Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[r0beph]

I see that you haven't brought forward any evidence at all that proves that you are not a liar.

My opinions of you are corroborated by evidence. Your opinions of me are the result of your bias as you never substantiated any of them.

But by all means, run away as fast as you can if that is what it will take for you to save face (as if it weren't too late for that already).

You cannot request PROOF of not lying, the burden lies, no pun intended, with you.

stop being silly.

 

[numinus]

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

You're capable of comprehension after all!

Now ask yourself this - what is the sense of promulgating a law that has absolutely NO basis from human nature?

Hmmm?

 

[numinus]

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.

Talk about irrelevant!

You can carry an embryo up your crack or sew a vagina on where your penis used to be and that STILL WOULDN'T MAKE YOU A MOTHER NOR ALTER YOUR NATURAL FECUNDITY.

Capice?

 

[numinus]

So you lied about not finding women attractive? Why?

I could tell you're getting desperate.

I find lots of women sexually attractive. That doesn't give me a right to marry all of them, now, does it?

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.

Sigh

The natural mother's right to raise her own child and vice versa is INDEFEASIBLE.

If a woman wish to exercise this right, then she must NECESSARILY exercise her natural fecundity.

This right is not acquired by merely 'wishing' to raise children.

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).

Correct.

That is why the state, in the absence of the competent natural mother, exercises it's DISCRETION in choosing foster parent(s).

You are aiming to exclude, I am aiming to include. The difference is that you hate and I accept.

I don't care what sexual orientation a prospective parent may have, nor do I wish to exclude homosexuals from adopting. That decision, however, is within the exclusive province of the state to determine. And in making such a determination, the state MUST DISCRIMINATE FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.

Making gays feel good about their sexuality is simply irrelevant to it so you can spare us the rhetorical nonsense.

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?

LOL

I am a bigot for saying that only women have a right to motherhood???

I've been accused of a lot of things but this is, by far, the most absurd!

 

[palerider]

You haven't brought forward any evidence to prove I am a liar OR that you are not. Touche.

Actually, mare. I did. And will be happy to bring it forward again. Of course it won't change a thing because you have no compunction against lying if it suits your purpose.

Your opinions of me are based on your religious dogma, you haven't brought forward any proof of the stuff you claim. My opinions of you are based on your lies, your misogyny, your desire for torture, and your closet Christianity. Other than those things I guess you're okay, though a bit of a cold fish except for your hysteria around the killing of babies.

I have no religious dogma. And of course I have. This is just another example of you lying in an effort to prove a point. Once again, you attempt to attatch a religious origin to a position and believe that simply a suggestion of religion is enough to invalidate any argument. You better check your hem, your bigotry is showing.

Okay, if want to keep this up, I'll hang in there. But at least TRY to present something that wasn't dredged up from the bowels of the church.

Mare, you miserable liar, I defy you to bring forward a single statement that I have made that has its basis in religion.

 

[palerider]

You cannot request PROOF of not lying, the burden lies, no pun intended, with you.

stop being silly.

Still sniping in lieu of direct confrontation I see. In case you aren't aware, I have caught mare in lies and brought the evidence forward.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Still sniping in lieu of direct confrontation I see. In case you aren't aware, I have caught mare in lies and brought the evidence forward.

More lies. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Oh well, you're probably used to it by now.

 

[palerider]

More lies. Don't you ever get tired of being wrong? Oh well, you're probably used to it by now.

Interesting, mare, that you seem to need to be constantly exposed as the liar you are. But I am happy to accomodate you if you like.

In this post I said that I bet you support abortion.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15817&postcount=111

You replied in the next post that you hope that I didn't bet money, clearly indicating that if I had bet money that you support abortion that I would have lost said money.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=15998&postcount=112

Of course we all know that you support abortion so clearly you lied.

Then there was this exchange:

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16134&postcount=194

I said:

Face it mare, your hypocrital position has been exposed. You rail against torture but support a fabricated right of women to murder a million unborns per year precicely by tearing them limb from limb, without the benefit of anesthesia I might add, for reasons that amount to no more than convenience.

https://www.houseofpolitics.com/forum/showpost.php?p=16260&postcount=199

Then you said:

Nice try, Pale, but it won't work, I think abortion is murder. Just like I think that torture is murder. Keep trying though, we all appreciate your poorly-spelled but ghastly descriptions.

No doubt, this was a lie as you support abortion.

Further, each of the dozens of times that that you have made a reference to catholic dogma on my part, it has been a lie as you have failed to prove even one instance. Simply saying a thing doesn't make it true. Perhaps if you are a pathological liar and actually believe the lies you are telling are true, but in the real world, simply saying a thing doesn't make it true.

It is clear mare, that you will say whatever you feel that you need to say if you believe it will help you make your point and honesty is not an issue with you.

 

[Segep]

You're capable of comprehension after all!

Now ask yourself this - what is the sense of promulgating a law that has absolutely NO basis from human nature?

Hmmm?

I am human, and it's in my nature to be gay. That makes homosexuality a part of human nature.

 

[numinus]

I am human, and it's in my nature to be gay. That makes homosexuality a part of human nature.

Circular argument.

Try harder.

 

[palerider]

Circular argument.

Try harder.

True. One could use such an argument to suggest that pedophilia, or sociopathy, or a tendency towards arson or theft are also human nature and should be respected.

 

[Segep]

True. One could use such an argument to suggest that pedophilia, or sociopathy, or a tendency towards arson or theft are also human nature and should be respected.

That's stupid. All those things are harmful, whereas my homosexuality harms no one, which has already been proven here on this forum. It's good to see you have your priorities in order.

 

[jb_1430]

That's stupid. All those things are harmful, whereas my homosexuality harms no one, which has already been proven here on this forum. It's good to see you have your priorities in order.

Masturbation harms no one. Thats not an arguement as to why the government should license and regulate masturbation.
What was that figure from Fort Lauderdale. 76% of the new aids cases are gay men.

 

[palerider]

That's stupid. All those things are harmful, whereas my homosexuality harms no one, which has already been proven here on this forum. It's good to see you have your priorities in order.

Harmful is a relative term isn't it? What you or I consider harmful may be entirely different things. The point is, if you are going to allow circular reasoning to suggest one form of aberrant behavior should be smiled upon and endorsed by the federal government, then you are going to have a very hard time arguing against the next group that wants their particular behavior endorsed as well.

Where do you draw the line and upon what grounds do you draw it?

 

[Coyote]

All this accusation of LIES.


Mare: exactly what lies has Pale told?