Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Mare Tranquillity]

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?

Nice post! Hear, hear.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

YES!... except in Mass.

Bigotry thy name is jb_1430

 

[jb_1430]

Bigotry thy name is jb_1430

Faggotry thy name is Mare Tranquillity.

 

[palerider]

Bigotry thy name is jb_1430

Mare, you shouldn't call anyone else a bigot. You are so bigoted against religion that you believe that just attatching a religious connotation to your opponent's argument is all you need to do in order to win said argument without ever actually having to discredit either their ideas or arguments. That is bigotry in all its vile glory.

 

[jb_1430]

Mare, you shouldn't call anyone else a bigot. You are so bigoted against religion that you believe that just attatching a religious connotation to your opponent's argument is all you need to do in order to win said argument without ever actually having to discredit either their ideas or arguments. That is bigotry in all its vile glory.

Made even more absurd by the fact that I am an atheist.

 

[Coyote]

Made even more absurd by the fact that I am an atheist.

So you say...

 

[jb_1430]

So you say...

You questioning my assesment of absurdity or my atheism?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Faggotry thy name is Mare Tranquillity.

Well, maybe if I was a guy--but I'm not. And maybe if I was a homosexual--but I'm not. Hmmm... try again, Num, and aim for more accuracy.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare, you shouldn't call anyone else a bigot. You are so bigoted against religion that you believe that just attatching a religious connotation to your opponent's argument is all you need to do in order to win said argument without ever actually having to discredit either their ideas or arguments. That is bigotry in all its vile glory.

Yeah, yeah, bleat like a sheep. Calling me a liar while lying yourself seems a trifle hypocritical. Keep YOUR religion out of our government and out of my life and I won't have any trouble with you.

When religion is used for violence and to express hatred, then, yes, I have problem with it--you can call me names if you like, but it won't change your religious arguments and the fact that you are advocating the abrogation of the US Constitution and you are doing it on the basis of religious dogma. It probably makes you unhappy when people see you for what you are, but... again, it doesn't change anything. Only you can do that.

So, did you go to the GAO website and read up on the rights and privileges reserved for the people who get to be "legally" married?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Made even more absurd by the fact that I am an atheist.

That's why I didn't call you a religious bigot like Pale is. I have asked on at least two occasions why you are so bigoted towards gay people since you are not religious, but of course you declined to answer. Bigotry is based on fear and ignorance--not necessarily religion.

 

[palerider]

Yeah, yeah, bleat like a sheep. Calling me a liar while lying yourself seems a trifle hypocritical. Keep YOUR religion out of our government and out of my life and I won't have any trouble with you.

I have challenged you repeatedly to bring forward a single lie that I have told and to date, you have produced exactly zero.

And you have yet to demonstrate that my arguments are religious in any way. You keep saying religion as if that constitutes any sort of argument, but have completely failed to show that my arguments have any connection to religion.

So, did you go to the GAO website and read up on the rights and privileges reserved for the people who get to be "legally" married?

Yeah. I didn't see anyting there, with the exception of the marriage tax, that homosexual couples can't have for themselves via a decent lawyer.

 

[palerider]

That's why I didn't call you a religious bigot like Pale is. I have asked on at least two occasions why you are so bigoted towards gay people since you are not religious, but of course you declined to answer. Bigotry is based on fear and ignorance--not necessarily religion.

You have yet to prove any religious connection in any of my arguments. Simply saying it doesn't make it so. Maybe not knowing that is the root of your "honesty" problem.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have challenged you repeatedly to bring forward a single lie that I have told and to date, you have produced exactly zero.

I have brought forward some of your lies but you call me a liar and pretend I didn't bring forward your lies. You latest lie:"I have challenged you repeatedly to bring forward a single lie that I have told and to date, you have produced exactly zero."

And you have yet to demonstrate that my arguments are religious in any way. You keep saying religion as if that constitutes any sort of argument, but have completely failed to show that my arguments have any connection to religion.

Here's your second lie just in this post! Your arguments are word for word Catholic dogma--if it walks like sheep and it bleats like a sheep, it must be a SHEEPLE! You deny it, that's another lie.

Yeah. I didn't see anyting there, with the exception of the marriage tax, that homosexual couples can't have for themselves via a decent lawyer.

This may not be a lie, it may be that you are just as stupid as you purport to be. Either way the outcome is the same. You are a lying, religious bigot who thinks torture is a good idea. I suppose the only really good thing about that is that YOU have to live with you, a more fitting punishment I cannot begin to imagine. That's one of the good things about reincarnation: you can't escape from what you are, all you can do is change it. For people like you the real tragedy of life is that you are here today and here tomorrow.

 

[Coyote]

Mare, I don't think PaleRider is citing Catholic dogma and unless you know him from other boards where he argues religion, how can you tell?

I was a bit surprised that he supported the view that homosexuality likely has a biological basis - something quite at odds with many people who condemn homosexuality from a religious viewpoint.

He is arguing it from a standpoint of the granting of rights alone - not religion. I don't agree of course, but he is not arguing Catholic dogma.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Mare, I don't think PaleRider is citing Catholic dogma and unless you know him from other boards where he argues religion, how can you tell?

I was a bit surprised that he supported the view that homosexuality likely has a biological basis - something quite at odds with many people who condemn homosexuality from a religious viewpoint.

He is arguing it from a standpoint of the granting of rights alone - not religion. I don't agree of course, but he is not arguing Catholic dogma.

Actually much of this is dragged over from his posts on the Abortion thread and the Torture thread, where his posts have hewed to the religious line with amazing clarity for a person who denies religious influence. A point to remember here is that Pale has never come our and stated his religious underpinnings, he hasn't claimed agnosticism or atheism either. My position on him stands.

As the voume of scientific data continues to increase more and more religious people are beginning to accept it, but still doing exactly what Pale is by denying homosexual people rights on other pretenses.