Male Sexual Orientation Influenced by Genes?

Are you delusional? The federal government and 20 states recognized I've same sex marriage.

You are demonstrably 100% incorrect.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually, marriage is a right. Just ask the Supreme Court.

- - - Updated - - -

And none of them are valid or constitutional.

- - - Updated - - -

Your arguments are idiotic and blatant trolling.

 

Same sex marriage is recognized at the federal level and in 20 states.

So........demonstrably false.

 

That doesn't make it right any more than states at one time
recognizing slavery as being right.

 

The claim is that marriage is only between a man and a woman. This claim is demonstrably false and stands refuted.

Slavery is a red herring.

 

Not refuted at all. Marriage should only be between a woman
and a man.

Slavery isn't a red herring. It was demonstrating that just because
something becomes a law doesn't make it right.

 

Undeniably objectively refuted.

An opinion which you are welcome to. The original claim remains refuted.

.
Complete red herring

Slavery is ownership of another human being. Has no relevance to same sex marriage. It is a red herring.

 

Think again. It's a bad law compared to a bad law. It's totally
relevant.

Also my former claims weren't refuted.

 

No, opinion.

Nice misrepresentationof my argument, I never said that. But since you can make no argument you have to rely on strawman fallacy.

So a society that makes laws recognizing same sex marriage is okay than? Good, I believe so too.

Recognizing same sex marriage wouldn't encourage it. You made that same mistake again.

Not responding to loaded question fallacy doesn't refute anything. You really need to study your logic. You seem to have made several more fallacies. Likely in desperation.

No they don't.

No such thing has been proven, sorry. And it also isn't my job to prove that your proof doesn't exist, it's up to you too prove your claim underlined above. Let's just nip your fallacy in the bud.

Heterosexuals have proven that children don't need both parents, a large number of children are raised by single parents.

I don't answer fallacy.

Recognizing marriage doesn't encourage homosexuality, sorry. Unless you can prove that more people are homosexual because marriage is recognized.

So you are telling me the only reason more people aren't homosexual is because they can't marry? Or are you suggesting that more homosexuals will fake being straight to get married?

Recognizing marriage of same sex couples doesn't encourage homosexuality. That is your case to prove.

Help me if I misunderstand your argument, but this is what it appears to be.

If we recognize marriage of couples of the same sex it will basically end heterosexuality and thus the species?

I don't suggest that we do away with recognition of heterosexual couples marriage.

I didn't claim there was an advantage. There doesn't have to be.

There is no need for the ad hominem. Homosexuality isn't an act. Proof for this, I am homosexual but I am not engaging in intercourse at the moment, does that make me sexual? And if I were to impregnate a woman I wouldn't stop being homosexual because I am still attracted to men.

A sex act between two people of the opposite sex doesn't make either person heterosexual. If it is only the fact that defines your sexuality, than all people are asexual until they have sex. That wouldn't work in our species. If boys weren't attracted to girls without ever having sex with them, thus being heterosexual, our species would have died out millennia ago.

The only reason somebody resorts to ad hominem is because their argument fails.

So would a homosexual couple.

Apparently all children with no parents or single parents. If there had been a heterosexual couple to adopt our boy, we wouldn't have been able to. So apparently you think that some children don't deserve heterosexual parents. Unless you want to adopt him and get married.

Adopting a child is far from selfish. But you have to cast homosexuals in this way so that you can feel justified in your bias.

I didn't adopt a child out of selfishness, his heterosexual parents were selfish.

To enforce fidelity on women. It seems to serve no real purpose in our nation now.

You misrepresent everything that you can't argue. I don't really want to change laws or redefine marriage. If same sex couples being allowed to marry redefines your understanding of marriage that isn't my problem.

I suggest that we remove the change made to it in the first place. Remove section 2 of doma.

Ah, argumentum ad antiquatum, yet another fallacy. Just because it has always been doesn't mean it's right for our society.

 

I respect your opinion, I simply don't agree with it. It should include same sex couples.

So what makes defining marriage only between one man and one woman right?

 

No really, it's not relevant in any way.

And your claims have been undeniably refuted.

 

So now it's "Should"?

Weren't you talking about the definition of marriage? Definitions don't include opinions on subjects. Either the definition is "Between a man and a woman", or it isn't.

So now you admit that it isn't.

You think it 'should' be, but that doesn't matter. Your opinion in the matter has no impact whatsoever.

 

You seem to have given up on my challenge to you to actually come up with a logical argument against marriage equality. Oh well. I wasn't expecting much

 

And the moon is made of green cheese, because I said that the moon is made of green cheese. Simple

 

Woman and man sexuality is natural and serves a purpose other
than pleasure.

 

If you can't accept it fine. They still haven't refuted. A bad law
is a bad law. Deal with it.

 

The law has be changed. But I'll certainly stand that marriage is between
a woman and a man.

I feel better.

- - - Updated - - -

Marriage between a woman and a man doesn't go against nature
and serves a natural purpose, and not just sexual.

 

Dude, it is undeniably refuted. Marriage is not just between a man and a woman. It is objectively false to claim it is while same sex couples can and do marry and is legally recognized.

>>>MOD EDIT Flamebait Removed<<<

- - - Updated - - -

Homosexuality doesn't go against nature either. It has existed among humans since the beginning of recorded human history. It exists in thousands of other species as well.

 

That doesn't make it right. I'll stand by my unrefuted claim.

You need to do some homework. Homosexuality isn't natural by
any way, shape or form.

 

What you think is right is irrelevant to the claim made. marriage is not just between a man and a woman. This is undeniable.

You haven't made an unrefuted claim. your claim has been proven false.

Proven false. It has been apart of human civilization since the beginning of recorded human history MIT exists in thousands of other species as well.

You're not very good at this you keep making demonstrably false claims.

 

Please provide evidence that homosexuality doesn't go against
nature. Just because something exists doesn't make it natural.

Good grief.

 

That doesn't make it natural. If it was natural they'd be reproducing,
i.e. man and man or woman and woman. It doesn't happen. Why?
Because it isn't natural.

Because you don't have any evidence to support your case but
are acting as if your say is final.

 

Ok. It has existed for the entirety of recorded human history.

Uh, yes it does.
Good griefJust because something exists doesn't make it natural.

 

Homosexuals are quite capable of reproducing.


There are heterosexual couples who don't reproduce.

 

For the love of all things holy.............YES IT DOES!!!!!!!!!!!

Reproducing has no bearing on whether something is natural or artificial

It isn't relevant.

.
Just proved this false.

I have almost 10,000 years of recorded history. It's final

 

And your point being?