you equate his use of the word "motherhood" with "sex" and simultaneously remain oblivious to the differences.

Your posts are becoming increasingly incomprehensible, get more sleep please and then write what you mean more fully--or just quit and accept that you are in favor of persecuting people on the basis of simple-minded bigotry.