Male Sexual Orientation Influenced by Genes?

Because it's also between a man and a man and a woman and a woman.

 

Strawman/red herring

- - - Updated - - -

Another Strawman.

- - - Updated - - -

Because if they are going to be in the marriage business, they can't exclude same sex couples. 14th amendment precludes it.

 

I was talking to SFjeff. On this point, you and I agree. SF does not.

 

Don't pretend to be stupid Dixon. You know very well your post was a Strawman and a red herring.

 

That's not an answer. Whether or not they can get married is
irrelevant. Marriage is still between and woman and a man.

 

Demonstrably false.

 

Homosexuals already have the same rights as anyone else in the
USA. Marriage isn't a right.

 

Demonstrably true.

 

Then demonstrate how it is false. Just saying that bears no credibility.

 

Seriously? That is what you call an argument? Two assertions that are demonstrably false- two conclusions-without even an attempt to back them up with a logical or factual premise that supports either of them?

1. Marriage is not a right:

First of all…. Fourteen times since 1888, the United States Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. In these cases, the Court has reaffirmed that “freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage” is “one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause,” “essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” and “sheltered by the Fourteenth Amendment against the State’s unwarranted usurpation, disregard, or disrespect.”

http://www.afer.org/blog/14-supreme-court-cases-marriage-is-a-fundamental-right/

So how can you say that marriage is not a right? If it’s not a right, what is it? The only possible answer is “privilege” What is a privilege? It’s something that you have to earn. Driving is a privilege. You have to study the rules and take a road test. You do not have to study and take a test to qualify for a marriage license. While both rights and privileges can be forfeited under certain circumstances-commit a crime and lose right to freedom/drive badly and lose your driving privileges-they are by no means the same thing, because the bar, for taking away a right, is set much higher. In addition, as we established above, rights emanate from the fact of being born a human. Privileges do not. We can only conclude that marriage is not a privilege and therefore is a right. When a ten your old asks if she can get married someday, her parent can say “sure” ….unless she means her girlfriend, and then, if she lives in the wrong place she will have to be told “maybe” and it will hurt

2. Gays already have the same rights as everyone else:

I assume that you are going to say that they can marry someone of the opposite sex just like straight people can although you didn’t even bother to say that. You seem to think that kind of statement will just be accepted and swallowed whole.

Do you have any understanding of how inane and hurtful that is? Imagine for a moment that you fall into an alternate, parallel world where everything is the same but opposite. Most people are homosexual and only homosexuals can marry. You are told that you have equal rights because you too can marry someone of the same sex.

Gays cannot marry someone who they are attracted to romantically and sexually as you can. That is not equal. I promised to be civil and to be honest, I had to muster a good deal of inner strength to do so on this one. I would really like to see a lawyer defending a states discriminatory law try that argument, if you can even call it that. It would likely result in contempt of court.

Surely you can do better? Or not

 

Equal protection? What inthe hell are you talking about?

- - - Updated - - -

The state shouldn't be allowed to discriminate against sex.

 

No facts.

So you think there should be no laws? I am a conservative and I believe there should be laws that we as a society create. You don't believe society has a right to a set of laws which govern that society?

There is no law against same sex marriage. There are laws for marriage, the union of a man and a woman. We as a society did not create those laws just for the fun of it, we did so because such unions are vital to our society and our species so we encourage heterosexuality and support it through marriage law. There is no need to do so for homosexuality else give me the reason we as a society through our laws should encourage more homosexuality.

Go study up on your logic nothing circular about it it was a very direct question and your non-response refutes your statement.

Yes they have to become heterosexual to do it.

But it is in the best interest of the child that they do as has been proven. But tell me why little boys don't need daddies and why someone acting in their own self-interest should purposely deny that little boy his daddy.

Dodge again noted.

The burden is on you to make a case for it, why is it in the best interest of society to encourage and support and sanction homosexuality?

Great, no gay marriage then.

No that doesn't mean then that we don't support heterosexuality through legal marriage. It is a vital part of our society.

No they haven't but please show the advantage of a little girl not having a mother in her life.

Yes heterosexual, they have to engage in heterosexuality to have children because they can't do so homosexually. Is that really over your head?

Is that also over your head? Mothers and fathers bring their own unique and special rolls in a child's like, contributing in their own unique ways to that child's rearing. And what little boy doesn't deserve to have a father to look up to or a mother to care for him as only a mother can do? What little girl should be purposely denied having that first love of her life, her father, because two adults put their own desires ahead of the child?

Yes, it is why we have marriage in the first place. Why do you think marriage was invented at all? Why do we have marriage at all?

The government simply needs to learn it's place and it isn't in the lives of it's people. They simply need to get out of the way.

It is YOU who wants to change the law, who wants to redefine marriage not me, burden is on you to give the compelling reasons to do so based on the reason we have marriage in the first place.

Ahh sorry it has been throughout the history of mankind, you simple dismissal of it notwithstanding.

 

nice strawman.

then you have no idea of the history of marriage.

of course they do

Rubbish.

You really haven't a clue what marriage was "invented" for do you?

Redefine marriage, what a joke .. marriage was originally used as a way of solidifying status, wealth and power, the only redefining done was by the church .. marriage was a contract to exchange property (the woman) for enhancing status, wealth and power of the woman's family.

So it would seem that is what you want to return to, if you are an advocate of "traditional" marriage that is.

notwithstanding that your comment is BS, it is also an appeal to history.

 

I stand corrected, although I disagree with the last one.

I particularly liked this quote Marriage is “the most important relation in life”
and “the foundation of the family and society, without which there would
be neither civilization nor progress.”

I believe we can both agree that homosexual can't provide procreate
except by heterosexual means.

 

Sorry. We cannot. gay folks can reproduce, they can have children without engaging in heterosexual sex. In any case it's not relevant to the issue of marriage or other rights. Courts have shot that down numerous times as well. I noticed that you kind of dropped the idea that gays already have the same rights as others.

I have a serious question for you and all of those who oppose gay marriage and gay rights in general. The question is; What motivates you? What is your fear? This is not a trick question or an attempt to be facetious. I really want to understand. I get that people are opposed on moral grounds. I get that you're repulsed by the idea of same sex couples. But what I want to know is how you will be personally effected by extending rights to gays. What will be different in your life, what will change in your community on the day after same sex marriage is legal? I'm not looking for rationalizations or philosophical reasons. I want to hear concrete pragmatic concerns. I would appreciate honest and straight forward answers.

 

There are none.

 

Yes there are. Plently of arguements are used against legalizing same sex marriage.

 

Sam, read the question asked and stop going of at a tangent.

so Sam how will you be personally effected by expanding rights to gays?
What will be different in your life?
What will change in your community on the day after same sex marriage is legal?

I'll await your usual attempts to veer off the road.

 

my arguements are concrete and pragmatic.

 

Two men can procreate? Two women can procreate? Really?

By the way I said heterosexual means. You said sex.

 

So answer the questions asked in a concrete and pragmatic way;

how will you be personally effected by expanding rights to gays?
What will be different in your life?
What will change in your community on the day after same sex marriage is legal?

I'll await your usual attempts to veer off the road.

 

Legalizing gay marriage definitley affects other peoples lives. as gay marriage becomes acceptable and political correctnss grows, eventually it will become illegal for preachers to say gay marriage is wrong, and churches will be required to preform gay weddings. Even right now freedom of speech is limited. somebody in the military got in trouble because somebody asked him what his views on gay marraige were, and he said he believed it was wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Gay couples cannot biologically have kids with each other. no potential for procreation exists.

 

and none of that answers the questions on how it will effect you, so as expected your wriggly and squirm, because the truth is it would have absolutely zero effect on you.

- - - Updated - - -

Neither can an infertile woman or man . .so by your logic they should not be allowed to marry, neither should people beyond the age of procreation.

Better close down those in vitro clinics as well.

 

So lets play a little mind game here:

Legalizing mixed race marriage definitely affects other peoples lives. as mixed race marriage becomes acceptable and political correctness grows, eventually it will become illegal for preachers to say mixed race marriage is wrong, and churches will be required to perform mixed race weddings. Even right now freedom of speech is limited. somebody in the military got in trouble because somebody asked him what his views on mixed race marriage were, and he said he believed it was wrong

No- looking at how I changed what you said- from 'gay marriage' to 'mixed race' marriage- and think if that was the argument that was made in the 1960's.

Would you accept that as a viable argument to tell a mixed race couple- "No- you should not be allowed to be married"?

Have you seen churches being forced to perform mixed race marriages? Is it illegal for preachers to say that mixed race marriage is wrong?

Because Sam- those kind of arguments were being made in the 1960's.

And none of it happened then.

And it won't happen now.

No matter what the anti-homosexuals such as Michael Savage try to polute your mind with.

 

Back to topic.

I don't believe that homosexuality is genetic but that it's behavioral.
That doesn't mean they were necessarily raised to be such but that
external stimuli played a large role in their becoming homosexual.
Not unlike the way everyone's humaness is developed.