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

[Seawytch]

of course you want the question to be rhetorical, you compared identified GENETIC traits (red hair, left handed) , you're afraid to enter into the "made that way vs choice" debate because you'll lose.

Did Fishy not also identify an "identified" genetic trait when equating being gay to having Downs?

No, I'm actually not "afraid" at all. I'm quite confident in the knowledge that sexual orientation is an innate trait. Wanna know how I know? I'm gay. Who better would know if they chose their sexual orientation than someone who actually is gay?

Do you believe you chose yours?


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

Now that's scientific, "I'm gay, I believe I was made this way, so it's got to be genetic"?

Here's some science for you, I've got a couple of questions I'd like you to answer, I'm collecting data for my research. Did you're parents divorce? Was there any infidelity in your parents relationship? Was there any abuse in your parents relationship? Did you experience abuse?

I never claimed it was genetic, Fishy equated sexual orientation to genetic abnormalities.

My parents and my partners parents are still married and no, there has been no infidelity in either marriage. No, we do not have abusive parents. My partner and I live 200 feet from my parents and just spent the day in the City with them and our children.

No, neither my partner and I were ever abused or raped.

From my earliest memories (all good ones I might add), I was attracted to other girls. While my friends were crushing on Sean Cassidy and Leif Garrett, I was crushing on Kate Jackson and Julie Andrews. I did have the obligatory Sean Cassidy posters 'cause ya gotta "fit in" but since he was kinda girly looking, it wasn't a stretch.

Scientists in the majority, while they haven't identified the exact "cause" of sexual orientation, do believe that people do not choose their orientation.

Do you believe you chose yours?


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

 

[The Rabbi]

of course you want the question to be rhetorical, you compared identified GENETIC traits (red hair, left handed) , you're afraid to enter into the "made that way vs choice" debate because you'll lose.

Did Fishy not also identify an "identified" genetic trait when equating being gay to having Downs?

No, I'm actually not "afraid" at all. I'm quite confident in the knowledge that sexual orientation is an innate trait. Wanna know how I know? I'm gay. Who better would know if they chose their sexual orientation than someone who actually is gay?

Do you believe you chose yours?


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

yes I did, the point being that downs syndrome people have equal rights, as do you.

you want special rights, admit your true agenda here and we can have a real discussion, until then this is going nowhere but in circles.

She can't. She operates under the fiction that men are really women and women are really men and there is some category of "gay" that is equivalent to "black" or "Catholic" or whatever.
It is all a lie.

 

[Seawytch]

of course you want the question to be rhetorical, you compared identified GENETIC traits (red hair, left handed) , you're afraid to enter into the "made that way vs choice" debate because you'll lose.

Did Fishy not also identify an "identified" genetic trait when equating being gay to having Downs?

No, I'm actually not "afraid" at all. I'm quite confident in the knowledge that sexual orientation is an innate trait. Wanna know how I know? I'm gay. Who better would know if they chose their sexual orientation than someone who actually is gay?

Do you believe you chose yours?


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

yes I did, the point being that downs syndrome people have equal rights, as do you.

you want special rights, admit your true agenda here and we can have a real discussion, until then this is going nowhere but in circles.

Are Downs individuals prevented from legally marrying? No. Still incomplete parallels.

You want to keep marriage your "special right". Too late.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

 

[The Rabbi]

Did Fishy not also identify an "identified" genetic trait when equating being gay to having Downs?

No, I'm actually not "afraid" at all. I'm quite confident in the knowledge that sexual orientation is an innate trait. Wanna know how I know? I'm gay. Who better would know if they chose their sexual orientation than someone who actually is gay?

Do you believe you chose yours?


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

yes I did, the point being that downs syndrome people have equal rights, as do you.

you want special rights, admit your true agenda here and we can have a real discussion, until then this is going nowhere but in circles.

Are Downs individuals prevented from legally marrying? No. Still incomplete parallels.

You want to keep marriage your "special right". Too late.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

Gays arent prevented from legally marrying either.
Fail.

 

[Seawytch]

yes I did, the point being that downs syndrome people have equal rights, as do you.

you want special rights, admit your true agenda here and we can have a real discussion, until then this is going nowhere but in circles.

Are Downs individuals prevented from legally marrying? No. Still incomplete parallels.

You want to keep marriage your "special right". Too late.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

Gays arent prevented from legally marrying either.
Fail.

Gays are prevented , in some states, from legally marrying each other, people with Downs are not. The argument fail is Fishy's.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

 

[The Rabbi]

Are Downs individuals prevented from legally marrying? No. Still incomplete parallels.

You want to keep marriage your "special right". Too late.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

Gays arent prevented from legally marrying either.
Fail.

Gays are prevented , in some states, from legally marrying each other, people with Downs are not. The argument fail is Fishy's.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

No gay man has ever been prevented from marrying a gay woman.
Men with Downs cannot marry other men with Downs. Ditto for women.
Argument fail. Close thread.

 

[Redfish]

Are Downs individuals prevented from legally marrying? No. Still incomplete parallels.

You want to keep marriage your "special right". Too late.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

Gays arent prevented from legally marrying either.
Fail.

Gays are prevented , in some states, from legally marrying each other, people with Downs are not. The argument fail is Fishy's.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

two downs females cannot marry in most states, you are treated equally with them, except in your state of caliprunia where the court has overturned the will of the people twice.

 

[Seawytch]

Gays arent prevented from legally marrying either.
Fail.

Gays are prevented , in some states, from legally marrying each other, people with Downs are not. The argument fail is Fishy's.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

No gay man has ever been prevented from marrying a gay woman.
Men with Downs cannot marry other men with Downs. Ditto for women.
Argument fail. Close thread.

No black man was prevented from marrying a black woman. Same for whites. Interracial couples were looking for a "special right". Guess which argument actually failed, the one about equality or the one that tried this?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

http://hnn.us/articles/4708.html


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

 

[Seawytch]

Gays arent prevented from legally marrying either.
Fail.

Gays are prevented , in some states, from legally marrying each other, people with Downs are not. The argument fail is Fishy's.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

No gay man has ever been prevented from marrying a gay woman.
Men with Downs cannot marry other men with Downs. Ditto for women.
Argument fail. Close thread.

Yours is the argument that failed in court. See my post before this one.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

 

[Redfish]

Gays are prevented , in some states, from legally marrying each other, people with Downs are not. The argument fail is Fishy's.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

No gay man has ever been prevented from marrying a gay woman.
Men with Downs cannot marry other men with Downs. Ditto for women.
Argument fail. Close thread.

No black man was prevented from marrying a black woman. Same for whites. Interracial couples were looking for a "special right". Guess which argument actually failed, the one about equality or the one that tried this?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

History News Network


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

your failed attempt to equate race with sexual orientation is noted----with a

 

[gallantwarrior]

Hey there, to all those idiots who insist they 'chose' to be straight - no, you didn't. Stop trying to pretend you did, you might think it makes you sound normal, but you sound gay - literally.

If you chose to be straight, you had to choose between being gay or straight. The only way you could chose between the two would be if you were attracted to both males and females at the time you made this decision. Thus, you are bisexual by default.

Looks like most of the conservatives here are closet cases.

Heterosexuality is biologically, physiologically, and sociologically normal. Homosexuals have chosen to not be normal. Nature built male and female counterparts to drive reproduction, I.e. making more of the same breed of animal. Homosexual and lesbian couples cannot breed offspring without participation of someone else of the opposite gender. There will always need to be a third party involved in their reproductive process. Just because they choose to 'love' someone of their same gender in many cases does not mitigate their very normal drive to reproduce.

 

[Seawytch]

No gay man has ever been prevented from marrying a gay woman.
Men with Downs cannot marry other men with Downs. Ditto for women.
Argument fail. Close thread.

No black man was prevented from marrying a black woman. Same for whites. Interracial couples were looking for a "special right". Guess which argument actually failed, the one about equality or the one that tried this?

The fifth, and final, argument judges would use to justify miscegenation law was undoubtedly the most important; it used these claims that interracial marriage was unnatural and immoral to find a way around the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of "equal protection under the laws." How did judges do this? They insisted that because miscegenation laws punished both the black and white partners to an interracial marriage, they affected blacks and whites "equally." This argument, which is usually called the equal application claim, was hammered out in state supreme courts in the late 1870s, endorsed by the United States Supreme Court in 1882, and would be repeated by judges for the next 85 years.

History News Network


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

your failed attempt to equate race with sexual orientation is noted----with a

It's not comparing those two innate traits, it's comparing the discrimination. One is based on race, the other on gender. Watch and see which argument will prevail, especially when the following language was used in the DOMA ruling:

The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional de- sire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group.[...]

DOMA’s avowed purpose and practical effect are to impose a disadvantage, a separate status, and so a stigma upon all who enter into same-sex marriages made lawful by the unquestioned authority of the States.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

 

[P@triot]

Republicans, dogmatic Christians and folks without much post high school education typically say "yes - being gay is a choice".

They give this answer because the alternative answer is unacceptable - that being: some people are born gay, and thus they are made that way by God.

Why Won't God Heal Amputees?

Before this whole "gay" lifestyle thing became a fad, Most doctors, phychiatrists, and educators were very much of the opinion that homosexuality was an abnormality --- an outward manifestation of a dysfunctional individual.

Some people murder. Would you blame God for that action? Have you never wanted to kill someone? However, the responsible person sees that such a thing is not what God would have one do........... Sex is not the end all of emotional love. Christ died on the cross for our sins because He first loved us. This perfect example never involved sex. It involved commitment. A mother doesn't face labor to have a baby because she's a sadist. She does it because she loves the baby she has been carrying around for months.....

The popular acceptance of homosexuality is turning everything inside out. And what was once considered very sound moral judgment is now cast aside as though it never existed. Good is now bad and bad is accepted as good. But the end results have not been shown to be any less valid.

Segregation was once considered Constitutional as well.

As usual, you changed the subject because you just got owned. LN asked a straight forward question - some people MURDER. Do you blame God for that action?

As usual, you know you're wrong but you're far too immature (not to mention arrogant) to just admit it. So instead, you turn to "segregation" as if that had anything to do with what is being discussed.

There is nothing worse than a disingenuous asshole. Why do you even bother coming here if you can't have an honest discussion? Just to be a troll? Just because you believe you can convince people to follow you like the pied piper in your quest for your radical libtard agenda of living off of the government?

 

[Kondor3]

"It's a life, not a lifestyle" ???

An amoeba has a 'life'...

A slug (mollusc) has a 'life'...

Pond-scum (fungal tidal growth) has a 'life'...

That doesn't mean that Average Folk think well of them or their lives, though...

 

[gallantwarrior]

Republicans, dogmatic Christians and folks without much post high school education typically say "yes - being gay is a choice".

They give this answer because the alternative answer is unacceptable - that being: some people are born gay, and thus they are made that way by God.

This post right here really says it all. I mean this is the problem people who think being gay is a sin are up against. If someone is born gay, that means God made them that way. So they can't accept that. It must be a choice.

My question is, how can someone make such a choice? How do you decide who you are attracted to and who you fall in love with?

The answer is you don't. It just happens. It is something inside of you.

It's a beautiful, natural thing to fall in love. No matter who it is with. It's a very human thing.

Something we are all born with.

Aww, isn't that just so sweet. Are you in Jr high school?

 

[Seawytch]

Hey there, to all those idiots who insist they 'chose' to be straight - no, you didn't. Stop trying to pretend you did, you might think it makes you sound normal, but you sound gay - literally.

If you chose to be straight, you had to choose between being gay or straight. The only way you could chose between the two would be if you were attracted to both males and females at the time you made this decision. Thus, you are bisexual by default.

Looks like most of the conservatives here are closet cases.

Heterosexuality is biologically, physiologically, and sociologically normal. Homosexuals have chosen to not be normal. Nature built male and female counterparts to drive reproduction, I.e. making more of the same breed of animal. Homosexual and lesbian couples cannot breed offspring without participation of someone else of the opposite gender. There will always need to be a third party involved in their reproductive process. Just because they choose to 'love' someone of their same gender in many cases does not mitigate their very normal drive to reproduce.

{Sigh} You cannot choose your attractions, only the actions associated with them. Nature built into some species the ability to change their gender, render themselves infertile or have males bear young. Is it such a stretch that nature built the sexuality of the most intelligent creature on earth with a little more complexity than "must make babies"?

You're right though, we still want to reproduce and do...we just don't have to have sex with someone we're not attracted to do it anymore.




Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

 

[P@triot]

Gays are prevented , in some states, from legally marrying each other, people with Downs are not. The argument fail is Fishy's.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

No gay man has ever been prevented from marrying a gay woman.
Men with Downs cannot marry other men with Downs. Ditto for women.
Argument fail. Close thread.

Yours is the argument that failed in court. See my post before this one.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

OMG God - this libtard broad and her fucking "court, court, court" bullshit. "Court" is not an argument, stupid. Just because a court is stacked with biased radical libtards like you does not make their decision right - or even legal.

The Supreme Court could easily rule tomorrow that Dumbocrats have NO 1st Amendment rights. So would you support that? Would you consider that "legal"?

God Almighty, you're having your ass handed to you on a plate here by quite a few intelligent people. If you can't respond with anything other than "court", just go away. It's nonsensical and completely meaningless.

We know - we have a libtard court that doesn't abide by the Constitution. We get it. Now, be a big girl and make an intelligent argument or go read more radical, unhinged, LGBTV websites...

 

[Seawytch]

"It's a life, not a lifestyle" ???

An amoeba has a 'life'...

A slug (mollusc) has a 'life'...

Pond-scum (fungal tidal growth) has a 'life'...

That doesn't mean that Average Folk think well of them or their lives, though...

I already provided you with the Gallup polls that show your view to be the one in the minority.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

 

[Seawytch]

No gay man has ever been prevented from marrying a gay woman.
Men with Downs cannot marry other men with Downs. Ditto for women.
Argument fail. Close thread.

Yours is the argument that failed in court. See my post before this one.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

OMG God - this libtard broad and her fucking "court, court, court" bullshit. "Court" is not an argument, stupid. Just because a court is stacked with biased radical libtards like you does not make their decision right - or even legal.

The Supreme Court could easily rule tomorrow that Dumbocrats have NO 1st Amendment rights. So would you support that? Would you consider that "legal"?

God Almighty, you're having your ass handed to you on a plate here by quite a few intelligent people. If you can't respond with anything other than "court", just go away. It's nonsensical and completely meaningless.

We know - we have a libtard court that doesn't abide by the Constitution. We get it. Now, be a big girl and make an intelligent argument or go read more radical, unhinged, LGBTV websites...

Civil rights has always been a battle fought on numerous levels. Civil rights keeps winning slowly but surely. The march of progress is slow and steady.

Apparently losing makes you very angry.


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

 

[gallantwarrior]

There's a way to stop that...treat us equally under the law.

the law already treats you equally.

Equality does mean that the govt should force the rest of us to condone your aberant lifestyle as normal.

You are no more normal than a downs syndrome child------we sympathize with both of you because of your affliction, but both are abnormalities. Abnormal is not a negative word, it is an accurate description. It is not an insult.

get off your high horse and face reality and deal with your reality.

Why use Downs, Fishy, and not red hair or being left handed? (It a rhetorical question, BTW. I already know the answer)

Giving gays and lesbians equal access to civil marriage "forces" nothing on you and denying equal access is discriminatory. If I am prevented from marrying the consenting adult of my choice, that isn't equality, Fishy.

Oh and Fishy, it's a life, not a "lifestyle".


Spelling errors courtesy of auto-correct

Having red hair or being left-handed are not genetic abnormalities. If, as you claim, homosexuality is a genetic trait, it is by far best compared with other genetic traits that signal a defect that prevents the individual from functioning naturally.