You could say what's true: You don't know what causes people to be homosexual, you don't know if it has some kind of suvival value that you haven't recognized yet, and that until you do know all the facts you have decided to stop practicing your innate bigotry against them.
The fact is, nobody knows.
Why then, do you pretend that you do, eh?
No, prejudice is something that people practice against each other. The situations you outlined are simply circumstances that exist because of bad choices or even bad luck. Passing laws against a group of people you don't like in order to hurt them is prejudice--kind of like the Jim Crow laws against black people or the discriminatory ones against gay people.
Nonsense.
It is a prejudice that exists because of a particular social order. And the reason for the udhr is to correct this prejudice.
Duh?
Anyone who does the work has the right to help children--call it motherhood or something else--you are splitting hairs for the sake of argument.
Nonsense.
That is what you wish to change along with the definition of marriage. It has absolutely
NO LOGICAL BASIS.
Right, now that's PREJUDICE. Single moms can't do it either then, can they?
Can you think of a way by which any lesbian can become a mother by a lesbian relationship?
I didn't think so.
No, you are a bigot because you parade your ignorance around with the intent of hurting those you dislike.
I must agree -- facts and logic may be hurtful to morons with dishonest agenda.
You said that the rights were based on the UDHR, which means that the rights did not exist before the UDHR gave them a basis to exist. Then you said they existed previously.
Nonsense.
Inalienable rights are inherent in the human person -- hence exist prior to the document formally declaring them.
Marital laws are obliged to conform with the principles declared therein. Clearly, gay marriages do not conform with the principles declared therein.
It has changed some in some places, but it's not in any way universal nor can it be proven that the UDHR was the cause of the changes. Women are still victimized all over the world.
All the more reason for the udhr to be universally adhered to.
Duh?
So what? Nobody has to pay attention to the UDHR any more than they have to obey the laws or obey the Bible, or the Koran. It's a piece of paper that you are using in a vain attempt to make an argument against people you don't like.
The concepts of human freedom and equality are also contained therein. The fact that you do not pay attention to it is precisely the reason you babble incessantly about these concepts incorrectly.
And baloney, no matter how thinnly sliced, is still baloney. Love is love, it's only people like you who throw up faux arguments to express your own hates and fears.
Nonsense.
there are different kinds of love. We are talking about conjugal love in this particular thread. Nothing in political philosophy purports to legislate conjugal love. As far as I'm concerned, only gay rhetoric is dumb enough to do this.
Duh?
You of course don't tell us upon WHAT it is contingent in your mind, but I will mention that ANYONE who wishes to have a baby is in a situation that is ENTIRELY contingent upon finding the resources to create, birth, and care for that baby. It's no different for any of us.
It is contingent on the discretion of the state -- whether the state sees it fit to allow a particular gay or straight couple to adopt a child.
Is that clear enough for you? Or are the gay rhetorics ringing in your head drowning logic?
You have it backwards actually, in any social situation you can simply ask the person in question, but from a biological context the mixing of primary and secondary sex characteristics makes it impossible to provide a scientific definition of male or female. Remember that as long as there are some things that don't fit into the theory, then that theory is either incomplete or is not correct. When you have a normal appearing and functioning male with the XX chromosome pattern that suggests that our understanding is incomplete.
Yikes.
Is there any biological context wherein a person with a functioning penis is a woman and vice versa????
Perhaps if you chop it off and sew a vagina in its place.....
Of course I did. I gave the link to Dr. Chappell's presentation and I have cited at least two other books based on peer reviewed journal papers.
Can you even distinguish between a scientific paper and news article????
The people doing the research say that the preponderance of evidence suggest a genetic basis, the twin studies alone make it almost impossible for it to lack a genetic component. It's much like many of the diseases that we know have a genetic component, but we haven't been able to tease out exactly what or where it is.
And the same people doing the research also admitted that their findings are awaiting independent verification. And the independent verification is about general behavior --
NOT HOMOSEXUALITY.
God you're so dense.
Rational people will wait till we know before we pass judgment.
Correct.
So, can we defer this gay nonsense till then?
