Is being gay a choice?

dixon76710 said:
All women and negros were given the right, not just the homosexual women and negros. Not sure of your point.
Click to expand...

All heterosexual women have the right to marry...same with heterosexual men. What your strawman is all about is not the basis for a marriage...a marriage is based on the idea of romantic love....not platonic love.

His point is that your thoughts are as bigoted and antiquated as those opposed to giving the right to vote to minorities and women...and laws that made interracial relationships illegal.
 
Steelplate said:
All heterosexual women have the right to marry...same with heterosexual men. What your strawman is all about is not the basis for a marriage...a marriage is based on the idea of romantic love....not platonic love.
Click to expand...

If you want to discriminate against couples that don't have "romantic love", you still need some justification. Our constitution requires that ALL discrimination, at a minimum, must be rationally related to serving some legitimate governmental interest. What governmental interest is served in the case of couples with "romantic love" that wouldn't equally be served in the case of ANY two people who might join together to establish a home? Without a rational answer to that question, you have unconstitutional discrimination.
And MATRIMONY, Latin root of the word MATER, MOTHER. Marriage is based upon the fact that only men and women become husbands and wives, fathers and mothers to their children. Birth of a child creates an obligation upon only two people in the world. The woman who gave birth and the man who caused her to do so. Presumed by the law to be her husband.
 
Steelplate said:
All heterosexual women have the right to marry...same with heterosexual men. What your strawman is all about is not the basis for a marriage...a marriage is based on the idea of romantic love....not platonic love.
Click to expand...

And all heterosexual men and women have a right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Just like all homosexual men and women have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.
 
dixon76710 said:
It's a fact. Not a cop out.
Click to expand...

No...It's a cop out. In fact, it goes beyond copout. It's actually a right wing talking point... you think you're being ORIGINAL? I've heard this idiotic line before...many times....why do you think I keep bringing up the "dawg" thing? Heard that one too....many times from Conservatives.

It's the EXACT same line of thinking as "want birth control? Take an aspirin and put it between your knees!" The same line of thinking that says " we are paying for a shitload of people to be lazy and.not work"...when the vast majority of the people who use the welfare system are people who are working.

It's just another right wing bullshit meme where people like you don't actually have to think or put yourself in another's shoes.
 
Steelplate said:
No...It's a cop out. In fact, it goes beyond copout. It's actually a right wing talking point... you think you're being ORIGINAL? I've heard this idiotic line before...many times....why do you think I keep bringing up the "dawg" thing? Heard that one too....many times from Conservatives.

It's the EXACT same line of thinking as "want birth control? Take an aspirin and put it between your knees!" The same line of thinking that says " we are paying for a shitload of people to be lazy and.not work"...when the vast majority of the people who use the welfare system are people who are working.

It's just another right wing bullshit meme where people like you don't actually have to think or put yourself in another's shoes.
Click to expand...

Wow! Can't imagine WTF you are going on about here. instead of telling me it's a "cop out", "right wing
talking point", not "original" and "idiotic", why don't you try and string together a few words and state what it is you disagree with and why that is? If you can.
 
Steelplate said:
Yeah....what's your point? How is allowing homosexual marriage infringing upon your consitutitutional rights?
Click to expand...

Marriage has been a good thing for America.

It isn't a civil rights issue, it's a stabilizing issue. It has been defined and it is the very brick of civilization. Every civilized society throughout history has used the institution to create order, conformity, and to regulate sex.

Changing it's definition from non inclusive to inclusive with restrictions doesn't contribute to it's purpose and it is not on the level of racism which improves rather than degrades society by redefining laws that sanction it.

One does not compromise from a position of strength, one attempts to compromise from a position of weakness and compromise is something you and your people want nothing to do with which only confirms that this is an agenda to radically change the country's marriage laws in order to remove the religious aspects from such.
 
philly rabbit said:
Marriage has been a good thing for America.

It isn't a civil rights issue, it's a stabilizing issue. It has been defined and it is the very brick of civilization. Every civilized society throughout history has used the institution to create order, conformity, and to regulate sex.

Changing it's definition from non inclusive to inclusive with restrictions doesn't contribute to it's purpose and it is not on the level of racism which improves rather than degrades society by redefining laws that sanction it.

One does not compromise from a position of strength, one attempts to compromise from a position of weakness and compromise is something you and your people want nothing to do with which only confirms that this is an agenda to radically change the country's marriage laws in order to remove the religious aspects from such.
Click to expand...

Thought you guys were against regulations? Oh....that's right....you're only against it when some rich dude is fucking over the workforce or destroying the environment...people's personal and sex lives? Now that needs regulated.
 
Steelplate said:
Thought you guys were against regulations? Oh....that's right....you're only against it when some rich dude is fucking over the workforce or destroying the environment...people's personal and sex lives? Now that needs regulated.
Click to expand...

You are confused. It is the gays and their advocates who are insisting that government license and regulate their sexual
relationships that have never been licensed and regulated before.
Children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and
criminal conviction as adults. All factors leading to the need for even more governmental involvement than that needed for marriage. I don't have a problem with government encouraging behavior that is beneficial to society as a whole. More children born into homes with both their mother and father in the home working together to provide and care for their
children and fewer children born into the alternative of either only one or neither of their parents in the home. I do have a problem with government encouraging behavior so that those who engage in that behavior can feel better about
themselves for doing so.
 
dixon76710 said:
You are confused. It is the gays and their advocates who are insisting that government license and regulate their sexual
relationships that have never been licensed and regulated before.
Children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and
criminal conviction as adults. All factors leading to the need for even more governmental involvement than that needed for marriage. I don't have a problem with government encouraging behavior that is beneficial to society as a whole. More children born into homes with both their mother and father in the home working together to provide and care for their
children and fewer children born into the alternative of either only one or neither of their parents in the home. I do have a problem with government encouraging behavior so that those who engage in that behavior can feel better about
themselves for doing so.
Click to expand...

And that has to do with the topic how? Gays getting married is going to cause more of these problems? Quite a stretch.

Children born to single mothers? OK...right wing misogyny rears it's ugly head....what about the fathers of these single mother kids? Most of them are off partying somewhere because they didn't want the responsibility of raising a child, or had sex without loving the mother....got her pregnant and didn't want to spend the rest of his.life with her. Now, I'm not saying that all women are saints....just that they didn't get to be single mothers on their own.
 
dixon76710 said:
You are confused. It is the gays and their advocates who are insisting that government license and regulate their sexual
relationships that have never been licensed and regulated before.
Children born to single mothers have higher rates of poverty, juvenile delinquency, teen pregnancy, HS dropouts and
criminal conviction as adults. All factors leading to the need for even more governmental involvement than that needed for marriage. I don't have a problem with government encouraging behavior that is beneficial to society as a whole. More children born into homes with both their mother and father in the home working together to provide and care for their
children and fewer children born into the alternative of either only one or neither of their parents in the home. I do have a problem with government encouraging behavior so that those who engage in that behavior can feel better about
themselves for doing so.
Click to expand...

Just thimk of all those happily married sets of two men or two women anxiously waiting to adopt the unwanted children of all of you breeders and provide them with a loving, happy, healthy and secure home all with more income than breeders!
 
Howey said:
Just thimk of all those happily married sets of two men or two women anxiously waiting to adopt the unwanted children of all of you breeders and provide them with a loving, happy, healthy and secure home all with more income than breeders!
Click to expand...

To be fair....watch that income disappear once you invite children into your home. It's an expensive, emotionally and physically exhausting job....but it's also rewarding....I don't think the reward outweighs the burden....but it's a job you won't expect to profit from anyway.
 
Howey said:
Just thimk of all those happily married sets of two men or two women anxiously waiting to adopt the unwanted children of all of you breeders and provide them with a loving, happy, healthy and secure home all with more income than breeders!
Click to expand...
Any two consenting adults could join together to adopt a child. Nothing special about homosexual couples that could
possibly justify such a governmental preference for homosexual parents.
 
Steelplate said:
Hey...you're the one who brought it up...it's your strawman...I just knocked it down for you.
Click to expand...

You seem to have missed my answer to the question. It's still your strawman. Gays aren't excluded from marriage to reduce the # of single mothers on their own with absent and unknown fathers. Heterosexual couples are INCLUDED to do so.
 
dixon76710 said:
You seem to have missed my answer to the question. It's still your strawman. Gays aren't excluded from marriage to reduce the # of single mothers on their own with absent and unknown fathers. Heterosexual couples are INCLUDED to do so.
Click to expand...

How's that working out?
 
dixon76710 said:
You seem to have missed my answer to the question. It's still your strawman. Gays aren't excluded from marriage to reduce the # of single mothers on their own with absent and unknown fathers. Heterosexual couples are INCLUDED to do so.
Click to expand...

We can include homosexual couples to reduce the number of single mothers or fathers on their own.
 
dixon76710 said:
Any two consenting adults could join together to adopt a child. Nothing special about homosexual couples that could
possibly justify such a governmental preference for homosexual parents.
Click to expand...

But, there is something special about them that justifies governmental discrimination?

Nobody is suggesting they be given preferences.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top