Is being gay a choice?

I not use them as tools, I support them in their quest for equal rights.

"Equal rights" would involve treating the married equal to the unmarried. Marriage creates UNEQUAL rights by design. And equal rights to marriage would involve marriage for any two consenting adults who desire marriage, not just the homosexuals.
 
"Equal rights" would involve treating the married equal to the unmarried. Marriage creates UNEQUAL rights by design. And equal rights to marriage would involve marriage for any two consenting adults who desire marriage, not just the homosexuals.

??? What two consenting adults can't get married other than homosexuals...other than close relatives, that is???
 
??? What two consenting adults can't get married other than homosexuals...other than close relatives, that is???

That's the uneducated's argument against gay marriage. "If'n y'all let them homersexuals merry then den de next thang ya now is folks will wanna merry their cuzzins!"
 
That's the uneducated's argument against gay marriage. "If'n y'all let them homersexuals merry then den de next thang ya now is folks will wanna merry their cuzzins!"

Well...that's true. Don't ferget dem dern people marrying dere dawgs..but I think Dixon there was serious....I'd like to hear his answer.
 
"Equal rights" would involve treating the married equal to the unmarried. Marriage creates UNEQUAL rights by design. And equal rights to marriage would involve marriage for any two consenting adults who desire marriage, not just the homosexuals.

How do you treat married and unmarried people equal with regards to the contractual rights of the married? That's like saying you should treat a sole proprietorship equal to a partnership.
 
I not use them as tools, I support them in their quest for equal rights.

No you don't.

If you wanted to give them equal rights, you'd be calling for compromise and you'd be more moderate seeking a solution that would give them equal partner rights.
 
??? What two consenting adults can't get married other than homosexuals...other than close relatives, that is???

Doesn't the constitution apply all people? Closely related couples are denied marriage. 4 states still annul marriages for a failure to consummate marriage, many of the others will dissolve a marriage for a failure to consummate the marriage. Marriages are declared to be fraudulent by immigration for a failure to consummate the relationship.Thus the description of "gay marriage"
 
That's the uneducated's argument against gay marriage. "If'n y'all let them homersexuals merry then den de next thang ya now is folks will wanna merry their cuzzins!"

It's a constitutitutional argument but you are not educated enough to comprehend. Single mother and grandmother down the street have been together for over a decade raising their children/ grandchildren for over a decade. What possible
justification do you have for extending marriage to two 18 yr old gay boys, young, dumb and full of cum while denying it to the single mother and grandmother? Marriage limited to heterosexual couples has a rational basis, only heterosexual
couples produce children in need of stable homes. What justification do you have for limiting marriage to sexual couples, both hetero and homosexual couples?
 
Well...that's true. Don't ferget dem dern people marrying dere dawgs..but I think Dixon there was serious....I'd like to hear his answer.

And I would like to hear your response to my answer. Platonic couples, both related and unrelated can join together to establish a home. The law presumes a sexual relation so a non sexual marriage can ce annulled, dissolved or declared fraudulent by the law.
One can easily argue that marriage should be extended to any two consenting adults who wish to be married. But if you instead want to limit marriage to hetero and homosexual couples, you still need some justification for excluding platonic or closely related couples. In heterosexual marriage, closely related couples are excluded because of the potential of procreation and it's detrimental genetic effects, platonic couples, couples of the same sex and couples made up of a human and dawg are exclude because of the impossibility of procreation
 
And I would like to hear your response to my answer. Platonic couples, both related and unrelated can join together to establish a home. The law presumes a sexual relation so a non sexual marriage can ce annulled, dissolved or declared fraudulent by the law.
One can easily argue that marriage should be extended to any two consenting adults who wish to be married. But if you instead want to limit marriage to hetero and homosexual couples, you still need some justification for excluding platonic or closely related couples. In heterosexual marriage, closely related couples are excluded because of the potential of procreation and it's detrimental genetic effects, platonic couples, couples of the same sex and couples made up of a human and dawg are exclude because of the impossibility of procreation

Sexual activity is inherent in a marital relationship. Dawgs can't consent. Incest is illegal.
 
Sexual activity is inherent in a marital relationship. Dawgs can't consent. Incest is illegal.

Heterosexual activity is inherent in a marital relationship in 40 states. Marrige between two people of the same sex is
illegal in 40 states. Not sure of your point. My mistake is
probably presuming you have a point.
 
Last edited:
Heterosexual activity is inherent in a marital relationship in 40 states. Marrige between two people of the same sex is
illegal in 40 states. Not sure of your point. My mistake is
probably presuming you have a point.

Your mistake is going off the deep end about this. How many single.mothers and Grandmothers are TRYING to get married in a platonic relationship? How many dog owners are trying to get married to their beloved pets?

Lastly, I'll ask you....what skin is it off your nose if homosexuals gain the right to marry? Is it going to change anything for you on a personal level?

IMO, they are taxpaying citizens of this country and should have the same civil liberties as heterosexuals. As a Christian Heterosexual male, I don't agree with the act of homosexuality...but as an American Citizen, I believe in equal protection of rights and liberties.

And Howey, Poet....don't get me wrong.....I don't hate gays, I don't even dislike them....I work with a pretty good population of them and they are my friends. They are good people...but they are sinning....As you know, we all sin and that's why I refuse to judge...I may not agree...but you all are still my brothers and sisters and I will stand up for your civil rights as Americans even if I don't agree.

The ONLY thing that will sway me from my current stance is if they force churches to perform the ceremony....because then it will be infringing on MY right to Freedom of Religion. But I haven't seen anything in the works to do that. Churches will perform the ceremony according to their own doctrine. Public Ceremonies done in the courthouse will not be optional, as they have to follow the law of the land.

In short? This is going to happen. It may not be today, or even tomorrow...but eventually, it will be the law of the land.
 
Your mistake is going off the deep end about this. How many single.mothers and Grandmothers are TRYING to get married in a platonic relationship? How many dog owners are trying to get married to their beloved pets?

You can drop the bit about pets, that's your strawman. And constitutional rights to equal protection apply to one individual just as they would apply to 100 million people.
 
You can drop the bit about pets, that's your strawman. And constitutional rights to equal protection apply to one individual just as they would apply to 100 million people.

Yeah....what's your point? How is allowing homosexual marriage infringing upon your consitutitutional rights?
 
Lastly, I'll ask you....what skin is it off your nose if homosexuals gain the right to marry? Is it going to change anything for you on a personal level?

IMO, they are taxpaying citizens of this country and should have the same civil liberties as heterosexuals.

What skin is off your nose if the single mother and grandmother gain the right to marry? They are tax paying citizens as well. Under our constitution, your desire to give homosexual couples special preferences isn't sufficient justification for doing so.
 
What skin is off your nose if the single mother and grandmother gain the right to marry? They are tax paying citizens as well. Under our constitution, your desire to give homosexual couples special preferences isn't sufficient justification for doing so.

I'll bet you were opposed to give them wimmen special priviliges 90 years ago and them migroes special privileges 50 years ago too, huh?
 
I'll bet you were opposed to give them wimmen special priviliges 90 years ago and them migroes special privileges 50 years ago too, huh?

All women and negros were given the right, not just the homosexual women and negros. Not sure of your point.
 
Back
Top