The Secret Gay Agenda

I agree, as I've already stated in post 441.

 

It was recognized as a choice for years after it was delisted as an illness. Now its more fashionable to call it an orientation. So the burden of proof is on you, not me.

 

That issue has already been addressed. Post 441.

 

Again, discrimination based on lack of qualifications for licensing is considered by most states to be of compelling interest.

 

It sounds like a group of professionals weighing the evidence and coming to a consensus. And for the record, when the scientific community recognized that the world was round it didn't instantly change the shape of the world either.

The world has always been mostly round, orientation has never been a psychological illness, folks just made just made errors about these things in the past. As more observations and studies appeared, they corrected those errors.​

 

1. Addressed previously. Post 441.
2. So? Its still unnatural.

 

It would be nice if it had occurred that way but unfortunately it did not. That was purely a political decision.

 

If no compelling interest exists to deny marriage to barren mixed sex couples, no compelling interest exists to deny marriage to barren same sex couples. ​

 

Most states disagree with you.

 

So what is the state's compelling interest NOT to accept same-sex marriage?

So does this mean you are against In Vitro fertilization? It is "unnatural".

 

This has nothing to do with "popularity contests".

The lack of conclusive proof for one theory doesn't prove another. The fact that a "gay gene" hasn't been found in no way proves that orientation is a product of choice.

Science has not yet discovered the mechanism(s) by which orientation is determined, but most working in relevant fields of science have reached a consensus that there exists enough evidence against the possibility of it being a conscious decision or "choice" to say that it isn't one.

You're the one claiming it is a choice, and contrary to what you've asserted it is your burden to support that specific assertion.

 

You are confusing terms. Expressing an explicit compelling interest is one part of the legal criteria for allowing a state to impose qualifications or other discriminatory practices.

For the state to impose a qualification that discriminates against a portion of the population it must express the compelling interest that shows the qualification is necessary.

It's fairly easy to show we must qualify drivers as being sighted, because of the compelling interest of public safety. No one has shown yet why married couples must be of mixed sex, there is no compelling interest that necessitates the qualification.
​

 

nope. the burden remains on you. I didn't assert it wasn't a choice. YOU asserted it was. YOU need to prove YOUR claim. it's not up to me to disprove it.

 

1. My state? I'd be guessing as to the motives of my fellow voters.
2. No.

 

Apparently it does, as shown in the APA's decision to delist it.

 

If so, they've failed to express it. Their inability to offer a compelling interest to date is why states who want to discriminate anyway have had to resort to editing their constitutions to by pass their own anti-discrimination laws.​

 

That's merely your opinion. In my state, 61% of voters are of the opposite opinion, in spite of a militant campaign defaming them with lies and half-truths.

 

this..........

did not answer my question.

making exceptions to which couples?

the ability to procreate is not a requirement for marriage.

 

Again. in historical context, my position is the default position. It is only recently that gays figured out they put themselves at a weak political position by referring to their condition as a "preference" rather than an "orientation".

But to bolster my position, what about a case that I know personally, where a woman in college declares herself as gay, then later meets a man, marries him and they have several children, and after 20 years are still happily married? Would you say that she made a choice to change her orientation?

 

There was no need for my state to "edit" its constitution. That in itself would be in violation of the state constitution.

 

Read it in context of the preceding posts.

 

Back to the 'popular vote' thing eh? You might want to check the ballot to confirm your assertion. If you're right you can just read us the compelling interest that necessitates denying a marriage license to same sex couples. More likely you'll find what ever measure you're thinking of did not provide any such reason.

The absence of that compelling interest for denying a civil right will leave that measure vulnerable to appeal, regardless of how many folks voted for it.​

 

none of this is evidence it's a choice. anecdotal stories not withstanding.

 

no, answer the question.

 

... every state in the U.S. has a mechanism to change it's constitution. What country do you live in?​