Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Mare Tranquillity]

Because the state has an obvious interest in protecting the rights and welfare of children and the family relations consequent to their existence. And since ONLY heterosexual unions produce children, logic dictates that such unions must be governed by the law.

I haven't seen so much twaddle posted by one person since Robodoon.

 

[numinus]

Homosexuality has always and will always be a part of the human condition. Some societies accept this and deal with it in an accepting and humane manner while other societies reject homosexuality for a variety of reasons and attempt to eliminate the appearance of or reference to such behaviour in their society often without much success.

Correct. It is so because of the fundamental operation of choice. As such, it must be accepted in the same manner we accept any other exercise of personal choice by any other human being.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Correct. It is so because of the fundamental operation of choice. As such, it must be accepted in the same manner we accept any other exercise of personal choice by any other human being.

You need to ease up on the engineering studies and bear down on the biology. All the evidence in the last couple of decades indicates that sexual orientation is an innate quality. This is another one of the bigoted and indefensible positions you post over and over again.

 

[numinus]

Yes, they do, they are fueled by the same kind of thinking. One group of people using their ideas and morals to prescribe for everyone else. Just because YOU say that there is nothing rational or principle-driven in the burning of witches, etc. doesn't mean that what you say is true for others. How can you speak for all people in all times?

Does the operation of principles and rationality change? They are called so precisely because they DO NOT.

What has that got to do with it? You act like giving everyone the same rights will cause sterility in all heteorsexual people. Try to be rational here, please.

You mean ascribing a RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD for gay men????

Is your reasoning so biased that it does not give you leave to realize the absurdity of such a thing?

You keep writing in opposition to gay people having equal rights--which is both bigoted and indefensible (as evidenced by these pitiful excuses for arguments that you are posting).

The right to motherhood DOES NOT exist in men - whether homosexual or heterosexual. It arises from the operation of the FEMALE GENDER'S NATURAL FECUNDITY, which she ALONE has an INALIENABLE RIGHT TO.

What can be more logical than that, eh?

The "integrity of creation"? This is an argument? None of the stuff in this last group has anything to do with equal rights for gay people. None of these things will be impacted by equal rights. Your fear overwhelms your intellect.

The 'integrity of creation' is precisely the reason for preserving and sustaining the environment, the ethical restrictions on human cloning, the inalienable rights possessed by ALL HUMAN BEINGS, as an individual or as a people, and a host of other imperatives human beings OUGTH to behave.

To recognize it is, in itself, a BOLD STATEMENT.

Why do you demand a one-size-fits-all world? Don't consider homosexuality or heterosexuality a "moral good", stop passing judgment. It isn't necessary for us to pass judgment on others, Num, and then punish the ones that don't match our high moral standards. Your definition of a "moral good" is just that: YOUR definition, lots of other people have their own definitions which are just as valid as yours.

But the thing is, human civilization couldn't exist without a clear standard of good and evil. What separates the human condition from the existence of all other life on this planet is the operation of law.

I am not the author of mankind - merely an observer of it.

So what? You keep posting that idea as if it had some relevance to the discussion. What relevance?

This is patently absurd.

You do not see the relevance in the state's obligation to protect children, and yet, you feel the NEED to legislate the THE PERSONAL CHOICES OF CONSENTING ADULTS???

You have presented nothing in this argument except your absurd notion of equality as it pertains to the choices made by homosexuals. Is it not precisely this equality that enables one to make this choice? Apparently, it is not enough that homosexuals make a conscious choice - you need to oblige society to blow sunshine in their collective anal passages as they make this choice as well, eh?

 

[numinus]

You need to ease up on the engineering studies and bear down on the biology. All the evidence in the last couple of decades indicates that sexual orientation is an innate quality. This is another one of the bigoted and indefensible positions you post over and over again.

And so they are free to give vent to their 'innate quality' to their heart's content. Such an exercise DOES NOT require additional laws, nor AMMENDING existing laws.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

And so they are free to give vent to their 'innate quality' to their heart's content. Such an exercise DOES NOT require additional laws, nor AMMENDING existing laws.

Current laws abrogate the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under that law. Heterosexuals have passed laws to reward themselves with rights and privileges that they deny to others. T'aint Constitutional. It's based on bigotry and religious dogma.

I'm for equality, so let's have the heterosexuals give vent to their innate qualities with exactly the same rights as homosexuals have.

 

[vyo476]

Let's ask the question: Why have an institution of "marriage" at all? (I'm guessing) according to your line of reasoning, in order to help ensure that biological parents raise their children.

Okay, so we have this "marriage" thing. Is it working? Not really, no. Check out some of the figures in this report:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm

In FY2005, 311,000 children entered foster care and 287,000 left it. At the beginning of FY2005, there were already 513,000 children in foster care. The number of kids in the foster care system is one the rise in a big way. It should also be noted that of the the kids who left foster care in FY2005, 54% went back to their parent(s).

In other words, "marriage" is doing a lousy job of encouraging biological parents to raise their own kids. The adoption system could use a kick in the pants too.

Now turn your gaze towards the bottom of that report. A whopping 68% of the children adopted that year went to married couples. A similarly whopping 60% were adopted by their foster parents. Check out, if you will, the codes and regulations for becoming a foster parent (they differ from state to state). Most will come out and admit that married couples have a better shot at being accepted into the program as foster parents.

Sounds like we could use some more married couples. I wonder where we could possibly find some of them...?

 

[numinus]

Current laws abrogate the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under that law. Heterosexuals have passed laws to reward themselves with rights and privileges that they deny to others. T'aint Constitutional. It's based on bigotry and religious dogma.

I'm for equality, so let's have the heterosexuals give vent to their innate qualities with exactly the same rights as homosexuals have.

Other than the privileges that pertain to the right of motherhood and the family relations that accrue from it, is there any other right that result from marriage that homosexuals cannot enjoy?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Does the operation of principles and rationality change? They are called so precisely because they DO NOT.

If this was true, then there would not be so many different interpretations of law around the world. Your idea that there is one set of rational principles is obvious nonsense, look around at the world, hardly any two peoples agree on what's rational. Even scientists don't operate with a predictable rationality. You are arguing for a standard that does not exist.

You mean ascribing a RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD for gay men????

One of the things that gives away your bigotry is your incessant attacks on gay men, what about gay women? Are you going to tell me that there are no gay mothers? Hello? As a matter of fact, I think this fictional "right to motherhood" should be given to anyone who wants the role. Lots of gay male couples have children (by surrogate mothers or adoption) and your bigoted insistence that they should be punished and their families don't deserve equal protection because YOU don't like them is indefensible bigotry.

Is your reasoning so biased that it does not give you leave to realize the absurdity of such a thing?

What's absurd is that YOU think you should be able to define the roles that other people play in THEIR lives. That's just as bigoted and stupid as any Bible-beater ever was. Who appointed you the arbiter of who does what? Part of it stems I'm sure from your apparently total lack of education in issues biological since you left high school.

The right to motherhood DOES NOT exist in men - whether homosexual or heterosexual. It arises from the operation of the FEMALE GENDER'S NATURAL FECUNDITY, which she ALONE has an INALIENABLE RIGHT TO.
What can be more logical than that, eh?

There is nothing logical in YOU defining what other people can and can't do. The way you present it, all it takes to be a mother is the biological equipment. That is the narrowest definition possible, and it's the very narrowness of your position that proves your bigotry.

The 'integrity of creation' is precisely the reason for preserving and sustaining the environment, the ethical restrictions on human cloning, the inalienable rights possessed by ALL HUMAN BEINGS, as an individual or as a people, and a host of other imperatives human beings OUGTH to behave. To recognize it is, in itself, a BOLD STATEMENT.

Yeah, right. Just another one of YOUR definitions that you expect everyone else to subscribe to--sorry, you are just one more person trying to force others to obey your interpretation.

But the thing is, human civilization couldn't exist without a clear standard of good and evil. What separates the human condition from the existence of all other life on this planet is the operation of law. I am not the author of mankind - merely an observer of it.

Horsepuckey! Standards of good and evil are as malleable as the billions of people who think them up. The idea that human civilization is even a good thing is still not a certainty.

This is patently absurd.
You do not see the relevance in the state's obligation to protect children, and yet, you feel the NEED to legislate the THE PERSONAL CHOICES OF CONSENTING ADULTS???

I wasn't aware that I was legislating the personal choices of consenting adults, that's what you are doing by legally limiting the rights of some while giving those same rights to others for NO CLEARLY DEMONSTRABLE REASON. I think that children should be protected, that's why I think that all parents should have the same rights and protections as all others--even parents who cannot have biological children and have to adopt or use surrogate mothers. These children are no less valuable just because you hate queers.

You have presented nothing in this argument except your absurd notion of equality as it pertains to the choices made by homosexuals. Is it not precisely this equality that enables one to make this choice? Apparently, it is not enough that homosexuals make a conscious choice - you need to oblige society to blow sunshine in their collective anal passages as they make this choice as well, eh?

This is a perfect example of hateful bigotry, you lash out in an emotional frenzy against gay men--not a word about lesbians--and you maintain in your invincible ignorance that these are just people who made a choice. Perhaps you could tell us how you came to decide to be a heterosexual? Did you experiment with gay sex first? Or was your heterosexuality just something that you always knew? Did your sexual interests come naturally to you?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Other than the privileges that pertain to the right of motherhood and the family relations that accrue from it, is there any other right that result from marriage that homosexuals cannot enjoy?

According to the GAO there are more than 1049 rights and privileges reserved for legally married people in this country. Since only gay men are not able to experience "motherhood" (as in gestation, birth, and nursing) but lesbian women are, then it is only a very small percentage of the people you are bent on discriminating against. So, yes, there are a lot of things denied to people who are not legally married. If you want the list go tohttp://www.gao.gov/archive/1997/og97016.pdf)

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

"...society to blow sunshine in their collective anal passages..."

This passage should be writ large because it says a great deal about your attitude. There is nothing rational or principled in the above statement--it's only intent is to be abusively derogatory. Like a Klan member shouting,
"NI88GER, NI88ER!" Thank you for flying your true colors for everyone to see.

One of the things that is denied to people who cannot legally marry is the right to be legal family. If a lesbian woman's partner is hurt in an accident she may not be allowed to see them, she can be denied any access at all by the injured woman's blood family. Married people are legally family and there is no question about their access.

 

[numinus]

Let's ask the question: Why have an institution of "marriage" at all? (I'm guessing) according to your line of reasoning, in order to help ensure that biological parents raise their children.

Okay, so we have this "marriage" thing. Is it working? Not really, no. Check out some of the figures in this report:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/stats_research/afcars/tar/report13.htm

In FY2005, 311,000 children entered foster care and 287,000 left it. At the beginning of FY2005, there were already 513,000 children in foster care. The number of kids in the foster care system is one the rise in a big way. It should also be noted that of the the kids who left foster care in FY2005, 54% went back to their parent(s).

In other words, "marriage" is doing a lousy job of encouraging biological parents to raise their own kids. The adoption system could use a kick in the pants too.

LOL. This is a non-sequitur.

There is absolutely no correlation between the marital laws of the country and the statistics you have provided here. If anything, the rise in children in foster homes is the direct result of a promiscous lifestyle.

If women were given all the support necessary for them to exercise motherhood, what woman would not take care of her own child, hmmm? In fact, an unwanted pregnancy almost always is the result of the circumstances a woman finds herself in. And in such a situation, she is presented with the CONVENIENT choices of having an abortion or putting her child up for adoption.

Not only is she divesting herself from the responsibility of her choices (surely, when one engages in sexual intercourse, the possibility of pregnancy, however small, is PRESENT), HER INALIENABLE RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD IS BEING VIOLATED as well.

Whatever circumstance could compel a woman to kill or give up her child is certainly a situation NOT SUITABLE TO HUMAN DIGNITY.

Now turn your gaze towards the bottom of that report. A whopping 68% of the children adopted that year went to married couples. A similarly whopping 60% were adopted by their foster parents. Check out, if you will, the codes and regulations for becoming a foster parent (they differ from state to state). Most will come out and admit that married couples have a better shot at being accepted into the program as foster parents.

Correct. Adoption is a privilege. To earn that privilege, a couple need to demonstrate their ability to provide the atmosphere suitable for the CHILD'S RIGHT.

Sounds like we could use some more married couples. I wonder where we could possibly find some of them...?

Not at all.

We simply need to reiterate the responsibilities that result from the exercise of our choices.

 

[vyo476]

LOL. This is a non-sequitur.

I don't think so.

There is absolutely no correlation between the marital laws of the country and the statistics you have provided here. If anything, the rise in children in foster homes is the direct result of a promiscous lifestyle.

As you've so cleverly pointed out, children only result from heterosexaul unions (we can ignore in vitro fertilization for now). You seem to be of the opinion that the point of marriage is to encourage biological parents to raise their own kids. The figures I provided show that there's a rise in children not being care for by their biological parents. Unless there's been a subsequent drop in biological parenthood, "marriage" isn't doing what you think it ought to do anyway. That was my point.

If women were given all the support necessary for them to exercise motherhood, what woman would not take care of her own child, hmmm? In fact, an unwanted pregnancy almost always is the result of the circumstances a woman finds herself in. And in such a situation, she is presented with the CONVENIENT choices of having an abortion or putting her child up for adoption.

So in other words, all women would choose motherhood over abortion or adoption (sorry, sometimes I need to translate the things you say into my own vernacular). Since, obviously, a problem exists with making sure that kind of support is there, what do you propose we do to correct the problem?

Not only is she divesting herself from the responsibility of her choices (surely, when one engages in sexual intercourse, the possibility of pregnancy, however small, is PRESENT), HER INALIENABLE RIGHT TO MOTHERHOOD IS BEING VIOLATED as well.

Wait, hold on...is she violating her "right to motherhood," or are the people who give her the options of abortion or adoption?

And just what, exactly, does this "right to motherhood" you're so fond of talking about entail?

Whatever circumstance could compel a woman to kill or give up her child is certainly a situation NOT SUITABLE TO HUMAN DIGNITY.

I agree.

Correct. Adoption is a privilege. To earn that privilege, a couple need to demonstrate their ability to provide the atmosphere suitable for the CHILD'S RIGHT.

Now, do you believe that homosexuals are somehow less suited to provide for the child's rights?

And do you believe that the same agencies who say that marriage is preferable for adoption would consider a homosexual couple who are incapable of marrying to be on par with a heterosexual couple that is capable of marrying?

Not at all.

We simply need to reiterate the responsibilities that result from the exercise of our choices.

That's a noble thought, but I think you'll find that screwing for pleasure and disregarding consequences are both facets of human nature. As long as ****ing is fun people will do it and forget that a child could wind up being the result.

 

[numinus]

I don't think so.

Why am I not surprised?

As you've so cleverly pointed out, children only result from heterosexaul unions (we can ignore in vitro fertilization for now).

No need to ignore that - unless of course you can produce a human embryo from only sperm or egg cells. Can you?

You seem to be of the opinion that the point of marriage is to encourage biological parents to raise their own kids. The figures I provided show that there's a rise in children not being care for by their biological parents. Unless there's been a subsequent drop in biological parenthood, "marriage" isn't doing what you think it ought to do anyway. That was my point.

And what does your statistics tell you on where the majority of unwanted pregnancies come from, hmmm? Does it not come from children being concieved to teens, usually out of wedlock?

So in other words, all women would choose motherhood over abortion or adoption (sorry, sometimes I need to translate the things you say into my own vernacular). Since, obviously, a problem exists with making sure that kind of support is there, what do you propose we do to correct the problem?

You're the self-confessed sociologist, aren't you? Given the problems arising from the situation, what do you propose?

Wait, hold on...is she violating her "right to motherhood," or are the people who give her the options of abortion or adoption?

Society itself, by virtue of omission, negligence, or apathy.

And just what, exactly, does this "right to motherhood" you're so fond of talking about entail?

What exactly does it entail for a woman to be a mother, in all aspects of the word?

I agree.

Good.

Now, do you believe that homosexuals are somehow less suited to provide for the child's rights?

No. In the absence of the mother and the family relations consequent to motherhood, it is the STATE which is obliged to make a determination on where a child's welfare is best served. This can only be done on a case-to-case basis. In this regard, the sexuality of the prospective foster parents need not be a factor.

And do you believe that the same agencies who say that marriage is preferable for adoption would consider a homosexual couple who are incapable of marrying to be on par with a heterosexual couple that is capable of marrying?

A determination of this nature should consider the needs of a particular child as well as the prospective parent's ability to provide them. Its that simple.

That's a noble thought, but I think you'll find that screwing for pleasure and disregarding consequences are both facets of human nature. As long as ****ing is fun people will do it and forget that a child could wind up being the result.

That is why one's rational faculty is there to guide inclinations, no? We can't have people acting on impulse and appetites all the time, can we?

 

[numinus]

"...society to blow sunshine in their collective anal passages..."

This passage should be writ large because it says a great deal about your attitude. There is nothing rational or principled in the above statement--it's only intent is to be abusively derogatory. Like a Klan member shouting,
"NI88GER, NI88ER!" Thank you for flying your true colors for everyone to see.

One of the things that is denied to people who cannot legally marry is the right to be legal family. If a lesbian woman's partner is hurt in an accident she may not be allowed to see them, she can be denied any access at all by the injured woman's blood family. Married people are legally family and there is no question about their access.

Funny how easy it is for one to recognize insults (even without the bold and underscored letters) from others and not from themselves.

Nevertheless, you are correct. That metaphor is not suited in this forum. I should hold myself according to a high standard of intellectual debate, even if you don't.

And if access is the only thing you are asking for, there is no reason why anyone cannot grant access BEFORE such an eventuality - preferrably in written and legal form.