Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[Dr.Who]

You have yet to explain "regulation". We can't go any further with this until we have a definition.

A regulation is when the gov makes a law that restricts ones rights to live completely free and do whatever one wants. One might want to kill ones neighbor. when the gov says it is against the law to kill a neighbor that is a regulation.

 

[Dr.Who]

Utter twaddle, you're making the rainbow black and white. Your basic premise is wrong. If you wish to continue posting this falsehood it will only make you look foolish. Unless you can prove it--which you can't because it's false.

That makes no sense to me.

Two men are incapable of producing children. If that seems black and white to you it is because it is black and white.

Pardon my crudeness but my friends in the gay community had a phrase to describe this: "***hole babies never live."

Social Security.

Great. So since you have said that the laws discriminate against the children raised by gay couples lets go there. (But lets be clear that we are not talking about children produced by gay couples since they (virtually) don't exist.)

How does social security discriminate against the children raised and adopted by gay couples compared to the children raised and adopted by straight couples?

 

[Dr.Who]

This might be true if there were no evidence to the contrary. You are confusing prejudice with bias. Bias means that one has reasons for one's position. The Pope colluded with the Nazis during the Second World War, he's the head of a church organization that has a long and violent history of condemning people in God's name and murdering or torturing them (for their own good, of course). The persecution of gay people continues today with the full support of the Rat-Pope and his condemnation of gay people in God's name.

Condemning a person in God's name is hateful, it's something that you will never hear me say. It is the "judgment" denied to Christians in their own holy book, but conveniently ignored by them when they wish to hurt others.

Yup. That's biased. And not in a good or an accurate way.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

The pope thinks homosexuality is a threat to the human species. He also likes holocaust denyers.

Anti gay views were strong in the nazi party too.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

A regulation is when the gov makes a law that restricts ones rights to live completely free and do whatever one wants. One might want to kill ones neighbor. when the gov says it is against the law to kill a neighbor that is a regulation.

How does that apply to marriage or children? Are you suggesting new laws to regulate how children are treated? What's your point?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

That makes no sense to me.

Two men are incapable of producing children. If that seems black and white to you it is because it is black and white.

Pardon my crudeness but my friends in the gay community had a phrase to describe this: "***hole babies never live."

Vagina babies don't live either I suppose, do they? You seem to have ruled out all the lesbian women who have children and all the women who use donated sperm because their husbands are infertile. If you are going to make the argument about ONLY the people who biologically produce the children, then I'm alright with that as long as it applies across the board to all people. This will of course rule out sterile hetero couples and even hetero couples who decide not to have children. As I understand the thrust of your argument, not even people who produce biological children by in vitro methods would be eligible for equal treatement?

Great. So since you have said that the laws discriminate against the children raised by gay couples lets go there. (But lets be clear that we are not talking about children produced by gay couples since they (virtually) don't exist.)

How does social security discriminate against the children raised and adopted by gay couples compared to the children raised and adopted by straight couples?

Almost all the benefits that accure to the children of legally married parents are not available to children of non-married parents. Again, you are trying to narrow the discussion to avoid some of the most important issues. Many of the legal rights given to married people are there to help protect the family as a unit--surviviors benefits, disability benefits, and the like.

It's pretty amazing to me that your hatred of gay people is so intense that you would continue to argue to have them disenfranchised even if they are raising children. Sad for you, and sad for the children and their families who are the victims of your particular kind of hate. I often wonder what drives this kind of hate, is it a misguided attempt to protect your money? Twisted relgion? Or is it naked fear?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Yup. That's biased. And not in a good or an accurate way.

Judge ye them by their works.

 

[Dr.Who]

Originally Posted by Dr.Who View Post
A regulation is when the gov makes a law that restricts ones rights to live completely free and do whatever one wants. One might want to kill ones neighbor. when the gov says it is against the law to kill a neighbor that is a regulation.

How does that apply to marriage or children? Are you suggesting new laws to regulate how children are treated? What's your point?

Um, you asked what a regulation was.

And just like laws against murder are regulations in the same way laws against abandoning wives and children are regulations. But before the legislatures can make it illegal to abandon your wife they need to define what a wife is.

Marriage, from the state perspective, is a way to make it hard for people to separate if they have or are likely to have kids. Now if those people don't have children, are not pregnant, and won't ever have children then there is no need to regulate how and when they break up. They get to keep their freedoms.

Flor people who can never produce children but they do adopt children then the state can step in and regulate the way they raise those kids. The adoption laws cover that already. So there is still no need to regulate them with marriage.

 

[Dr.Who]

Judge ye them by their works.

OK then,

The catholic church and the popes have done a great deal of good in the world and occasionally do some bad. They are people and they are human.

More than 99% and more than 99% of the remainder is admirable behavior.

Two guys can work as hard as they want to and they will never get pregnant.

More than 99% and more than 99% of the remainder will never produce kids.

When one looks at the history of atrocities it is clear that though a small percentage of them have been committed in the name of religion the vast majority of them have been committed for other reasons. It can even be argued that the ones that have been committed in the name of religion have really been committed for the same reason as all the non-religious atrocities.

Here is a breakdown of who does what and why:

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html

 

[Dr.Who]

Vagina babies don't live either I suppose, do they? You seem to have ruled out all the lesbian women who have children and all the women who use donated sperm because their husbands are infertile. If you are going to make the argument about ONLY the people who biologically produce the children, then I'm alright with that as long as it applies across the board to all people. This will of course rule out sterile hetero couples and even hetero couples who decide not to have children. As I understand the thrust of your argument, not even people who produce biological children by in vitro methods would be eligible for equal treatement?

Vaginal babies live all the time provided that there is a father involved in some capacity. Every once in a while they live even when there is no father involved, but that situation is so rare that there is no need for a gov to change law based on it.

And I did address lesbians who have children through infertility treatments way back in post 1006. I also addressed generically any potential for treatments in which an egg is genetically manipulated and then implanted in the other partner every time I said that they "(virtually) don't produce children" the only time I said that there was no way any gay couple absolutely never produced children was when I was talking about two men. The technology for that may never exist due to a lack of genetic material.

I also addressed the possibility that straight though possibly infertile couples would have children several times when I mentioned that straight couples previously thought infertile often have kids and when I said that the law is based on sociological expectations because the gov cannot predict which infertile straight couples will end up having kids while it can predict with almost certainty that no gay couple at all will ever produce kids.

You are not in your game and are missing alot. go back and re-read and you may take a different approach.

Almost all the benefits that accure to the children of legally married parents are not available to children of non-married parents. Again, you are trying to narrow the discussion to avoid some of the most important issues. Many of the legal rights given to married people are there to help protect the family as a unit--surviviors benefits, disability benefits, and the like.

If a couple has produced children and they are being denied rights then maybe they should get married. (but I am willing to look at any situation just present it) And if they are a same sex couple then they have not (in an almost 100% certainty) produced any children so it does not matter. And if they adopted children then the adoption laws should provide for the welfare of the children. But if almost all the benefits legally married children have are denied to kids of parents not legally married then you should have no problem presenting us with ONE.

It's pretty amazing to me that your hatred of gay people is so intense that you would continue to argue to have them disenfranchised even if they are raising children. Sad for you, and sad for the children and their families who are the victims of your particular kind of hate. I often wonder what drives this kind of hate, is it a misguided attempt to protect your money? Twisted relgion? Or is it naked fear?

I have not said one hateful thing. There you go again being "biased."

I never said they should be disenfranchised if they are raising kids. I said marriage is based on producing kids and other laws apply when people adopt. You spent so much time arguing that somehow gay people did produce kids that you failed to see how I intentionally left the door open for you to say that it should be based on raising kids. I want you to make that argument so that I can agree that the laws should be changed to cover that situation if adoption laws don't presently cover it. So who is has the naked fear? you who sees hate where it is not? You who confused producing kids with raising kids? You who misreads my words and misses opportunities for agreement? Now I understand where that fear comes from and think it is warranted. But let's try to get past it and find common ground.

I asked you for an example of any right a kid adopted by gay parents does not have that a kid adopted by straight people has and you have not provided one. So where is the disenfranchisement? you know of course that should you decide to give an example of a right that kids adopted by gay couples do not have that kids adopted by straight couples do have I will agree with yo that the adoption laws should be changed so that they have the same rights.

 

[Petunia]

I did not read responses..

I don't see it as a choice, & this is what I draw my conclusions from, I have a nephew that is gay & I swear to whoever you want me to swear to, we knew he was gay by age 3! All the classical signs were there! The femininity, the hand gestures...it was all flambouyant right off the bat.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

As if anyone would choose to be gay.

There is nothing wrong with being gay but it must be a tough life especially with all those loving christians out there seeking to make your harmless life a misery.

 

[MVPMARTY]

How can ANYBODY rationally believe that people choose to be gay out of laziness or frustration. While true for some, there are a decent amount of people, that do ACTUALLY try to deny it to themselves that they feel that way and personally struggle with it for years. That's a horrible way to go through life. As a conservative, it took me a few years to really realize this and just recently realized that I am nobody to deny two honest people who truly love each other, the right to spend their lives together happily. It doesn't hurt me so what's the big deal?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Bingo

 

[samsara15]

I think most evidence clearly supports the idea that homosexuality is primarily based on genetic inheritance. I think it is very difficult being a gay person, any place in this world, that they suffer much discrimination in the world's cultures, and often face severe bodily harm from the violent intolerance of others. The indignities they endure are shameful to our common humanity.