Male Sexual Orientation Influenced by Genes

No one is suggesting they do so in the analogy. Ill wait here while you dive for refuge in irrelevancy. Thats where you seem to thrive best.

 

Most absurd argument I have seen you make yet-- and that is saying something. I would argue- but frankly I can't even figure out what you are trying to say.

- - - Updated - - -

Nope- just another Dixon fiction.

- - - Updated - - -

Since it can't be repeated too often.

 

Sam, did you expect dixon to CONFESS that his hatred of gays, much less his opposition to gay rights is based on the fact his ex-sister-in-law is a lesbian with custody of his nephew?

Why would he be honest like that???

 

You people are a freakin joke. You cant challenge my views so you challenge my motives. My sister in law is irrelevant to my views on marriage. And my sister in law is nothing more than an example of the most common reason for a homosexual couple to have children, a previous heterosexual relationship. Much like these courts that cant challenge the states arguments supporting traditional marriage so they instead assign to them a different argument.

 

Dixon, every argument you've made has been eviscerated.

the states argument is invalid. the court is required to apply the constitution. the constitution requires that a right only be denied if the denial serves a legitimate governmental interest. you nor the states can come up with an interest that is served by denying same sex couples marriage.

and that is why you keep losing.

 

The courts discussed, addressed- and dismissed every state argument.

Wisconsin- Page 63- Evaluating the Asserted State Interests

The final question is whether defendants have made an adequate showing that the
Wisconsin laws prohibiting same-sex marriage further a legitimate interest. Defendants and
amici rely on several interests in their briefs:
(1) preserving tradition;
(2) encouraging procreation generally and “responsible” procreation in particular;
(3) providing an environment for “optimal child rearing”;
(4) protecting the institution of marriage;
(5)proceeding with caution; and
(6) helping to maintain other legal restrictions on marriage.

These interests are essentially the same as those asserted by other states in other casesaround the country involving similar laws.

......

Although there is support for a view that Windsor is controlling in this case, I need
not resolve that question. Even if I assume that Wisconsin’s ban on same-sex marriage is not
“unusual” in the same sense as the laws at issue in Romer and Windsor, I conclude that
defendants have failed to show that the ban furthers a legitimate state interest.

 

More than genes i thought it was influenced by culture, growing in a homophobic country greatly contributes to hide one's latent homosexuality or making a " secret " of it. My bet is the actual number of people who had sex with a same sex partner is much higher than what official statistics suggest.

 

Is unchastity used here as synonymous with promiscuity? It has to be, or the species would have a major problem. because I am not reading the usual qualifiers about age or being married first, or commitment.

 

I suspect there are just as many bisexuals who choose to identify as homosexuals as there are bisexuals who choose to identify as heterosexuals.

 

I suspect that there are a lot of homosexuals who find it necessary to constantly rail against homosexuality in order to convince themselves and others that they are not homosexual.

 

Always amusing to see the biggest supporters of homosexuals, view accusations of homosexuality to be the ultimate insult against those who are not.

 

Not accusing anyone and certainly not trying to insult anyone either. Do you feel accused or insulted? Just making an observation that others have also made:

 

Opposition to gay marriage isn't homophobia, It is support for mothers and fathers providing and caring for their own children together as opposed to the alternative of them not doing so. You just label it homophobia because you cant formulate an alternative rational argument.

 

homosexuals don't affect this in any way. which is why this isn't an argument against same sex marriage. and it's why you keep losing in court.

 

Correct. They are completely irrelevant.

 

they're not. they are entitled to the civil right of marriage unless you can come up with a compelling governmental interest to exclude them. you can't, which is why you keep losing in court.

 

Where does the Constitution mention a compelling government interest to exclude people from rights?

 

Sam is your thinking so shallow, concrete and ridged that you think that everything has to be spelled out in the Constitution? Are you so intellectually challenged that you can't research an answer to this question? It's so easy a 12 year old special ed student coud do it. Why can't you?

 

4th and 14th amendment and hundreds of supreme court cases.

 

So they shouldn't be discriminated against

- - - Updated - - -

Read the Wisconsin case Sam.

 

Dixon- do you still believe this?

Encouraging ALL heterosexual couples to marry increases the number of children with the benefit of both their mother and father in the home and fewer children with single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers. Encouraging homosexuals to do so does not.
And finally, government isn't concerned with married couples not procreating and is instead only concerned with unmarried couples doing so. Encouraging ALL heterosexual couples to marry increases the number of children with the benefit of both their mother and father in the home and fewer children with single mothers on their own with absent or unknown fathers.

Is your position that Government restricts marriage to all heterosexual couples for all the reasons above?

 

Which is little more than an attempt reassert the circular argument about the definition of marriage that the 10th Circuit rejected.

 

It is a rationalization for saying 'homosexuals can't get married"

 

One that doesn't fly. But it is hardly surprising that some people choose to reject the court's rejection of their argument and attempt to reargue the point, as if their opinion was somehow superior.