Are gays "born gay"?

Southern Man said:
One could argue that it is tradition, not religion, and that one woman-one man is elemental and therefore society has a responsibility to uphold it.
Click to expand...

I don't believe its is the US federal Government's Constitutional authority to legislate traditions, especially those rooted in religion.
 
Beefy said:
I don't believe its is the US federal Government's Constitutional authority to legislate traditions, especially those rooted in religion.
Click to expand...
Can the government regulate circumcisions?

So when are we going to consummate our booze exchange agreement?
 
Southern Man said:
Can the government regulate circumcisions?

So when are we going to consummate our booze exchange agreement?
Click to expand...

Circumcision is a health and human rights issue, they can regulate that I would believe.

Send me a bottle of heaven hill and we'll talk! :clink:
 
Southern Man said:
But they do affect your health. That fact is undeniable.
Click to expand...

The don't affect a straight or gay couple any differently. Thus, it would not logically follow that health could be used as a basis for banning gay marriage. Maybe ALL marriage if that's where you're going, but not gay anymore than interracial marriage.
 
Southern Man said:
One could argue that it is tradition, not religion, and that one woman-one man is elemental and therefore society has a responsibility to uphold it.
Click to expand...
Again tradition is not the same as precedent and the only support of the "tradition" is the wickedness you see in it evident in the idea that it would desanctify the institution of...

Just as it was "traditional" to own slaves in all times of history before we made it different, "traditional" is not strong enough to enact inequality in law based on religious centered beliefs. Laws made to enact your sense of "wrong" because of religious belief are not constitutional regardless of what religion they stem from.
 
Beefy said:
The don't affect a straight or gay couple any differently. Thus, it would not logically follow that health could be used as a basis for banning gay marriage. Maybe ALL marriage if that's where you're going, but not gay anymore than interracial marriage.
Click to expand...
It is a well known fact that gay men lead shorther lives than straight ones, due to their unhealty lifestyle.
 
Damocles said:
Again tradition is not the same as precedent and the only support of the "tradition" is the wickedness you see in it evident in the idea that it would desanctify the institution of...

Just as it was "traditional" to own slaves in all times of history before we made it different, "traditional" is not strong enough to enact inequality in law based on religious centered beliefs. Laws made to enact your sense of "wrong" because of religious belief are not constitutional regardless of what religion they stem from.
Click to expand...

Haven't we been over this road before? Slavery is not a valid comparison because of the Declaration signed by the Founders. The “tradition” of slavery is self-evidently un-American, and traditional marriage is self-evidently the backbone of civilized society.
 
Southern Man said:
Haven't we been over this road before? Slavery is not a valid comparison because of the Declaration signed by the Founders. The “tradition” of slavery is self-evidently un-American, and traditional marriage is self-evidently the backbone of civilized society.
Click to expand...
This is preposterous again, as the Constitution was specifically written to include slavery. It is not "evidently un-American" considering it was the Founders who wrote that Constitution. And traditional marriage is not the "backbone of civilized society" considering that it was only recently that governments attempted to regulate what was solely a religious ceremony. It also flies in the face that most "marriage" of the past was of the common law variety as most could not afford the ceremonies, and often preachers/priests were unavailable to those who lived more rurally than we do.

No, regardless of that. Slavery has been part of human history far longer than "traditional marriage". In fact, the religion upon which most in the US base "traditional marriage" on promoted multiple wives as well as many concubines often in its pages.
 
Damocles said:
This is preposterous again, as the Constitution was specifically written to include slavery. It is not "evidently un-American" considering it was the Founders who wrote that Constitution. And traditional marriage is not the "backbone of civilized society" considering that it was only recently that governments attempted to regulate what was solely a religious ceremony. It also flies in the face that most "marriage" of the past was of the common law variety as most could not afford the ceremonies, and often preachers/priests were unavailable to those who lived more rurally than we do.

No, regardless of that. Slavery has been part of human history far longer than "traditional marriage". In fact, the religion upon which most in the US base "traditional marriage" on promoted multiple wives as well as many concubines often in its pages.
Click to expand...

The parts of the Constitution on slavery was a compromise to get the weathly landowners in The South to enter the Union. It does not in any way condone slavery. If fact the issue boiled for over 75 years until it finally blew.
 
Southern Man said:
The parts of the Constitution on slavery was a compromise to get the weathly landowners in The South to enter the Union. It does not in any way condone slavery. If fact the issue boiled for over 75 years until it finally blew.
Click to expand...
LOL. So the fact that it was actually included in the Constitution means that it wasn't condoned? Rubbish, total and complete rubbish and desperate twisting. Most of the founders owned slaves of their own. You are making it obvious that you are getting desperate.

As I asked at the beginning. And will again. Why would it matter if they were born gay or not?

It matters nothing to the basic right to be able to worship as they will (including getting married) and as you referenced the DOI, it would not preclude their right to the pursuit of happiness, whatever form it would take.
 
Damocles said:
LOL. So the fact that it was actually included in the Constitution means that it wasn't condoned? Rubbish, total and complete rubbish and desperate twisting. Most of the founders owned slaves of their own. You are making it obvious that you are getting desperate.

As I asked at the beginning. And will again. Why would it matter if they were born gay or not?

It matters nothing to the basic right to be able to worship as they will (including getting married) and as you referenced the DOI, it would not preclude their right to the pursuit of happiness, whatever form it would take.
Click to expand...
Methinks you're getting testy. I detect an insult coming. :)

This issue is directly related to gay's assertion of normal, healthy, etc., and their subsequent demand for equal rights. If homosexuality is a choice, or a sickness, the claim for equal status, for something like marriage, for example, flies out the window faster than a bee in summer.
 
Southern Man said:
Methinks you're getting testy. I detect an insult coming. :)

This issue is directly related to gay's assertion of normal, healthy, etc., and their subsequent demand for equal rights. If homosexuality is a choice, or a sickness, the claim for equal status, for something like marriage, for example, flies out the window faster than a bee in summer.
Click to expand...
Again total rubbish. It doesn't matter if it is "normal" or "healthy", etc. None of that negates their rights. It is not "normal" to fly on airplanes, most people do not do that regularly, even often. That doesn't make it any more or less "moral". It isn't "healthy" to drink beer... so forth.

Your rights do not end at "normal", "Healthy" or even at "different". Marriage is a religious entity that governments only recently decided to try to tax and regulate. Shoot most places didn't even have licenses until inter-racial marriage was going to be an issue and they wanted to have people "test their blood" before they got married.

As a religious institution it is not the government's place to attempt to define it. Regulate contracts and age of consent, do not regulate religion. As there are churches, yes even Christian ones, that will currently perform marriages for homosexuals they are already married in "God's eyes".
 
Damocles said:
Again total rubbish. It doesn't matter if it is "normal" or "healthy", etc. None of that negates their rights. It is not "normal" to fly on airplanes, most people do not do that regularly, even often. That doesn't make it any more or less "moral". It isn't "healthy" to drink beer... so forth.

Your rights do not end at "normal", "Healthy" or even at "different". Marriage is a religious entity that governments only recently decided to try to tax and regulate. Shoot most places didn't even have licenses until inter-racial marriage was going to be an issue and they wanted to have people "test their blood" before they got married.

As a religious institution it is not the government's place to attempt to define it. Regulate contracts and age of consent, do not regulate religion. As there are churches, yes even Christian ones, that will currently perform marriages for homosexuals they are already married in "God's eyes".
Click to expand...

Its perfectly normal to fly on planes. In fact, since it is odd to know someone who has not flown, it might be considered abnormal not to have flown. It is also normal to brink beer. Both are healthy activities in fact.
 
Southern Man said:
Its perfectly normal to fly on planes. In fact, since it is odd to know someone who has not flown, it might be considered abnormal not to have flown. It is also normal to brink beer. Both are healthy activities in fact.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make it "normal". Normal is something most people do regularly, even today it is not "normal" to fly on planes as most do not do such regularly.

It is normal to drive a car, of course if we went by tradition we never would have started making the things because it wasn't normal some time ago. Nor is it very healthy considering how often people are killed doing such a normal activity.

I said it was normal to drink beer, I brought up that it wasn't all that healthy.

The reality is that you have not supported your own premise. You pretended that things in the constitution were not "supported" by that same document. You pretended that we base laws on activities that are "normal", and then tried to say it was "traditional" for government to regulate marriage. All of which we found to be untrue.

You are not doing well in this argument. It was not "traditional" for government to regulate marriage in the US until segregation became an issue and they wanted to ensure they could stop inter-racial marriage by regulating "blood tests" and licenses.

It is sad indeed to find out that all the things you have been told about your "tradition" is mistaken. Even to the point of what actually was "traditional marriage" according to the book that most people in this nation use to define "traditional marriage"....

I know it is hard to find out that most of your arguments are baseless in fact, lost in reality, and wrongly defined by those who gave them to you. But when the reality becomes apparent most at least try a different tack I suggest making a new argument because these ones have been soundly discredited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top