Are gays "born gay"?

Southern Man said:
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.
Click to expand...
What? Again. I am talking about now. There are myriad ways for gays to have kids. I don't care about Ham or whether they are "born that way" or not. It doesn't matter to their rights.

There are billions of people on this world who do things I don't want to do, they have every right to it and to their enjoyment and to decide how to worship. Including getting married in churches that support them in their endeavors to do whatever it is that I don't like.

And again "deviant" behavior does not take away one's rights to worship, nor give the government more power over religion than it should have. Marriage is fundamentally a religious function and it should stay that way. The only reason we even have licenses today was to keep inter-racial couples from getting 'permission' in certain areas and so government can get money from the transaction. It isn't their business. I believe we should get government entirely out of marriage in such a direct fashion. Laws should be based on victimization. No 14 year olds can sign a contract, therefore they cannot get married types of things. Otherwise let churches decide whether to sanctify homosexual couples. It isn't mine or the government's business to decide for them.
 
Damocles said:
What? Again. I am talking about now. There are myriad ways for gays to have kids. I don't care about Ham or whether they are "born that way" or not. It doesn't matter to their rights.

There are billions of people on this world who do things I don't want to do, they have every right to it and to their enjoyment and to decide how to worship. Including getting married in churches that support them in their endeavors to do whatever it is that I don't like.

And again "deviant" behavior does not take away one's rights to worship, nor give the government more power over religion than it should have. Marriage is fundamentally a religious function and it should stay that way. The only reason we even have licenses today was to keep inter-racial couples from getting 'permission' in certain areas and so government can get money from the transaction. It isn't their business. I believe we should get government entirely out of marriage in such a direct fashion. Laws should be based on victimization. No 14 year olds can sign a contract, therefore they cannot get married types of things. Otherwise let churches decide whether to sanctify homosexual couples. It isn't mine or the government's business to decide for them.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but the reality is that marriage licenses are granted by the States as a legal contract. That license is then tied into bank transcations, decisions on child care, heatlh care, inheritance, and a slew of other issues. You can't just forget all that and go backwards.
 
Southern Man said:
Sorry, but the reality is that marriage licenses are granted by the States as a legal contract. That license is then tied into bank transcations, decisions on child care, heatlh care, inheritance, and a slew of other issues. You can't just forget all that and go backwards.
Click to expand...
Again, only recently. Licenses in the US are a relatively new thing. Your "sorry" is just a sad extension of a "I want to stop it because I think it is a 'sin'" argument. It isn't the government's place to decide the fate of your soul.
 
Damocles said:
Again, only recently. Licenses in the US are a relatively new thing. Your "sorry" is just a sad extension of a "I want to stop it because I think it is a 'sin'" argument. It isn't the government's place to decide the fate of your soul.
Click to expand...
It is certainly a sin but I never put forth that argument with respect to gay mariage. I'll stick with the reasons that I have stated and so far have proven impenetrable.
 
Southern Man said:
It is certainly a sin but I never put forth that argument with respect to gay mariage. I'll stick with the reasons that I have stated and so far have proven impenetrable.
Click to expand...
They have been proven unsupportable as shown in the thread. Denial isn't a river in Egypt, but it runs strong in SM's land.
 
Damocles said:
They have been proven unsupportable as shown in the thread. Denial isn't a river in Egypt, but it runs strong in SM's land.
Click to expand...

The facts speak for themselves, Damo. No matter how fervently you spin it, The Southern Man remains unfettered and correct.
 
Southern Man said:
The facts speak for themselves, Damo. No matter how fervently you spin it, The Southern Man remains unfettered and correct.
Click to expand...
And if he looks in the mirror he might even start believing this foolishness. Each of your "arguments" has been a silly fallacy and shown as such in this thread.
 
Southern Man said:
Your behavior here, claiming victory falsely, is unfounded.
Click to expand...
So you have begun to talk to yourself? Come on man. Your argument was "that's a strawman" I showed myriad times how they weren't. You don't even know what a fallacy is or how to properly apply them. Almost all of your suppositions and originating comments were fallacies of their own as shown throughout the thread. This was, in fact, the easiest debate on the subject I have ever been in because you so consistently repeated very funny fallacies.
 
Damocles said:
So you have begun to talk to yourself? Come on man. Your argument was "that's a strawman" I showed myriad times how they weren't. You don't even know what a fallacy is or how to properly apply them. Almost all of your suppositions and originating comments were fallacies of their own as shown throughout the thread. This was, in fact, the easiest debate on the subject I have ever been in because you so consistently repeated very funny fallacies.
Click to expand...
Look I realize that you have a lot of time invested in this board but don't be silly. You have not come close to proving that gays are born gay, or that gay marriage is a right. For someone who supposed to be the Big Man on Campus I must say that I am dissapointed.
 
Southern Man said:
Look I realize that you have a lot of time invested in this board but don't be silly. You have not come close to proving that gays are born gay, or that gay marriage is a right. For someone who supposed to be the Big Man on Campus I must say that I am dissapointed.
Click to expand...
This is a fallacy. I have never suggested that "gays are born gay". This is an actual strawman fallacy. It shows how deliberately disingenuous you have been throughout the argument. Nor did I suggest that marriage is a "right" per se. I said that they have a right to their religious ceremonies and that the government DOES NOT have a right to interfere or interject. That is also a strawman fallacy.

Now that we have summed up the thread nicely we can see how your arguments are not even close to "water tight" and how your lap is all wet with the drool you attempted to put into that container.
 
Damocles said:
This is a fallacy. I have never suggested that "gays are born gay". This is an actual strawman fallacy. It shows how deliberately disingenuous you have been throughout the argument. Nor did I suggest that marriage is a "right" per se. I said that they have a right to their religious ceremonies and that the government DOES NOT have a right to interfere or interject. That is also a strawman fallacy.

Now that we have summed up the thread nicely we can see how your arguments are not even close to "water tight" and how your lap is all wet with the drool you attempted to put into that container.
Click to expand...
Damocles said:
This is a fallacy. I have never suggested that "gays are born gay". This is an actual strawman fallacy. It shows how deliberately disingenuous you have been throughout the argument. Nor did I suggest that marriage is a "right" per se. I said that they have a right to their religious ceremonies and that the government DOES NOT have a right to interfere or interject. That is also a strawman fallacy.

Now that we have summed up the thread nicely we can see how your arguments are not even close to "water tight" and how your lap is all wet with the drool you attempted to put into that container.
Click to expand...
On the issues mention my positions are:
1. gays are not born gay,
2. government should not interfere with religious ceremonies,
3. State governments should grant marriage licenses only to heterosexual couples.
 
Southern Man said:
On the issues mention my positions are:
1. gays are not born gay,
2. government should not interfere with religious ceremonies,
3. State governments should grant marriage licenses only to heterosexual couples.
Click to expand...
3. Is a logical fallacy. Those licenses are in fact an intrusion into religion. States should not be in the business of marriage.
 
Damocles said:
And you failed to support it. You said "traditionally" it was done this way. It was then shown that "traditionally" it was not and that licensing is a recent event.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware that the issue was challenged. In the past, religion and government have been intertwined. The contemporary secular government regulates thousands of activities that it was never involved with. The progression of government intervention doesn't negate old traditions.
 
Southern Man said:
I wasn't aware that the issue was challenged. In the past, religion and government have been intertwined. The contemporary secular government regulates thousands of activities that it was never involved with. The progression of government intervention doesn't negate old traditions.
Click to expand...
In the past there wasn't an Amendment 1 that prohibits the government from messing around in it. There wasn't an Amendment 10 that talks about the powers of the Federal Government that does not include Marriage. There was no Amendment 14 that ensures that the rights of all citizens are universal throughout the states, there is no Amendment 9 that states that rights not enumerated still exist...

In other words, in the past, where religion controlled the government, the government and religion intermixed.

But in that past, the US created this neat barrier that keeps you from intruding onto that particular right of mine, or even of homosexuals. You cannot choose what their church can and cannot do, nor regulate their ceremonies.

Imagine that.
 
Damocles said:
In the past there wasn't an Amendment 1 that prohibits the government from messing around in it. There wasn't an Amendment 10 that talks about the powers of the Federal Government that does not include Marriage. There was no Amendment 14 that ensures that the rights of all citizens are universal throughout the states, there is no Amendment 9 that states that rights not enumerated still exist...

In other words, in the past, where religion controlled the government, the government and religion intermixed.

But in that past, the US created this neat barrier that keeps you from intruding onto that particular right of mine, or even of homosexuals. You cannot choose what their church can and cannot do, nor regulate their ceremonies.

Imagine that.
Click to expand...
No one is suggesting that the States choose what churches do. I don't see your point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top