Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[9sublime]

If I want to bash one out, its absoloutley nobodys business to regulate because its me and my shlong. However, if two gay people want to get married, it involves more than one person, and their property/lives/emotions etc, and should therefore be legalised and regulated by the government in my opinion.

 

[jb_1430]

However, if two gay people want to get married, it involves more than one person, and their property/lives/emotions etc, and should therefore be legalised and regulated by the government in my opinion.

The fact that "gay people want to get married" isnt much of an arguement that government should license and regulate it.

 

[9sublime]

But for the sake of making the gay community happy, why not? Because deep down for no real reason you don't like homosexuals and you like the idea of having one up on them by stopping them from getting married? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[palerider]

Ha ha, very funny, now read the rest of my post.

The assertion was that they didn't diversify the study groups enough. So long as they used gay people, this doesn't matter, as any "diversification" of the study group wouldn't add to the root factor: homosexuality.

An upper-middle class gay man with a home in suburbia, a nice car, and a supportive family and friend base is just as capable of displaying how homosexuality affects parenthood as a lower class gay man with a crappy job, living in the middle of a decaying post-industrial urban enviornment. The point is homosexuality, and any difference between the latter gay man and a straight man would probably have to do with his means - not necessarily his sexual orientation.

So we have established that you accept and defend studies that deviate from standard scientific standards if they support your position. Now, do you also accept studies that are based on shabby science if they do not support your position?

 

[palerider]

If I want to bash one out, its absoloutley nobodys business to regulate because its me and my shlong. However, if two gay people want to get married, it involves more than one person, and their property/lives/emotions etc, and should therefore be legalised and regulated by the government in my opinion.

I asked mare about this and got a typical non answer so let me ask you.

Aside from the marriage tax, exactly which benefits of marriage are homosexual couples not able to also get via a decent lawyer?

 

[palerider]

But for the sake of making the gay community happy, why not? Because deep down for no real reason you don't like homosexuals and you like the idea of having one up on them by stopping them from getting married? Correct me if I'm wrong.

Since when do we grant special rights simply to make some group "happy"?

 

[Coyote]

It is amusing how people can only see what they want to see.

While masturbation, done in the privacy of your own home, does not present any harm to society, neither does it represent a behavior that the state wishes to encourage. That's the point.

I leave it up to you to apply this particular logic to gay marriages.

However, masturbation is a moral question because it is an action that render a human person as an object of another's personal pleasure.

This is the weirdest response I have yet to read.

Masturbation is a MORAL question????

Scratching my ass provides personal pleasure at the relieving of an itch.

Is ass scratching a moral question?

And how does the subject of masturbation have anything to do with allowing to consenting adults to marry and recognizing such a union?

Or are you placing marriage on the same level as masturbation?

 

[Coyote]

Since when do we grant special rights simply to make some group "happy"?

Why should we then grant special rights and priveledges to heterosexual couples? Why is the state involved in marriage at all?

 

[jb_1430]

Or are you placing marriage on the same level as masturbation?

I think he is placing some guy porking some other guy in the ass, on the same level as masturbation.

 

[9sublime]

Since when do we grant special rights simply to make some group "happy"?

Who cares if we havent done it before? This is conservative thinking. Why not make an exception. Its going to benefit gays and nobody else looses out.

 

[Coyote]

I think he is placing some guy porking some other guy in the ass, on the same level as masturbation.

You seem to have an obsession with guys poking each other in the ass.

We're talking love - commitment - family - yada yada yada and you reduce it to the rudimentaries of poking?

That's all marriage is to you? Legalized and state sanctified poking?

Oy Ve

 

[r0beph]

The arguments from the wrongwing antihomosexual agenda are always ridiculous. They always appear overly concerned with the sexual aspect of same sex marriage while ignoring the fact that marriage does not represent a sanctified sexual relationship but rather a commitment. If all the homosexuals in america were allowed to marry, what would truly be harmed? Marriage itself it seems to me, means littler to america these days, divorce is higher than the marriages that remain for life. So why all the hurry to keep it "traditional", or is this really the basis for your why's, I know it's the basis of what you say is why, but I think that it's primarily your fear of homosexuality. I'm straight, I always have been, and always will be. No amount of homosexual marriage will change this, my children's sexuality, or my neighbors. Homosexuality is almost always a born in trait to an almost infinite percentile. I'm sure were a century before, you're thoughts and views on interracial marriage would not deviate from the same ideologies you incept here. Stop being so ignorant and such bigots, homosexuality hurts no one, you're attitudes however do. I suggest you not reproduce, you not marry, and you not further your sick attitudes to future generations. You're the kind that america does not need so please for our children's sake don't reproduce.

 

[jb_1430]

The arguments from the wrongwing antihomosexual agenda are always ridiculous. They always appear overly concerned with the sexual aspect of same sex marriage while ignoring the fact that marriage does not represent a sanctified sexual relationship but rather a commitment.

The history of civilization directly contradicts your claim ya ignorant bigot.

 

[Coyote]

The history of civilization directly contradicts your claim ya ignorant bigot.

You are wrong.

Historically marriage was a legal and political contract. Indeed in earlier times (in European society), the commoner entered a "common law" marriage and state sanctioned marriages were reserved for the titled and wealthy who had lands, titles, and alliances to be considered.

 

[jb_1430]

You are wrong.

Historically marriage was a legal and political contract. Indeed in earlier times (in European society), the commoner entered a "common law" marriage and state sanctioned marriages were reserved for the titled and wealthy who had lands, titles, and alliances to be considered.

Uuuuh just what do you think I am wrong about?