Decision on Prop 8 pending

[useless]

No, you cannot, not at all. It isn't in any way the same thing. You're trying to compare a choice with genetic coding. IT isn't at all the same thing and to be honest to try to to say they are the same thing is like trying to say oil and water are the same thing.

"I do not agree with homosexual marriage it is unnatural"
"I do not agree with inter-racial marriage it is unnatural"

Both arguments have been used before.

 

[bhsup]

Moving the goalposts there big time.

 

[useless]

Hardly. Both arguments are irrational.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, you cannot, not at all. It isn't in any way the same thing. You're trying to compare a choice with genetic coding. IT isn't at all the same thing and to be honest to try to to say they are the same thing is like trying to say oil and water are the same thing.

How does one legally distinguish between a homosexual who chooses to be homosexual and one who doesn't choose, but is biased that way due to genetic / epigenetic factors?

Because the second category surely exists, even if the first category also exists.

Additionally, 'race' is more than genetic coding. It's a societal construct.

 

[Mango Elephant]

No, you cannot, not at all. It isn't in any way the same thing. You're trying to compare a choice with genetic coding. IT isn't at all the same thing and to be honest to try to to say they are the same thing is like trying to say oil and water are the same thing.

Being gay is not a choice. It's not, it's not, it's not, I don't see why these people can't accept that. It's so obvious with gay people saying 'it's not a choice'.

So, yes, interacial marriage and gay marriage are the same battlefield. It's the majority persecuting people who are different just because they're different.

At Mobby and all those who oppose gay marriage, I have a question. If you were gay, would you still be against gay marriage?

And even if being gay was a choice, how is that a reason against gay marriage at all?

 

[MobBoss]

Do you agree that people can be "de-gayed"?

I already stated that I think some people can absolutely make a choice about their sexuality. Interpret that as you will.

Just because people view it as such does not make it true, many homophobes believe homosexuals recruit young children, does that therefore render it true?

Well, I saw such recruitment of college age people from both homosexuals and heterosxuals, so I guess it happens. Heck, my wife had one lesbian pursue her relentlessly for a couple of years.

You know what I mean.

Of course I do, but my comment illustrates the limit of your meaning as well.

Personally, I don't care what two adults do as long as what they are doing is consensual.

So your're ok with consensual incest between adults. Wow.

However, your argument is a strawman, and I'm not going to bother with it unless you show some statistics on the rate of siblings in romantic relationships, not merely a sexual lust thing (which is quite more common than some people may realize).

I would find it really interesting if you had a method to actually show such a thing statisically.

Sigh. Yes, there will be other civil rights issues after this one is settled. The fact that there are other civil rights issues that are unsettled does not change the fact that equality between homosexual marriages and heterosexual marriages can happen through redefining marriage.

Except its probably not going to happen. Sure it might happen in some of the extreme liberal areas of the nation. But nationally? Nah. I fully expect the vast majority of states are going to stick to their guns on this for a very, very, very, long time.

Nothing significant has changed, legally, since you were last lead patiently to the realization that Californian marriages are not equal in rights to Californian homosexual civil unions.

Yeah, they didnt include the word marriage. I remain fairly unconvinced of the alleged 'unfairness' of it all, and would actually rather see legislation to just make such things an even playfield between couples - married or unmarried (i.e. tax rates, inheritance via legal document, hospital visitation etc.), rather than see the traditional view of marriage altered to that extent.

And so, redefining marriage continues to be a viable step in pressing for equality in marriages.

Except that the majority dont want to see it 'redefined' just to please a minor subset of the populace based upon sexual preference.

 

[Traitorfish]

So your're ok with consensual incest between adults. Wow.

Yeah, so what? Just because it's creepy doesn't mean it's wrong. As long as no offspring result (the concern being the likelihood of serious birth defects on the part of the offspring, rather than anything to do with it's parentage per se), who're they hurting? Why do you care? What does it have, in any way, shape or form, to do with you?

Except that the majority dont want to see it 'redefined' just to please a minor subset of the populace based upon sexual preference.

Is it any of the majority's business?

 

[bhsup]

How does one legally distinguish between a homosexual who chooses to be homosexual and one who doesn't choose, but is biased that way due to genetic / epigenetic factors?

Everybody is responsible for the actions they take. If you choose to engage in homosexual activity, that's a choice and nothing more. It's always a choice.

Because the second category surely exists, even if the first category also exists.

Not buying that, actually, but even if that were the case, someone who for whatever reason might have a genetic predisposition to murder is not a murderer if they resist that impulse.

Additionally, 'race' is more than genetic coding. It's a societal construct.

No. Your skin color, any and all physical characteristics you have for that matter, are purely a matter of your genetic makeup, nothing more.

 

[MobBoss]

Being gay is not a choice. It's not, it's not, it's not, I don't see why these people can't accept that. It's so obvious with gay people saying 'it's not a choice'.

Except you see people actually making those kind of choices around us all the time. I bring this up a lot, but its a great example. Anne Heche once said 'no one is more gay than me'....then she made a choice to be gay no longer, marry a guy and have kids. Ouch. And I got a funny feeling she is hardly the sole example of that.

At Mobby and all those who oppose gay marriage, I have a question. If you were gay, would you still be against gay marriage?

Excellent question. Just like the famous homosexual writer Gore Vidal, I would be against it. Vidal laughed at the idea of homosexual marriage. He viewed it as homosexuals denying who they really were in some silly attempt at playing heterosexual. He basically stated that real homosexuals have no need or desire for marriage.

And even if being gay was a choice, how is that a reason against gay marriage at all?

Because then it wouldnt make any sense to add sexual preference as a protected class. Affirmative action wouldnt make much sense if I could choose to be black or white on a whim would it?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Except you see people actually making those kind of choices around us all the time. I bring this up a lot, but its a great example. Anne Heche once said 'no one is more gay than me'....then she made a choice to be gay no longer, marry a guy and have kids. Ouch. And I got a funny feeling she is hardly the sole example of that.

I agree that there are cases where people choose to be one way or another, but I don't think that that means homosexuality is always or most of the time a choice.

 

[MobBoss]

Yeah, so what?

Spoken truly as one who has had something icky uncovered. You do reallize that the very overwhelming majority would find such incest hugely immoral and deplorable and certainly not something to be allowed. Possibly also associated with some form of mental illness expressed as a desire to have sex with ones adult offspring.

Like I said. Icky beyond words.

But thanks for being honest enough to say your ok with it.

Just because it's creepy doesn't mean it's wrong.

Uh, yeah, it kinda does. In a big way.

As long as no offspring result (the concern being the likelihood of serious birth defects on the part of the offspring, rather than anything to do with it's parentage per se), who're they hurting?

There is always a chance that offspring will result where sex is involved, even with the extensive use of birth control. It happens and no birth control, aside from abstinence, is 100% effective.

Why do you care? What does it have, in any way, shape or form, to do with you?

Because I think parents having sex with their kids, even as adults, would have detrimental sociatal effects. Dont you?

Is it any of the majority's business?

Absolutely.

I agree that there are cases where people choose to be one way or another, but I don't think that that means homosexuality is always or most of the time a choice.

Lucky for me I never said it always was or even most of the time.

 

[Mango Elephant]

Except you see people actually making those kind of choices around us all the time. I bring this up a lot, but its a great example. Anne Heche once said 'no one is more gay than me'....then she made a choice to be gay no longer, marry a guy and have kids. Ouch. And I got a funny feeling she is hardly the sole example of that.

But the majority of people don't choose to be gay. And besides, why should they live a false life as a straight person anyways? It's either to appease people who hate Homosexuality (why would one try to appease them anyways? I would try to piss them off) or because they fall in love with someone of the opposite gender. You can't help who you fall in love with, be it man or woman.

Excellent question. Just like the famous homosexual writer Gore Vidal, I would be against it. Vidal laughed at the idea of homosexual marriage. He viewed it as homosexuals denying who they really were in some silly attempt at playing heterosexual. He basically stated that real homosexuals have no need or desire for marriage.

So, wanting to marry the person you love is a silly attempt to be Heterosexual? Care to elaborate?

And obviously real Homosexuals do have a desire for marriage, otherwise we wouldn't be having this debate right now, would we?

Because then it wouldnt make any sense to add sexual preference as a protected class.

But what about marriage? If it was a choice than you would have to choose to be Heterosexual as well, so what makes one choice better than the other?

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Lucky for me I never said it always was or even most of the time.

Sorry, I thought that's what you were implying.

 

[jeps]

For some it assuredly is. We havent found that gay gene yet, and according to what I have read in regards to it, behavioral/background issues play just as much a part (if not more so) as chemical/biological issues do.

Please, demonstrate to me THE black gene. In proper HUGO nomenclature. Thanks.

if anecdotal evidence proves that gay IS a choice, it can prove it isn't a choice as well.

(Email)I wonder if straight people know how lucky they are to be straight.

But in all seriousness, I have yet to find an argument against gay marriage I can understand. This may have to do with the fact that I have yet to meet a canadian who feels their marriage "devalued" by the availability of gay marriage here, but I can't say that for sure.

As for it being the status quo, if the status quo is wrong, change it. Change is not a bad thing, only bad change is.

 

[tycoonist]

There is always a chance that offspring will result where sex is involved, even with the extensive use of birth control. It happens and no birth control, aside from abstinence, is 100% effective.

Two things:

1. Abortion
2. JESUS

 

[warpus]

Everybody is responsible for the actions they take. If you choose to engage in homosexual activity, that's a choice and nothing more. It's always a choice.

But that's homosexual activity, that's not being a homosexual, which is all about which gender you're attracted to. I'm straight - I could engage in gay sex without being attracted to gays.

Heck, I could engage in African-american activities, and it won't make me any more African-American.

 

[El_Machinae]

Everybody is responsible for the actions they take. If you choose to engage in homosexual activity, that's a choice and nothing more. It's always a choice.

Sure, but that's shifting goalposts. Your previous position was that the difference between the racial issue and the homosexual issue was that someone does not choose to be black. Well, one does not choose to be male, either.

At that point, we're discussing who the male or the black person chooses to marry. Saying that "you cannot marry whites" is forbidding behaviour based on genetics. Same with saying "You cannot marry males".

Not buying that, actually, but even if that were the case, someone who for whatever reason might have a genetic predisposition to murder is not a murderer if they resist that impulse.

I would appreciate it if you could refrain from using 'murderer' as a standin for 'homosexual', obviously. But I think it's reasonable to buy that. How much anecdotal evidence is required? How many people say "I didn't choose to be gay" before it's possible that they didn't? The biological sciences and evolutionary sciences have shown that it's quite possible that genetic / epigenetic factors are at play.

Yeah, they didnt include the word marriage. I remain fairly unconvinced of the alleged 'unfairness' of it all

Well, obviously you're wrong to be unconvinced. Any piece of evidence of unfairness proves that the situation is unfair.

, and would actually rather see legislation to just make such things an even playfield between couples - married or unmarried (i.e. tax rates, inheritance via legal document, hospital visitation etc.), rather than see the traditional view of marriage altered to that extent.

Well, I guess you should be agitating for equal treatment then, if you'd rather there be equal treatment. Make it tough, of course, if you're attempting to deny that there's unequal treatment. Until then, agitation to redefine marriage is a reasonable way of trying to increase the fairness towards homosexual marriages.

 

[bhsup]

Sure, but that's shifting goalposts. Your previous position was that the difference between the racial issue and the homosexual issue was that someone does not choose to be black. Well, one does not choose to be male, either.

At that point, we're discussing who the male or the black person chooses to marry. Saying that "you cannot marry whites" is forbidding behaviour based on genetics. Same with saying "You cannot marry males".

No, because a black woman marrying a white man is still normal heterosexual behavior.

I would appreciate it if you could refrain from using 'murderer' as a standin for 'homosexual', obviously.

Doesn't matter whether I use murder, arson, rape, stealing, you name it. I was using another behavior to illustrate that just because one may have a predisposition to <insert behavior here>, it doesn't mean they have to succumb to said impulses. That doesn't mean I was equating homosexual behavior with murder. If others took my post like that, that's their problem for making such an assumption.

But I think it's reasonable to buy that. How much anecdotal evidence is required? How many people say "I didn't choose to be gay" before it's possible that they didn't?

But they do. You're not homosexual unless you actually engage in homosexual acts. That's always a choice. Otherwise you're just a normal person who is resisting some impulses you may be feeling.

 

[Cutlass]

But they do. You're not homosexual unless you actually engage in homosexual acts. That's always a choice. Otherwise you're just a normal person who is resisting some impulses you may be feeling.

Absolutely not true. You are homosexual if you are born homosexual. It is exactly a matter of birth. Whether or not someone engages in homosexual behavior is actually irrelevant to that.

But, considering that God made 10% (estimated) of the population homosexual, how do you justify men taking away the rights of those people?

 

[dwaxe]

But they do. You're not homosexual unless you actually engage in homosexual acts. That's always a choice. Otherwise you're just a normal person who is resisting some impulses you may be feeling.

Your reasoning is flawed. If one were to accept your reasoning, one would say that all virgins are asexual, including those who are Onanist Virgins. Your waters are further muddied if you consider Onanist Virgins with tendencies for homosexual stimulation and those with tendencies for heterosexual stimulation, because under your definition, they are completely asexual.