Is being gay a choice?

Professor Baxter said:
But, there is something special about them that justifies governmental discrimination?.
Click to expand...

Nope, nothing at all. Two lesbian lovers are no different than the single mother and grandmother down the street, living together for over a decade to raise their children/ grandchildren. No different than the 92 year old lady and her live in 72 yr old housekeeper of 50 years. All couples other than heterosexual couples are excluded from marriage. Not just the homosexual couples.
 
Professor Baxter said:
We can include homosexual couples to reduce the number of single mothers or fathers on their own.
Click to expand...

Homosexual couplings don't lead to any children. If you are referring to adoption, any two consenting adults could join together to adopt a child. Nothing special about two homosexuals that could justify such a preference.
Heterosexual relations have a natural tendency to lead to procreation. Homosexual relations has no tendency to lead to adoption
 
dixon76710 said:
Nope, nothing at all. Two lesbian lovers are no different than the single mother and grandmother down the street, living together for over a decade to raise their children/ grandchildren. No different than the 92 year old lady and her live in 72 yr old housekeeper of 50 years. All couples other than heterosexual couples are excluded from marriage. Not just the homosexual couples.
Click to expand...

Same sex marriage would not prohibit someone from marrying their housekeeper, nor does it prohibit marriage between the closely related, so it can not be claimed that it gives preference to homosexuals. It simply removes the discrimination against them.

All couples that are not of the same race or religion could be excluded under your idiotic reasoning, dix. What you are promoting is invidious discrimination by the state.
 
Last edited:
dixon76710 said:
Homosexual couplings don't lead to any children.
Click to expand...

So? Many heterosexual couplings don't result in children but are still capable of reducing the number of single mothers or fathers on their own. Wasn't that the goal? The fact that you will move the goalposts is evidence that your argument is little more than circular bs designed to rationalize discrimination against homosexuals.
 
Last edited:
Professor Baxter said:
So? Many heterosexual couplings don't result in children but are still capable of reducing the number of single mothers or fathers on their own. Wasn't that the goal? The fact that you will move the goalposts is evidence that your argument is little more than circular bs designed to rationalize discrimination against homosexuals.
Click to expand...

Goal post hasn't moved. You are not making any sense, or pointing out the obvious. That a heterosexual
couples who do not have children reduces the number of mothers and fathers, both single and married
 
You know what? It's not going to matter. Ultra-Conservatives and religious zealots are going to lose this battle.

And when it's all said and done, it's not going to change the landscape of our country in any significant way. The idea that it is, is just one more.panic attack from the eternally fearful.
 
Steelplate said:
You know what? It's not going to matter. Ultra-Conservatives and religious zealots are going to lose this battle..
Click to expand...

The 30 years of court cases, upholding marriages limitation to heterosexual couples as constitutional are nether ultra
conservative or religious. Just basic constitutional equal protection analysis.
 
Steelplate said:
You know what? It's not going to matter. Ultra-Conservatives and religious zealots are going to lose this battle.

And when it's all said and done, it's not going to change the landscape of our country in any significant way. The idea that it is, is just one more.panic attack from the eternally fearful.
Click to expand...

Bingo! Which is why the (I'm really trying to think of a less incriminating word to use, but this is most appropriate) homophobes are becoming more vocal in their fearful denial of the reality of equality.
 
dixon76710 said:
Goal post hasn't moved. You are not making any sense, or pointing out the obvious. That a heterosexual
couples who do not have children reduces the number of mothers and fathers, both single and married
Click to expand...

You said Heterosexual couples are INCLUDED in marriage to reduce the # of single mothers on their own. If a single mother/father marries it reduces the number of single mothers/fathers regardless if the marriage is same sex or opposite sex. This can alleviate the burdens of the government and, according to you, therefore benefits society.

If we really want to reduce the number of children in single parent homes then it would make more sense to stop them at the source, i.e., heterosexual couplings. There is no call for stopping homosexual couplings which can only reduce the number of children in single parent homes.
 
Professor Baxter said:
So? You think this contradicts something I said? Same sex marriage does not prohibit an old lady from marrying her housekeeper. It does not discriminate against them in anyway.
Click to expand...

You're right. They can get married if that's what they want...what's the issue? I'll throw you a bone here.....let's suppose the housekeeper is an(GASP!) Illegal Alien!
 
dixon76710 said:
The 30 years of court cases, upholding marriages limitation to heterosexual couples as constitutional are nether ultra
conservative or religious. Just basic constitutional equal protection analysis.
Click to expand...

There have been several cases that did not uphold gay marriage bans. Perry and Windsor have changed the momentum and may overturn all of the rulings that previously upheld the bans.

But the laws are going to start changing due to popular opinion anyway. Conservatives may be allowed to preserve their hateful ways in certain backwards regions (i.e., the south) for a little while longer but eventually that will be changed as well.

I honestly think the Supreme's would be doing the GOP a huge favor if they overturn the bans. Otherwise it is going to be used to defeat Republican at the ballot box.
 
Professor Baxter said:
There have been several cases that did not uphold gay marriage bans. Perry and Windsor have changed the momentum and may overturn all of the rulings that previously upheld the bans.

But the laws are going to start changing due to popular opinion anyway. Conservatives may be allowed to preserve their hateful ways in certain backwards regions (i.e., the south) for a little while longer but eventually that will be changed as well.

I honestly think the Supreme's would be doing the GOP a huge favor if they overturn the bans. Otherwise it is going to be used to defeat Republican at the ballot box.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that. A small favor, perhaps...First, I think that Most gays identify with Democrats, and that goes deeper than a single issue....second.....there aren't a big enough demographic to make that big of a difference.
 
Steelplate said:
I don't know about that. A small favor, perhaps...First, I think that Most gays identify with Democrats, and that goes deeper than a single issue....second.....there aren't a big enough demographic to make that big of a difference.
Click to expand...

The demographic is those that support same sex marriage and they will punish Republicans.
 
Professor Baxter said:
You said Heterosexual couples are INCLUDED in marriage to reduce the # of single mothers on their own. If a single mother/father marries it reduces the number of single mothers/fathers regardless if the marriage is same sex or opposite sex.
.
Click to expand...

???? Marriage to someone with children creates no obligation of care or support for those children. Simply moving a second adult into the home prevents them from being"on their own". Marriage has no impact upon this. Birth of a child creates an obligation upon only two people in the world. The woman who gave birth and the man that caused her to do so. Presumed by the law to be her husband.
 
dixon76710 said:
???? Marriage to someone with children creates no obligation of care or support for those children. Simply moving a second adult into the home prevents them from being"on their own". Marriage has no impact upon this. Birth of a child creates an obligation upon only two people in the world. The woman who gave birth and the man that caused her to do so. Presumed by the law to be her husband.
Click to expand...

Well fuck me to tears.....I haven't fathered one child, but helped raise three...one to my first marriage and two to the second. Take your presumptions and shove 'em up your ass.
 
Professor Baxter said:
So? You think this contradicts something I said? Same sex marriage does not prohibit an old lady from marrying her housekeeper. .
Click to expand...

No one claimed it did. Try to resist the allure of the strawman. Platonic couples are excluded from marriage by laws that annul, dissolved or declared fraudulent for a failure to consummate the relationship. "gay marriage" makes the exclusion of platonic and closely related couples unconstitutional. The exclusion of these same couples in marriage limited to heterosexual couples IS constitutional because only heterosexual couples have the potential of procreation. Marriage limited to hetero and homosexual couples has no such justifications. These court cases that have declared procreation and the well being of the children that result to now be irrelevant to the governmental interest served by marriage, also have declared tha formation of stable homes to now be the interest served by marriage. But a sexual relation has no rational relationship to this governmental interest. Any two consenting adults can benefit from the advantages of a stable home.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top