Born a Homo? Part II.

[jimnyc]

They ARE NOT being discriminated against, unless you admit the ENTIRE nation is being discriminated against. NO MALE can marry another male. NO FEMALE can marry another female. Since this applies to ALL individuals in the nation, it's IMPOSSIBLE for this to be considered discrimination. The right to marry is being applied 100% equally to all citizens of the US.

We should not get into a habit of rewarding those who engage in deviant, disgusting, abnormal behavior. If they want the rights that others enjoy, they should adhere to the standards that others do.

If anything, they should be given medical assistance for their condition.

Pay for benefits that others do not have to pay for? And this does not provide coverage to someone who has a pre-existing condition, as happens when a couple marry.

Others DO have to pay for it. If I lived with another man, I would have to pay. If ANY woman lived with another woman, they would have to pay. You are trying to blur the lines here. The rights are identical, you are trying to give added benefits to them when all they deserve is medical treatment.

And they cannot get legal gaurdianship either. The courts always find in favor of a blood relative over a legal contract as to who is the gaurdian should a person be incapable of making their own medical decisions. But a spouse always wins.

They CAN get legal guardianship. Whether or not the family decides to challenge that guardianship is another story. The outcome of a court case doesn't change the fact that they can enter into a bonafide contract with one another. There are plenty that have went unchallenged that you don't hear about.

If the queers want special rights, let them pay for it.

 

[eric]

They ARE NOT being discriminated against, unless you admit the ENTIRE nation is being discriminated against. NO MALE can marry another male. NO FEMALE can marry another female. Since this applies to ALL individuals in the nation, it's IMPOSSIBLE for this to be considered discrimination. The right to marry is being applied 100% equally to all citizens of the US.

Herein lies the problem, if we start to allow alternative lifestyles to be covered under descrimination laws, then, in the spirit of fairness, we must open the floodgates to many alternative lifestyles being covered also. You can not pick and choose, which are Ok and which are not. Anyone who can not clearly see the implications of this, is a fool !

 

[OCA]

No more or less than you have proven the opposite. And why should I be worried about which side I am arguing for? And I am definitely not PC... I call spades spades.

Your belief that homosexuality is a choice is not proof. Your belief that homosexuality is wrong is not proof. You seem to have a problem separating knowledge from belief.

Until it is irrefuteably proven that there is a genetic link it is by default a choice.

 

[OCA]

It's not normal, it's statistically more rare, like being left handed. And it is natural, see my previous links.

Your link is there by a thread at best, one can hardly call that proof without snickering a little, reminds me of something John Kerry might use.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Your link is there by a thread at best, one can hardly call that proof without snickering a little, reminds me of something John Kerry might use.

Do your own search, if you dare. There's mountains of evidence.

When did you choose to be hetero? OR am i assuming too much?

 

[OCA]

Why? Because you say so? The onus of proving that homosexuality is not congenital is upon those who wish to deprive people of rights, not those who wish to provide them with rights must prove it is congenital. That's how this country works.

You have it backward OCA.

That is absolutely the most ridiculous thing yet, queere lifestyle choosers are not nbeing denied 1 right in the USA, simply put the right to marry, access benefits or etc. etc. from a same sex partner is going to be off the board, it will not be a denied right since a right that never existed by definition cannot be denied.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Until it is irrefuteably proven that there is a genetic link it is by default a choice.

It may be that it's biological but not necessarily genetic. Can you comprehend the difference?

 

[OCA]

Because he's afraid some night he'll have a little too much to drink and succumb to his true nature?

Tendencies blah blah blah, i'm losing the argument so i'll just go back to some old bullshit that is discredited blah blah blah. How about some originality from you Wade or are you at the bottom of the barrell?

 

[OCA]

I'm having a hard time determining if you are for or against gay marriage. Your last point though is one that I was going to get a figure for and raise it myself. If 51% of heterosexual marriages are ending in divorce, how can it be the quintessential form of human union? And it's probably going to require federal legislation to mandate the recognition of gay civil unions in all states.

Doesn't fucking matter that 51% of HETEROSEXUAL marriages end in divorce, doesn't matter if 100% end in divorce because they are between a MAN and a WOMAN. Get it? Its all about a man and a woman.

 

[OCA]

They are being denied rights. They are being discriminated upon on the basis of sex.

Pay for benefits that others do not have to pay for? And this does not provide coverage to someone who has a pre-existing condition, as happens when a couple marry.

And they cannot get legal gaurdianship either. The courts always find in favor of a blood relative over a legal contract as to who is the gaurdian should a person be incapable of making their own medical decisions. But a spouse always wins.

Wade.

They are being denied these things because thare FUCKING ANOTHER GUY IN THE ASS or LICKING ANOTHER CHICKS BUSH and American society says thats wrong and deviant and should not be encouraged in any way, shape or form, get it now? I don't see that position changing anytime soon: reference the Missouri vote, its about 75% who are against.

 

[OCA]

It may be that it's biological but not necessarily genetic. Can you comprehend the difference?

Ah there is the key word "may", until that word becomes an "absolute" "irrefuteable" "set in stone" it is by default a choice. Listen they didn't say "hey maybe the world is round so lets say it is" they had to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, until they did the world was flat.

 

[OCA]

Do your own search, if you dare. There's mountains of evidence.

When did you choose to be hetero? OR am i assuming too much?

Lol New Age, your attempts at humour all at once make me laugh and make me sad. You are not such a dumbass to think that you make a choice to do that which comes natural to each and every single human being on the planet? Or am I assuming too much?

 

[MissileMan]

Until it is irrefuteably proven that there is a genetic link it is by default a choice.

There ya go with the juvenile areguments again. I can just as easily say that until it's proven to be a choice, it is genetic by default. Until such time that it is proven one way or the other, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[MissileMan]

Ah there is the key word "may", until that word becomes an "absolute" "irrefuteable" "set in stone" it is by default a choice. Listen they didn't say "hey maybe the world is round so lets say it is" they had to prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, until they did the world was flat.

I told you you make it too easy! What's funny is you don't even see it. I'll point it out for you. "until they did (proved it) the world was flat". Sorry Charlie! Even before it was proven, the world was round. :2guns:

 

[MissileMan]

Doesn't fucking matter that 51% of HETEROSEXUAL marriages end in divorce, doesn't matter if 100% end in divorce because they are between a MAN and a WOMAN. Get it? Its all about a man and a woman.

There have been many people screaming that allowing gays to marry will violate the sanctity of marriage. I was merely pointing out that if over half of the heterosexual marriages end in divorce then they are violating the sanctity of marriage themselves.

And that figure doesn't even include other marriages violated by adultery and abuse.

But let's say that marriage stays defined as a union between one man and one woman. Would the creation of a civil union defined as a union between 2 consenting adults still violate the sanctity of marriage?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Lol New Age, your attempts at humour all at once make me laugh and make me sad. You are not such a dumbass to think that you make a choice to do that which comes natural to each and every single human being on the planet? Or am I assuming too much?

You make my point for me. Right. Sexual preference is not consciously chosen; it's natural, based on how the brain has developed.

 

[007]

You make my point for me. Right. Sexual preference is not consciously chosen; it's natural, based on how the brain has developed.

Yes. That "can" be a true statement. But we must add that the brain would be "abnormaly" developed.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Yes. That "can" be a true statement. But we must add that the brain would be "abnormaly" developed.

OK. Add it. Who gives a hoot.

Normalcy is not my ignorant litmus test for morality, it's someone else's.

 

[deaddude]

From my reading here it seems that the major point of contention is gay marriage.

1st. The government can do nothing to stop a ceremonial marriage due to the first amendment rights of those involved. Since the ceremonial marriage is the one that has religious significance and not the legal one than I have some difficulty understanding why it is the legal marriage that is continually attacked by religious groups.

2nd. Legal Marriage is little more than a contractual agreement that offers advantages to both parties.

So why not just offer them a legally binding contract in a manner similar to a business dealing that offers people the same benefits without the need of a marriage?

 

[wade]

They ARE NOT being discriminated against, unless you admit the ENTIRE nation is being discriminated against. NO MALE can marry another male. NO FEMALE can marry another female. Since this applies to ALL individuals in the nation, it's IMPOSSIBLE for this to be considered discrimination. The right to marry is being applied 100% equally to all citizens of the US.

The Govenment is not supposed to discriminate on the basis of sex. That means the Government is not supposed to recognize the sex of an individual in any way. This is discrimination, pure and simple.

Without considering the sex of the individuals, tell me why Bob should be allowed to marry Sue but not allowed to marry Joe?

We should not get into a habit of rewarding those who engage in deviant, disgusting, abnormal behavior. If they want the rights that others enjoy, they should adhere to the standards that others do.

That bigot hat is getting bigger there Jimmy. Who are you to decide what behaviors are "deviant, disgusting," or "abnormal"? These are your opinions.

If anything, they should be given medical assistance for their condition.

Why would they want medical assistance for something they don't consider to be a problem?

Others DO have to pay for it. If I lived with another man, I would have to pay. If ANY woman lived with another woman, they would have to pay. You are trying to blur the lines here. The rights are identical, you are trying to give added benefits to them when all they deserve is medical treatment.

But men living with women get a benefit that men living with men (or women with women) cannot. This means the homosexual couple effectively subsidizes the hetrosexual couple, and this is wrong. Either the benefit should be eliminated, or it should be applied fairly.

They CAN get legal guardianship. Whether or not the family decides to challenge that guardianship is another story. The outcome of a court case doesn't change the fact that they can enter into a bonafide contract with one another. There are plenty that have went unchallenged that you don't hear about.

If it goes unchallenged its irrelvant. Virtually every court case involving a domestic contract between a homosexual couple vs. the family of one of the members has been found in favor of the family. This means that a married couple have legal rights that a domestic partnership does not. This denies the homosexual couple the right to choose their legal gaurdian in the same way a married couple can.

If the queers want special rights, let them pay for it.

They don't want special rights. They want the same rights as married couples have.