Are all gays born that way?

[Ariux]

I'm not gay but I can say that I was born this way.

Have you ever tried to change? Did your parents not try to raise you as a heterosexual?

Nearly ever faggot was born looking like a heterosexual. Were you born looking like a heterosexual?

So, I hope you don't confuse you being born straight with faggots who claim they were born queer, even though they were being raped as a child by some faggot since before they could remember.

 

[Valerie]

Law abiding, tax paying citizens are Citizens and as far as public policy, what makes ANYONE who they are is none of your funkin business...

 

[hortysir]

Assuming you are a straight man...do you have the right to marry the person of your choice? Yes. Do homosexuals? No. That is a right you enjoy that homosexuals do not. Right there you have one set of rights for one group of society and a different set of rights for another group. Is that constitutional? Thus far the courts have said "no". Therefore you enjoy a higher level of judicial access than homosexuals which is a violation of the 14th Amendment. In some states, such as Michigan, even civil unions and same-sex unions have been banned and domestic partnership benefits voided. Adoption is illegal for homosexual couples in Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Nebraska.

Does that sound like equal access under the law to you?

I wasn't aware that I had a "right" to marry.

Are you making the argument that marriage is legally a privilege? Can you name any other segment of society aside from those under 18 or 16, depending on the state, where marriage is denied...even then with parental consent marriage is allowed. And you ignored part about bans on simple same-sex unions, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, and adoption in the states I mentioned. Are you prepared to argue that it should be illegal for a homosexual to adopt a child? Are you prepared to argue that a homosexual in Michigan should have no right to visit his or her partner in the hospital? Are you going to say that two people may not enter into a joint legal agreement as a "couple" because they are homosexual? Are you really ready to make that argument? If so...you have a far colder heart and a far greater sense of self-righteousness than I can bring myself to display.

I am ready to argue that if any state, through due process, deems something illegal, as long as it doesn't contradict or nullify existing law or violate the COTUS, so be it.

if a state's law offends someone so much, they don;t have to live in that state.

 

[Valerie]

I wasn't aware that I had a "right" to marry.

Are you making the argument that marriage is legally a privilege? Can you name any other segment of society aside from those under 18 or 16, depending on the state, where marriage is denied...even then with parental consent marriage is allowed. And you ignored part about bans on simple same-sex unions, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, and adoption in the states I mentioned. Are you prepared to argue that it should be illegal for a homosexual to adopt a child? Are you prepared to argue that a homosexual in Michigan should have no right to visit his or her partner in the hospital? Are you going to say that two people may not enter into a joint legal agreement as a "couple" because they are homosexual? Are you really ready to make that argument? If so...you have a far colder heart and a far greater sense of self-righteousness than I can bring myself to display.

I am ready to argue that if any state, through due process, deems something illegal, as long as it doesn't contradict or nullify existing law or violate the COTUS, so be it.

if a state's law offends someone so much, they don;t have to live in that state.

That is the question.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wrong. I hadn't had sex with another woman. I knew I was gay.

Ok....Fine. I don't accept that because not a single person can say they "are" unless first having some experience in the area. But if you choose to believe that you "knew you were gay, it's just ducky.
Homosexuality however is defined by behavior.
In other words, gay or for that matter heterosexuality is not determined until an individual acts on their beliefs or feelings.
Therefore, gays are not a minority per se, but simply a behavior group.
In light of the fact that human beings are the most advanced form of life on the planet and in light of the fact human beings are the only species capable of self control, it is fully acceptable that we are all in possession of the ability to control our urges.
You may find these statements offensive, however, they are factual.
On a personal note, I think people should be able to do as they please so as long as they do not bother me or force me to agree with their behavior.
I have two friends who are in a committed lesbian relationship. One is one of my closest and dearest friend. I would do anything to help her. Do I agree with her lifestyle? Not really. However, I accept her for what she is.
And yes, we have had this discussion.

So priests and nuns aren't straight?

Read my entire post you freak! Assuming these people have NEVER had relations,
it also means they are not gay either. The term would be "asexual".
Yours is a typical knee jerk lib response. instead of reading, you read into.
No sense discussing with an irrational person led simply by emotion.

 

[hortysir]

Are you making the argument that marriage is legally a privilege? Can you name any other segment of society aside from those under 18 or 16, depending on the state, where marriage is denied...even then with parental consent marriage is allowed. And you ignored part about bans on simple same-sex unions, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, and adoption in the states I mentioned. Are you prepared to argue that it should be illegal for a homosexual to adopt a child? Are you prepared to argue that a homosexual in Michigan should have no right to visit his or her partner in the hospital? Are you going to say that two people may not enter into a joint legal agreement as a "couple" because they are homosexual? Are you really ready to make that argument? If so...you have a far colder heart and a far greater sense of self-righteousness than I can bring myself to display.

I am ready to argue that if any state, through due process, deems something illegal, as long as it doesn't contradict or nullify existing law or violate the COTUS, so be it.

if a state's law offends someone so much, they don;t have to live in that state.

That is the question.

As I agree.
I have yet to receive a definitive answer if it does or not.

I can sit here in my comfy marriage and act all high and mighty and say it doesn't matter.
But it does matter if any group is being unconstitutionally discriminated against.

 

[thereisnospoon]

But, since you brought it up;
What constitutional rights am I enjoying that others aren't?

Assuming you are a straight man...do you have the right to marry the person of your choice? Yes. Do homosexuals? No. That is a right you enjoy that homosexuals do not. Right there you have one set of rights for one group of society and a different set of rights for another group. Is that constitutional? Thus far the courts have said "no". Therefore you enjoy a higher level of judicial access than homosexuals which is a violation of the 14th Amendment. In some states, such as Michigan, even civil unions and same-sex unions have been banned and domestic partnership benefits voided. Adoption is illegal for homosexual couples in Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Nebraska.

Does that sound like equal access under the law to you?

What is your point? That a member of a behavior group of which the majority of the population deems "outside the norm" ( covering all descriptors depending on one's belief system) is entitled to "special rights"..
Here's the deal, gays who wish to "marry" are not looking for equality. They are seeking protected class status.

 

[BluePhantom]

I wasn't aware that I had a "right" to marry.

Are you making the argument that marriage is legally a privilege? Can you name any other segment of society aside from those under 18 or 16, depending on the state, where marriage is denied...even then with parental consent marriage is allowed. And you ignored part about bans on simple same-sex unions, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, and adoption in the states I mentioned. Are you prepared to argue that it should be illegal for a homosexual to adopt a child? Are you prepared to argue that a homosexual in Michigan should have no right to visit his or her partner in the hospital? Are you going to say that two people may not enter into a joint legal agreement as a "couple" because they are homosexual? Are you really ready to make that argument? If so...you have a far colder heart and a far greater sense of self-righteousness than I can bring myself to display.

I am ready to argue that if any state, through due process, deems something illegal, as long as it doesn't contradict or nullify existing law or violate the COTUS, so be it.

if a state's law offends someone so much, they don;t have to live in that state.

But these laws DO violate the COTUS...14th Amendment. It's pretty clear.

 

[BluePhantom]

But, since you brought it up;
What constitutional rights am I enjoying that others aren't?

Assuming you are a straight man...do you have the right to marry the person of your choice? Yes. Do homosexuals? No. That is a right you enjoy that homosexuals do not. Right there you have one set of rights for one group of society and a different set of rights for another group. Is that constitutional? Thus far the courts have said "no". Therefore you enjoy a higher level of judicial access than homosexuals which is a violation of the 14th Amendment. In some states, such as Michigan, even civil unions and same-sex unions have been banned and domestic partnership benefits voided. Adoption is illegal for homosexual couples in Michigan, Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Nebraska.

Does that sound like equal access under the law to you?

What is your point? That a member of a behavior group of which the majority of the population deems "outside the norm" ( covering all descriptors depending on one's belief system) is entitled to "special rights"..
Here's the deal, gays who wish to "marry" are not looking for equality. They are seeking protected class status.

Nope....just the same rights as everyone else. Granting them the right to marry is not "special status". It's the same thing anyone who isn't gay can do any day of the week they choose. And if you have a problem with "protected classes" are you suggesting that laws protecting blacks, women, senior citizens, Hispanics, etc should be eliminated? It seems to me that if you wish to be consistent that if you argue that rights should be denied to gays they should be denied to those demographics as well.

 

[hortysir]

Are you making the argument that marriage is legally a privilege? Can you name any other segment of society aside from those under 18 or 16, depending on the state, where marriage is denied...even then with parental consent marriage is allowed. And you ignored part about bans on simple same-sex unions, civil unions, and domestic partnerships, and adoption in the states I mentioned. Are you prepared to argue that it should be illegal for a homosexual to adopt a child? Are you prepared to argue that a homosexual in Michigan should have no right to visit his or her partner in the hospital? Are you going to say that two people may not enter into a joint legal agreement as a "couple" because they are homosexual? Are you really ready to make that argument? If so...you have a far colder heart and a far greater sense of self-righteousness than I can bring myself to display.

I am ready to argue that if any state, through due process, deems something illegal, as long as it doesn't contradict or nullify existing law or violate the COTUS, so be it.

if a state's law offends someone so much, they don;t have to live in that state.

But these laws DO violate the COTUS...14th Amendment. It's pretty clear.

Marriage is conditional.
Not every couple can legally marry.
You can't marry your mother or sister or daughter.
Now, in some states, you can't marry someone of the same sex.

Which group, mothers, sisters, daughters, or gays are asking for special treatment?

 

[Toro]

I'm not pretending homosexuals are inferior. I'm pointing out that our entire social network was reworked based on a fraudulent and disgusting study by Nazis and child molesters.

Whose purpose was to convince the world that depravity is normal, and therefore should be embraced.....

OK, let's say Kinsey was full of shit. Now, choose to become sexually aroused by a woman. Do it many times. After all, you say sexuality is a choice, so you should be able to do so. Walk the talk.

 

[koshergrl]

You're obsessing over something that has no bearing on anything. The fact of the matter is, Kinsey was a sick, twisted individual, who tricked the world into accepting his sick, twisted view of life...for the express purpose of making that lifestyle the accepted lifestyle of the world. He knew he was lying. He and the other sickos who perpetrated this fraud on us wanted us to believe sexuality is hardwired. THAT'S WHY THEY TORTURED CHILDREN and lied about their *studies*. It's not true...but they want people to believe it, because that makes a society of willing victims and depraved monsters.

I have no need to prove him wrong. He's been exposed and disgraced before the world... why would any of us have to prove a pedophile who tortured infants was wrong about the sexuality of infants? It's like proving a negative. There's no evidence that sexuality is hardwired. There's no genetic evidence, there's no scientific evidence, and the only evidence that existed has been exposed as a violent and fraudulent fraud.

 

[Foxfyre]

Marriage laws have nothing to do with love, affection, or the desire to live happily ever after. None of that is required either as proof or via affidavit in the marriage license application.

What is included in the marriage laws in all 50 states, with some slight variations, is requirements that the participants be of legal age or get parental consent to marry, that they not be closely related, and that any communicable diseases are known to the parties entering into the marriage contract. Neither party may be married in any way to anybody else at the time the marriage license is signed. Any property that will not become community property must be so designated via pre nuptial contract. And so far as the federal government is concerned and so far as most states in the union are concerned, the married couple consists of one man and one woman.

All the 50 states, anybody who meets the above requirements can marry regardless of race, creed, religion, ethnicity, country of origin, gender, or sexual orientation. It is 100% equitable for every citizen. And in all 50 states the regulations governing marriage are for one purpose: to protect any children who are born into the marriage.

But for those who do not anticipate having children together, none of the above rules and regulations would be necessary. That is when a second civil union contract should be available to provide the tax benefits, rights of inheritance, hospital visitation, etc. that people who, for whatever reason do not wish or cannot marry, can form themselves into legally recognized family units.

 

[bodecea]

Glad to see you're embracing it.

You know how you came to believe that children are sexual, and experimentation among children is normal?

Kinsey strapped babies to boards and stimulated them to erection.

And the link proving THAT little tidbit of info is......?

 

[bodecea]

The whole theory of sexuality being hardwired...guess where that came from originally?

KINSEY! Based on his "studies"...aka "child rape". The kids liked it, by golly, even when they were infants...which means, guess what? It's hardwired!

That and a study of wasps..which are relevant to humans..somehow....

Still asking you when it was you CHOSE to stop being sexually attracted to women and exclusively attracted to men.

 

[BDBoop]

Ok....Fine. I don't accept that because not a single person can say they "are" unless first having some experience in the area. But if you choose to believe that you "knew you were gay, it's just ducky.
Homosexuality however is defined by behavior.
In other words, gay or for that matter heterosexuality is not determined until an individual acts on their beliefs or feelings.
Therefore, gays are not a minority per se, but simply a behavior group.
In light of the fact that human beings are the most advanced form of life on the planet and in light of the fact human beings are the only species capable of self control, it is fully acceptable that we are all in possession of the ability to control our urges.
You may find these statements offensive, however, they are factual.
On a personal note, I think people should be able to do as they please so as long as they do not bother me or force me to agree with their behavior.
I have two friends who are in a committed lesbian relationship. One is one of my closest and dearest friend. I would do anything to help her. Do I agree with her lifestyle? Not really. However, I accept her for what she is.
And yes, we have had this discussion.

So priests and nuns aren't straight?

Read my entire post you freak! Assuming these people have NEVER had relations,
it also means they are not gay either. The term would be "asexual".
Yours is a typical knee jerk lib response. instead of reading, you read into.
No sense discussing with an irrational person led simply by emotion.

I'm a freak? Well, at least I'm in good company.

You're a dick.

 

[koshergrl]

Still ignoring your trolling.

 

[bodecea]

I am ready to argue that if any state, through due process, deems something illegal, as long as it doesn't contradict or nullify existing law or violate the COTUS, so be it.

if a state's law offends someone so much, they don;t have to live in that state.

But these laws DO violate the COTUS...14th Amendment. It's pretty clear.

Marriage is conditional.
Not every couple can legally marry.
You can't marry your mother or sister or daughter.
Now, in some states, you can't marry someone of the same sex.

Which group, mothers, sisters, daughters, or gays are asking for special treatment?

How is it special if all the straight couples have that treatment?

 

[BDBoop]

Ok....Fine. I don't accept that because not a single person can say they "are" unless first having some experience in the area. But if you choose to believe that you "knew you were gay, it's just ducky.
Homosexuality however is defined by behavior.
In other words, gay or for that matter heterosexuality is not determined until an individual acts on their beliefs or feelings.
Therefore, gays are not a minority per se, but simply a behavior group.
In light of the fact that human beings are the most advanced form of life on the planet and in light of the fact human beings are the only species capable of self control, it is fully acceptable that we are all in possession of the ability to control our urges.
You may find these statements offensive, however, they are factual.
On a personal note, I think people should be able to do as they please so as long as they do not bother me or force me to agree with their behavior.
I have two friends who are in a committed lesbian relationship. One is one of my closest and dearest friend. I would do anything to help her. Do I agree with her lifestyle? Not really. However, I accept her for what she is.
And yes, we have had this discussion.

So priests and nuns aren't straight?

Read my entire post you freak! Assuming these people have NEVER had relations,
it also means they are not gay either. The term would be "asexual".
Yours is a typical knee jerk lib response. instead of reading, you read into.
No sense discussing with an irrational person led simply by emotion.

Point B) Virgins are NOT asexual. Dimwatt.

 

[BDBoop]

And, for the dimwatts playing:

Asexuality (sometimes referred to as nonsexuality),[1][2][3] in its broadest sense, is the lack of sexual attraction to others[4][5][6] or the lack of interest in sex.[6][7] It may also be considered a lack of a sexual orientation.[8] One commonly cited study published in 2004 placed the prevalence of asexuality at 1%.[8][9]

Asexuality is distinct from abstention from sexual activity and from celibacy, which are behavioral and generally motivated by factors such as an individual's personal or religious beliefs;[10] sexual orientation, unlike sexual behavior, is believed to be "enduring".[11] Some asexual people do engage in sexual activity despite lacking a desire for sex or sexual attraction, due to a variety of reasons, such as a desire to please romantic partners.[6]

Only recently has asexuality started to become accepted as a sexual orientation and a field of scientific research,[4][6][12][13] and a growing body of research from both sociological and psychological perspectives has begun to coalesce.[6] While some researchers assert that asexuality is a sexual orientation, others disagree,[12] and various asexual communities have started to form since the advent of the Internet and social media. The most prolific and well-known of these communities has been the Asexual Visibility and Education Network (AVEN), which was founded in 2001.

Asexuality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia