Are gays "born gay"?

Southern Man said:
Totally unrelated. Skydivers, however, should pay higher insurance premiums to pay for their risky lifestyle. Just like gays should pay for the consequences of their lifestyle choice.
Click to expand...
It isn't unrelated. It's "not normal" which was your criteria for restricting gay people from the same. It's also not normal to do deep sea diving, or myriad other things. We should restrict people who do that from marrying as well. Because "normal" is the standard by which we judge.... Less people run in marathons than there ever were gay people. That practice isn't "normal" we better stop those people from getting married too....

As I said, this is the weakest leg of your tottering table of an argument.
 
Southern Man said:
Of course it is. Don't be silly!
Click to expand...
The only "silly" thing here is the attempt to say that something is not "normal" and therefore should be "illegal". The reality is all of those are part of the set of "not normal". Some even more so than the supposed less than 1% of homosexuality.
 
Damocles said:
The only "silly" thing here is the attempt to say that something is not "normal" and therefore should be "illegal". The reality is all of those are part of the set of "not normal". Some even more so than the supposed less than 1% of homosexuality.
Click to expand...
I think that you're completely off base here with your analogies. A better analogy was sugested earlier: "you wouldn't give a driver's license to a blind man". Your analogies are silly, because they attempt to relate unrelated issues.
 
Southern Man said:
I think that you're completely off base here with your analogies. A better analogy was sugested earlier: "you wouldn't give a driver's license to a blind man". Your analogies are silly, because they attempt to relate unrelated issues.
Click to expand...
No, that is not a proper analogy. Gays are not the same as a disability. They are simply abnormal. What are gays unable to do because of being gay? The reality is you don't want the analogy to fit, but were the one that said that it was because they are "not normal" therefore such a restriction should be enforced. That argument has shown to be one of the weakest arguments ever.
 
Damocles said:
No, that is not a proper analogy. Gays are not the same as a disability. They are simply abnormal. What are gays unable to do because of being gay? The reality is you don't want the analogy to fit, but were the one that said that it was because they are "not normal" therefore such a restriction should be enforced. That argument has shown to be one of the weakest arguments ever.
Click to expand...
You seem to hope that by calling an argument weak makes it so. That itself is the weakest argument ever.

Gays are unable to raise children in the environment proven to be the most beneficial to them: with a mum and a dad. In that context, gays have a disability.
 
Southern Man said:
You seem to hope that by calling an argument weak makes it so. That itself is the weakest argument ever.

Gays are unable to raise children in the environment proven to be the most beneficial to them: with a mum and a dad. In that context, gays have a disability.
Click to expand...
No, I seem to be able to easily point out the weakness in the argument while you seem totally ineffective in defending the position, that is what makes it weak.

LOL. So single mothers have a disability, widows have a disability?

This is more hogwash. Stability is more important than number of males v females in the relationship.

The number of people with a "disability" is staggering in your world...
 
Damocles said:
No, I seem to be able to easily point out the weakness in the argument while you seem totally ineffective in defending the position, that is what makes it weak.

LOL. So single mothers have a disability, widows have a disability?

This is more hogwash. Stability is more important than number of males v females in the relationship.

The number of people with a "disability" is staggering in your world...
Click to expand...

With regards to raising children, single mums definitely have a disability.
 
Damocles said:
Then we should make it illegal for them to marry. Your arguments are totally sad, just plain irrevocably sad. It begins to make me feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...
That's insane. If they marry then their disability vanishes. Do you actually think about what you write?
 
Southern Man said:
That's insane. If they marry then their disability vanishes. Do you actually think about what you write?
Click to expand...
LOL. And if they can't or decide not to? Should we make it illegal for them to have children? I mean we can't let the disabled raise children! How long should we give them before we take the kid/kids away from them?

Do you think it is only possible to get pregnant while in that state? And if they do, should we enforce an abortion onto them or should we just take the kid as soon as it is born? I mean, they are "disabled" and thus cannot raise children properly.

Do you actually think about what you write?

They do not have a disability if they are single, or if they are gay. They have challenges, just like any parent.

And if this is the standard why would you allow a sterile man, or a sterile female to marry? What about a woman who has past child bearing age? Or a man who had a vasectomy? If a man has a vasectomy before he has kids should it be illegal for him to marry unless he gets it reversed, he's "disabled" as a parent, right?

You seriously have no idea what you infer with the idea that unmarried people are "disabled". It's just plain the most inane argument I have ever heard.
 
Damocles said:
LOL. And if they can't or decide not to? Should we make it illegal for them to have children? I mean we can't let the disabled raise children! How long should we give them before we take the kid/kids away from them?

Do you think it is only possible to get pregnant while in that state? And if they do, should we enforce an abortion onto them or should we just take the kid as soon as it is born? I mean, they are "disabled" and thus cannot raise children properly.

Do you actually think about what you write?

They do not have a disability if they are single, or if they are gay. They have challenges, just like any parent.

And if this is the standard why would you allow a sterile man, or a sterile female to marry? What about a woman who has past child bearing age? Or a man who had a vasectomy? If a man has a vasectomy before he has kids should it be illegal for him to marry unless he gets it reversed, he's "disabled" as a parent, right?

You seriously have no idea what you infer with the idea that unmarried people are "disabled". It's just plain the most inane argument I have ever heard.
Click to expand...
You keep bringing up these straw man arguments. I never said “we” should make it illegal for people to have children. What I said a traditional marriage is the best way to raise a family, and that every child deserves a chance for that ideal situation.

With regards to heterosexual couples who cannot or wish no to have children, the issue here is that gay marriage will encourage gay adoption. And again, a child brought up in an abnormal environment is not the ideal situation.
 
Southern Man said:
You keep bringing up these straw man arguments. I never said “we” should make it illegal for people to have children. What I said a traditional marriage is the best way to raise a family, and that every child deserves a chance for that ideal situation.

With regards to heterosexual couples who cannot or wish no to have children, the issue here is that gay marriage will encourage gay adoption. And again, a child brought up in an abnormal environment is not the ideal situation.
Click to expand...
No, you keep referencing them in your post. This idea of "disability" is simply extended. That is not a 'strawman argument'. You again misapply the term and show you have no idea what a logical fallacy is. That is likely why you use them so very often. Such as "disabled" for people who are simply single.

You said that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are "disabled" as parents. However, if they have children stability is far better for their children than what you suggest. Marriage brings such a stability that forcing them to never marry will ever bring.

Gays do not have to adopt to have children, there are myriad ways for a gay man or a lesbian woman to have children.
 
Grind said:
3. There are cases of identical (same dna) twins where one is gay and one is not. Definately a case for nurture not nature.

My guess is it's a combination of maybe some genetic disposition along with upbringing
Click to expand...

No one can be "born" gay - common sense.
 
Damocles said:
No, you keep referencing them in your post. This idea of "disability" is simply extended. That is not a 'strawman argument'. You again misapply the term and show you have no idea what a logical fallacy is. That is likely why you use them so very often. Such as "disabled" for people who are simply single.

You said that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they are "disabled" as parents. However, if they have children stability is far better for their children than what you suggest. Marriage brings such a stability that forcing them to never marry will ever bring.

Gays do not have to adopt to have children, there are myriad ways for a gay man or a lesbian woman to have children.
Click to expand...
For gays to have children without adoption they would have to have heterosexual sex. If that is the case then obviously they have a choice with whom they allow themselves to have sex with. This obviously means that they are not gay. Your argument that they are born gay has thus fallen apart.
 
Southern Man said:
For gays to have children without adoption they would have to have heterosexual sex. If that is the case then obviously they have a choice with whom they allow themselves to have sex with. This obviously means that they are not gay. Your argument that they are born gay has thus fallen apart.
Click to expand...
No, they wouldn't. You've never heard of insemination? There are myriad ways, including heterosexual sex, that they could get pregnant.

And my argument has never been that they were born gay. I asked why it would matter if they were born gay. What difference would it make to their rights?
 
Damocles said:
No, they wouldn't. You've never heard of insemination? There are myriad ways, including heterosexual sex, that they could get pregnant.

And my argument has never been that they were born gay. I asked why it would matter if they were born gay. What difference would it make to their rights?
Click to expand...

Cus it just ain't right. Common sense.
 
Damocles said:
No, they wouldn't. You've never heard of insemination? There are myriad ways, including heterosexual sex, that they could get pregnant.

And my argument has never been that they were born gay. I asked why it would matter if they were born gay. What difference would it make to their rights?
Click to expand...
In semination is a relatively new technology, and gays have been around since Ham. So that argument doesn't make sense.

It matters for the reasons already stated. If they choose deviant behavior then they cannot claim rights, or privledges, that belong to those who choose normal behavior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top