Do gays choose to be gay? How can we refuse equal rights?

[Seawytch]

Well of course not you buffoon. You've brainwashed them since birth. It's all they know. Why don't you ask someone who hasn't been influenced by you to believe you are right?!?

I'm still waiting for you to answer that brilliant question by the (13 year old?) girl who showed more intelligence than every libtard on the planet combined: "which parent does she not need"? According to gays, redundantly having two mom's or two dad's works just fine. So which parent of this bright young lady is "unnecessary"?

That's a ridiculous strawman. Which parent would you take from our children? Well both i guess since you wished an earthquake on us.

Nobody is "taking" anything from anybody. You simply have to understand that families don't fit your neat little Ozzie and Harriet fantasy, but they can be happy, healthy, well-adjusted and loving.

My wife has a gay aunt. She is now almost 80. Over the years she has had several "roommates". But she was never presumptuous enough to call any of her relationships a "marriage". I respect her for her honesty and openness. She realized that her lifestyle was out of the norm but did not try to force anyone to condone or sanctify it.

You, on the other hand, are trying to get the govt to force the rest of us to accept your aberant lifestyle as some sort of alternative normalcy. Its not.

Your 80 year old gay aunt did not live in an age of tolerance or she would have married her "roomates".

 

[Katzndogz]

If you follow the logic of non judgment because God made them that way, you could not judge child molesters or serial killers because that's the way God made them.

Homosexuality is an aberration. An anomaly. It is benign when left alone but becomes toxic when considered an alternative form of normal.

 

[gallantwarrior]

See Fishy, that's why I'm askin'. I'm not the one that believes "gay is a choice" so I'm curious about those that do. I didn't choose, being attracted to members of the same sex is simply how I've always felt so there never was a "choice". I am very curious, however, how people can be equally attracted to both sexes and choose only one.

I think I'd like your definition of "attraction". I find the company of all sorts of people "attractive" but perceive that your definition applies only to sexual attraction.

Being both sexually and emotionally attracted. Sex is only the fringe benefit. I'm talking about love. Deep, emotional, binding love with a sexual component. Could you choose that kind of attraction?

Did you ever just look at someone and not just want to bend them over a table and make wild, passionate love to them, but also want to date and kiss and marry them? Guy or girl? For me it was always girls. Crushes, fantasies, you name it. Girls.

I have deep, emotional bonds with my family. I have a few very close friends I would die for. I do not need a sexual kicker to care for someone else, regardless of their gender. Eschewing that sexual component actually makes my choices about who I love much clearer.
Yeah, once upon a time, I might have wanted to have hot, sweaty monkey sex with someone else, but I am past that period in my emotional development.

 

[bodecea]

If you follow the logic of non judgment because God made them that way, you could not judge child molesters or serial killers because that's the way God made them.

Homosexuality is an aberration. An anomaly. It is benign when left alone but becomes toxic when considered an alternative form of normal.

^ANOTHER Rightwinger who does not understand the simple concept of "consent" vs. hurting others. It's kind of scary to see how many do not understand the difference.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Oh and Fishy, we don't give a shit how you refer you our legal marriage, we KNOW we're married legally and spiritually. Our kids know it too and that's what's most important.

Pediatricians: Gay Marriage Good for Kids' Health

"Gay marriage good for children's health"

Yes, nothing says "healthy" like coming from a fucked-up home where the parents aren't actually married (well, in 98% of all cases anyway), where you have 2 mom's or 2 dad's and thus have zero balance as nature intended, and where that selfish parental arrangement causes the children to be complete outcasts at any event.

Man, you have to love the libtards definition of "healthy"...

You just made the point of the pediatrician's statement about being "actually married".

Our children are quite healthy, as study after study has shown, despite our being able to legally marry in only 13 states. Is that why you're afraid to treat gays equally in regards to marriage laws? Afraid if we're on an even playing field we'll do it better than y'all?

Our kids don't think we're selfish for wanting them, planning and preparing for them (no accidental pregnancies here) and then loving them unconditionally before they'd even arrived. Our kids are doing fine. Worry about kids that actually need your pity...like the gay ones growing up in homes where their parents reject and shun them for their orientation.

Or the little boys whose parent insist on dressing and grooming them like little girls and then have them treated with hormones to keep them from growing up.

 

[Katzndogz]

If you follow the logic of non judgment because God made them that way, you could not judge child molesters or serial killers because that's the way God made them.

Homosexuality is an aberration. An anomaly. It is benign when left alone but becomes toxic when considered an alternative form of normal.

^ANOTHER Rightwinger who does not understand the simple concept of "consent" vs. hurting others. It's kind of scary to see how many do not understand the difference.

What does consent have with the idea that God created someone in a particular way? Nothing. Did God make serial killers? Did God intend to make serial killers or was that a choice the killer made himself?

One of the most famous cases in Germany was of a homosexual cannibal who advertised for a victim. He got hundreds of replies. He chose one, killed him, with written consent, and ate him, also will the full knowledge and consent of the victim.

What happens to your consent now?

 

[Seawytch]

I think I'd like your definition of "attraction". I find the company of all sorts of people "attractive" but perceive that your definition applies only to sexual attraction.

Being both sexually and emotionally attracted. Sex is only the fringe benefit. I'm talking about love. Deep, emotional, binding love with a sexual component. Could you choose that kind of attraction?

Did you ever just look at someone and not just want to bend them over a table and make wild, passionate love to them, but also want to date and kiss and marry them? Guy or girl? For me it was always girls. Crushes, fantasies, you name it. Girls.

I have deep, emotional bonds with my family. I have a few very close friends I would die for. I do not need a sexual kicker to care for someone else, regardless of their gender. Eschewing that sexual component actually makes my choices about who I love much clearer.
Yeah, once upon a time, I might have wanted to have hot, sweaty monkey sex with someone else, but I am past that period in my emotional development.

Is this the celibacy card or the a-sexual card you're pulling to avoid answering?

 

[P@triot]

If you just read Supreme Court case law, you'd know you're bloviating out of your virginal fourth point of contact.

My dear, as I have also explained to you a zillion times already, the Supreme Court has zero authortity to define the Constitution. It simply doesn't exist. Quite the contrary, the U.S. Constitution has authority over the Supreme Court.

The job of the Supreme Court is to rule on a case as that issue applies to the Constitution. It is not within their power to rule on the Constitution itself. The Constitution is written in black & white and says exactly what it says (this goes back to libtards believing words have no meaning).

They are charged with interpreting it. They've interpreted marriage to be a fundamental right on a number of occasions with a number of different justices. Marriage equality is inevitable and not really on topic though.

No (wrong as always) - they are responsible for interpreting the issue - not the Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

If you follow the logic of non judgment because God made them that way, you could not judge child molesters or serial killers because that's the way God made them.

Homosexuality is an aberration. An anomaly. It is benign when left alone but becomes toxic when considered an alternative form of normal.

^ANOTHER Rightwinger who does not understand the simple concept of "consent" vs. hurting others. It's kind of scary to see how many do not understand the difference.

What does consent have with the idea that God created someone in a particular way? Nothing. Did God make serial killers? Did God intend to make serial killers or was that a choice the killer made himself?

One of the most famous cases in Germany was of a homosexual cannibal who advertised for a victim. He got hundreds of replies. He chose one, killed him, with written consent, and ate him, also will the full knowledge and consent of the victim.

What happens to your consent now?

 

[P@triot]

That's a ridiculous strawman. Which parent would you take from our children? Well both i guess since you wished an earthquake on us.

Nobody is "taking" anything from anybody. You simply have to understand that families don't fit your neat little Ozzie and Harriet fantasy, but they can be happy, healthy, well-adjusted and loving.

My wife has a gay aunt. She is now almost 80. Over the years she has had several "roommates". But she was never presumptuous enough to call any of her relationships a "marriage". I respect her for her honesty and openness. She realized that her lifestyle was out of the norm but did not try to force anyone to condone or sanctify it.

You, on the other hand, are trying to get the govt to force the rest of us to accept your aberant lifestyle as some sort of alternative normalcy. Its not.

Your 80 year old gay aunt did not live in an age of tolerance or she would have married her "roomates".

And this is the same asinine libtard "argument" that you wing-nuts will make over the next 25 years for child molestation, serial killers, and drug addicts.

We (conservatives) are just a bunch of "intolerant" <insert deviant behavior here followed by "phobes" such as "pedophileophobe", "serial killerophobe"> and we need to "evolve" and become more "tolerant" of deviant, disturbing, and just plain illegal behavior.

Liberals - continuing their Nazi goose-stepping march toward the destruction of civilization since 1895

 

[Seawytch]

My dear, as I have also explained to you a zillion times already, the Supreme Court has zero authortity to define the Constitution. It simply doesn't exist. Quite the contrary, the U.S. Constitution has authority over the Supreme Court.

The job of the Supreme Court is to rule on a case as that issue applies to the Constitution. It is not within their power to rule on the Constitution itself. The Constitution is written in black & white and says exactly what it says (this goes back to libtards believing words have no meaning).

They are charged with interpreting it. They've interpreted marriage to be a fundamental right on a number of occasions with a number of different justices. Marriage equality is inevitable and not really on topic though.

No (wrong as always) - they are responsible for interpreting the issue - not the Constitution.

The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate (and largely discretionary) appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. In the common law system of the United States, the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal constitutional law.

 

[Seawytch]

My wife has a gay aunt. She is now almost 80. Over the years she has had several "roommates". But she was never presumptuous enough to call any of her relationships a "marriage". I respect her for her honesty and openness. She realized that her lifestyle was out of the norm but did not try to force anyone to condone or sanctify it.

You, on the other hand, are trying to get the govt to force the rest of us to accept your aberant lifestyle as some sort of alternative normalcy. Its not.

Your 80 year old gay aunt did not live in an age of tolerance or she would have married her "roomates".

And this is the same asinine libtard "argument" that you wing-nuts will make over the next 25 years for child molestation, serial killers, and drug addicts.

We (conservatives) are just a bunch of "intolerant" <insert deviant behavior here followed by "phobes" such as "pedophileophobe", "serial killerophobe"> and we need to "evolve" and become more "tolerant" of deviant, disturbing, and just plain illegal behavior.

Liberals - continuing their Nazi goose-stepping march toward the destruction of civilization since 1895

You need to learn what consent means.

 

[bodecea]

If you follow the logic of non judgment because God made them that way, you could not judge child molesters or serial killers because that's the way God made them.

Homosexuality is an aberration. An anomaly. It is benign when left alone but becomes toxic when considered an alternative form of normal.

^ANOTHER Rightwinger who does not understand the simple concept of "consent" vs. hurting others. It's kind of scary to see how many do not understand the difference.

What does consent have with the idea that God created someone in a particular way? Nothing. Did God make serial killers? Did God intend to make serial killers or was that a choice the killer made himself?

One of the most famous cases in Germany was of a homosexual cannibal who advertised for a victim. He got hundreds of replies. He chose one, killed him, with written consent, and ate him, also will the full knowledge and consent of the victim.

What happens to your consent now?

^ a Rightwinger doubling down on showing their IGNORANCE of the differences between consent and hurting others.

 

[bodecea]

My wife has a gay aunt. She is now almost 80. Over the years she has had several "roommates". But she was never presumptuous enough to call any of her relationships a "marriage". I respect her for her honesty and openness. She realized that her lifestyle was out of the norm but did not try to force anyone to condone or sanctify it.

You, on the other hand, are trying to get the govt to force the rest of us to accept your aberant lifestyle as some sort of alternative normalcy. Its not.

Your 80 year old gay aunt did not live in an age of tolerance or she would have married her "roomates".

And this is the same asinine libtard "argument" that you wing-nuts will make over the next 25 years for child molestation, serial killers, and drug addicts.

We (conservatives) are just a bunch of "intolerant" <insert deviant behavior here followed by "phobes" such as "pedophileophobe", "serial killerophobe"> and we need to "evolve" and become more "tolerant" of deviant, disturbing, and just plain illegal behavior.

Liberals - continuing their Nazi goose-stepping march toward the destruction of civilization since 1895

^ Another RightWinger that shows their ignorance of the differences between consent and hurting others.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If you follow the logic of non judgment because God made them that way, you could not judge child molesters or serial killers because that's the way God made them.

Homosexuality is an aberration. An anomaly. It is benign when left alone but becomes toxic when considered an alternative form of normal.

If you weren’t so hateful and ignorant you’d understand it’s a fallacy to compare two dissimilar things, as it’s indeed hateful and ignorant to compare homosexuals to child molesters or serial killers.

It is not a crime to be a homosexual, whether naturally occurring or a choice, individuals are at liberty to express themselves as they see fit free from interference by the state.

Thankfully we have a Constitution to protect citizens from the ignorance and hate you and others on the right exhibit.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Your 80 year old gay aunt did not live in an age of tolerance or she would have married her "roomates".

And this is the same asinine libtard "argument" that you wing-nuts will make over the next 25 years for child molestation, serial killers, and drug addicts.

We (conservatives) are just a bunch of "intolerant" <insert deviant behavior here followed by "phobes" such as "pedophileophobe", "serial killerophobe"> and we need to "evolve" and become more "tolerant" of deviant, disturbing, and just plain illegal behavior.

Liberals - continuing their Nazi goose-stepping march toward the destruction of civilization since 1895

^ Another RightWinger that shows their ignorance of the differences between consent and hurting others.

He’s in a perpetual state of exhibiting his ignorance on every subject known.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If you follow the logic of non judgment because God made them that way, you could not judge child molesters or serial killers because that's the way God made them.

Homosexuality is an aberration. An anomaly. It is benign when left alone but becomes toxic when considered an alternative form of normal.

^ANOTHER Rightwinger who does not understand the simple concept of "consent" vs. hurting others. It's kind of scary to see how many do not understand the difference.

What does consent have with the idea that God created someone in a particular way? Nothing. Did God make serial killers? Did God intend to make serial killers or was that a choice the killer made himself?

One of the most famous cases in Germany was of a homosexual cannibal who advertised for a victim. He got hundreds of replies. He chose one, killed him, with written consent, and ate him, also will the full knowledge and consent of the victim.

What happens to your consent now?

And there are heterosexual cannibals, but you don’t impugn their sexuality because they elected to commit a crime.

You succeed in only confirming your ignorance, hate, and stupidity.

 

[Harry Dresden]

So another one that was equally attracted to men and women (lotta RW bisexuals it seems), but chose only one of the genders. How do y'all choose? Spin a wheel, throw a dart, flip of a coin? How?

your decision process does not apply to everyone, sorry.

See Fishy, that's why I'm askin'. I'm not the one that believes "gay is a choice" so I'm curious about those that do. I didn't choose, being attracted to members of the same sex is simply how I've always felt so there never was a "choice". I am very curious, however, how people can be equally attracted to both sexes and choose only one.

i think if your GAY....thats the way you were even as a kid.....who is to say something may have happened while the mother was pregnant and a males mannerisms and likes was implanted in a female body or vice versa?.....hence you were born that way....... if your BI....then its a choice....you just are VERY open to sex....and like to try different things....thats my take....

 

[Harry Dresden]

Oh and Fishy, we don't give a shit how you refer you our legal marriage, we KNOW we're married legally and spiritually. Our kids know it too and that's what's most important.

Pediatricians: Gay Marriage Good for Kids' Health

and I don't give a shit how you and the state of california define it.

The people of your state voted against you twice, but you found a judge to overturn the will of the prople---------so much for democracy.

Maybe the San Andreas fault will solve the problem for you and us.

Man, that is one exceptional post (up to and including the San Andreas Fault )

yea but remember....to you Rotty and Red fish......every State is susceptible to some kind of natural disaster.....if you wish an earthquake would take me down with it ....i hope whatever hits your State lands right on top of you when it hits..... is that fair?.......

 

[MikeK]

I don't believe in your "god", I do believe in what I observe around me. As far as animals are concerned, specifically mammals, "gay" is not a natural state. Homo sapiens, however, have the ability to equate sexual contact with emotional attachment (among other things), not just reproduction. In that context, what constitutes "human behavior" vs. Nature? So "god made me that way" is not an argument in my lexicon, just as "god hates a sinner" is not.

While homosexuality is not a normal condition it is quite natural and homosexual behavior has been observed in most animals. Sexual orientation is determined by hormonal influences on the brain. Homosexuality is believed to be the result of hormonal imbalance.

Prenatal hormones and sexual orientation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia