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

[P@triot]

Failed argument they tried in 1965.

I don't want to marry a man. I'm not in love with a man.

Exactly - hence the reason you wanted SPECIAL rights

Puppy, you realize that's nobody would be stopping you from marry a man, rendering your "special" argument moot.

Well, considering that marriage is 1 man and 1 woman, you are making SPECIAL rights for me to marry a man.

By the way, are you prepared to support a man and 12 women? Are you prepared to support a man and his goat? Or are you going to be a an intolerant bigot (not to mention typical libtard hypocrite)?

Are you ignorant of history or just voluntarily choose to ignore it? What you are trying to tell gays and lesbians was once told to blacks who wanted to marry whites. They even said it wan't discriminatory because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites.

Legal marriage hasn't been "one man and one woman" for a decade or more now and we've always had religious marriage.

I'm sorry Puppy, but your goat can't consent. You'll have to make due with living in sin with it. As for polygamists, well, they've got a battle ahead of them and I wish them well.

First of all, goat's can't NOT consent as well. How do you know that the goat is not 100% committed?

Second, and more important, why do you keep running from a simple YES or NO question? Are you prepared to support a man and 12 women?

 

[P@triot]

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

So when the Supreme Court rules that you have NO 1st Amdendment rights at all, you will be satisfied with that ruling and support it 100%?

 

[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...

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

Yeah, sure, you keep telling yourself that, if it brings you any comfort...

What a relative handful of people will accede to, in public, when pressed, is vastly different than what they think in private, and how they react, when there are no social consequences in connection with the trend du jour, and the same goes for the vast, vast, vast numbers of their fellow travelers who were NOT polled...

If these pollsters would get off their asses, and out of the big cities, and into the vast untapped and un-polled realm of Middle America, they would, in all likelihood, come up with different numbers...

Ditto for stacking the deck with other demographics likely to prove favorable to their pre-determined desired outcome...

Pollsters do not always do such things, but they DO operate in that mode often enough to chalk-up plenty of criticism and for their results to be viewed with suspicion much of the time...

One can lie with statistics a dozen-ways-to-Sunday... especially when one controls the construction and content and sequencing of the questions... so much so, that, in the long run, polls don't matter a damn... and especially when the national media goes all orgasmic in support of the trend du jour.

In the long run, Nature, and Mankind, make their preferences operative.

Enjoy the run while it lasts, because it may not last as long as you think.

Laws can be overturned in a heartbeat.

Constitutions can be reinterpreted to support a position-reversal in a heartbeat as well, once an opposing viewpoint gains (or re-gains) poltical power.

Especially when a given situation gets out of hand.

As seems to be unfolding now before our eyes.

Feel free to continue pushing the envelope.

You are probably damaging yourselves far more than you are progressing, in the final analysis.

Or so it seems to this observer...

 

[gallantwarrior]

It has been admitted before, so face it ladies and gents, if government wasn't handing out premiums to married couples (tax breaks for married couples) and if government would get out of the business of directing how people handle their personal affairs (end of life decisions, insurance, etc), this whole marriage thing would be a non-issue. THAT is the crux of this entire "marriage equality" brouhaha. Homosexuals want to be able to do for their chosen partners what heterosexual couples can do for each other. It has nothing to do with love or Nature or reproduction.
It should be unnecessary to beg permission from some government agency to form a union with someone you care for. If you cared so much for your partner, you would give a flip whether you got "equal treatment" for a treasured relationship.

 

[Kondor3]

It has been admitted before, so face it ladies and gents, if government wasn't handing out premiums to married couples (tax breaks for married couples) and if government would get out of the business of directing how people handle their personal affairs (end of life decisions, insurance, etc), this whole marriage thing would be a non-issue. THAT is the crux of this entire "marriage equality" brouhaha. Homosexuals want to be able to do for their chosen partners what heterosexual couples can do for each other. It has nothing to do with love or Nature or reproduction.
It should be unnecessary to beg permission from some government agency to form a union with someone you care for. If you cared so much for your partner, you would give a flip whether you got "equal treatment" for a treasured relationship.

That's all well and good, but we're dealing with inclinations, behaviors and practices which much of the world, both historically and at-present, deem filthy and unclean and unholy and sinful and unnatural and perverse and repugnant, and responsible in part for the slide into degeneracy and loss of martial vigor which contributed greatly to the downfall of a variety of polities and kingdoms , and which has been deemed detrimental to society for many thousands of years. It's a little difficult to ignore that 10,000-pound elephant in the room when you're talking about extending equal marriage rights to such (historically perceived) dangerous and undesirable behaviors.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Black men did not have the same rights as white men. That's what made the case.
Gay men do have the same rights as straight men. Therefore no case. And quit deflecting to "but the court ruled". That is irrelevant. The Supreme Court ruled segregation was OK too.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I never made the claim that sexual orientation is a genetic trait. I said people do not choose their orientation.

 

[The Rabbi]

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.

I never made the claim that sexual orientation is a genetic trait. I said people do not choose their orientation.

Then how is it acquired?

 

[Seawytch]

Well, considering that marriage is 1 man and 1 woman, you are making SPECIAL rights for me to marry a man.

By the way, are you prepared to support a man and 12 women? Are you prepared to support a man and his goat? Or are you going to be a an intolerant bigot (not to mention typical libtard hypocrite)?

Are you ignorant of history or just voluntarily choose to ignore it? What you are trying to tell gays and lesbians was once told to blacks who wanted to marry whites. They even said it wan't discriminatory because blacks could marry blacks and whites could marry whites.

Legal marriage hasn't been "one man and one woman" for a decade or more now and we've always had religious marriage.

I'm sorry Puppy, but your goat can't consent. You'll have to make due with living in sin with it. As for polygamists, well, they've got a battle ahead of them and I wish them well.

First of all, goat's can't NOT consent as well. How do you know that the goat is not 100% committed?

Second, and more important, why do you keep running from a simple YES or NO question? Are you prepared to support a man and 12 women?

Legal consent Puppy. Legal, civil marriage not the vows you make to Bessie in the barn.

I'm not running from anything. I've addressed Polygamy. I'm neither for or against it. From a legal standpoint, I simply don't see it working.

 

[Seawytch]

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

So when the Supreme Court rules that you have NO 1st Amdendment rights at all, you will be satisfied with that ruling and support it 100%?

Does the enlarged and bolded font make you feel less inadequate elsewhere, just out of curiosity?

Are you really trying to equate giving equal protection to taking rights away?

What a silly analogy.

How about this, better, analogy. If the SCOTUS overturned a Federal Handgun ban or a magazine limit, would you support it 100%?

 

[Vandalshandle]

Has to be made up. We've been repeatedly assured by the left that small Southern towns are nothing but stupid, hateful, intolerant KKK members who marry their cousins and "bitterly cling to guns and religion".

In case of a discrepancy between liberalism and reality, reality is wrong.

Sounds just like your average small town in Georgia, when I was growing up in Atlanta...

I'm sure you enjoy believing that.

Not particularly. I loved my home in Atlanta, but it was an island surrounded by a sea of bigotry and ignorance. When the state elected Lester Maddox as governor, Lester Maddox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I knew that it was time to move to the real world. I, personally, was approached and recruited for KKK membership several times starting at age 16. I lived in sort of a beltway bewtween the developing suburbs and rural Georgia. I worked in a major grocery chain store that fired the olnly black employee (the porter), for drinking out of the water foundain without using his cup. In short, Sparky, you don't know shit about growing up in a world of prejudice and hate.

 

[Seawytch]

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.

I never made the claim that sexual orientation is a genetic trait. I said people do not choose their orientation.

Then how is it acquired?

It's not "acquired" like a taste for wine. As to why some people are born sliding more towards one side of the sexuality scale than to the other, scientists are not entirely sure. The consensus seems to be that there are both genetic and environmental factors at play. The consensus is however on the "not a choice" side in both the scientific and from gays themselves.

It seems to matter most to those that want to use it as a reason to prevent gays from equal rights and protections since it gives them "cover" to deny those rights.

In a free society, why should it matter?

 

[The Rabbi]

Sounds just like your average small town in Georgia, when I was growing up in Atlanta...

I'm sure you enjoy believing that.

Not particularly. I loved my home in Atlanta, but it was an island surrounded by a sea of bigotry and ignorance. When the state elected Lester Maddox as governor, Lester Maddox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I knew that it was time to move to the real world. I, personally, was approached and recruited for KKK membership several times starting at age 16. I lived in sort of a beltway bewtween the developing suburbs and rural Georgia. I worked in a major grocery chain store that fired the olnly black employee (the porter), for drinking out of the water foundain without using his cup. In short, Sparky, you don't know shit about growing up in a world of prejudice and hate.

Let's see, Lester Maddox was active in the 60s and 70s. When Jimmy Carter was running for Governor he would pal around with Maddox, his lieutenent governor, during the day and Andrew Young at night.
So you want to claim that nothing has changed in GA or the South for the last 40-50 years? Well, Ok then.

 

[The Rabbi]

I never made the claim that sexual orientation is a genetic trait. I said people do not choose their orientation.

Then how is it acquired?

It's not "acquired" like a taste for wine. As to why some people are born sliding more towards one side of the sexuality scale than to the other, scientists are not entirely sure. The consensus seems to be that there are both genetic and environmental factors at play. The consensus is however on the "not a choice" side in both the scientific and from gays themselves.

It seems to matter most to those that want to use it as a reason to prevent gays from equal rights and protections since it gives them "cover" to deny those rights.

In a free society, why should it matter?

So pretty much like pedophilia or bestiality or any other perversion. Got it.
Any way, that is a side note to the discussion.
Gay men have excactly the same rights as straight men. So there is no discrimination. That's pretty much settled here.

 

[Seawytch]

It has been admitted before, so face it ladies and gents, if government wasn't handing out premiums to married couples (tax breaks for married couples) and if government would get out of the business of directing how people handle their personal affairs (end of life decisions, insurance, etc), this whole marriage thing would be a non-issue. THAT is the crux of this entire "marriage equality" brouhaha. Homosexuals want to be able to do for their chosen partners what heterosexual couples can do for each other. It has nothing to do with love or Nature or reproduction.
It should be unnecessary to beg permission from some government agency to form a union with someone you care for. If you cared so much for your partner, you would give a flip whether you got "equal treatment" for a treasured relationship.

You get to work on that legislation. In the meantime, we'll keep fighting for equal access to legal, civil marriage.

So no couples get married for love or only the straight ones do?

 

[Seawytch]

Then how is it acquired?

It's not "acquired" like a taste for wine. As to why some people are born sliding more towards one side of the sexuality scale than to the other, scientists are not entirely sure. The consensus seems to be that there are both genetic and environmental factors at play. The consensus is however on the "not a choice" side in both the scientific and from gays themselves.

It seems to matter most to those that want to use it as a reason to prevent gays from equal rights and protections since it gives them "cover" to deny those rights.

In a free society, why should it matter?

So pretty much like pedophilia or bestiality or any other perversion. Got it.
Any way, that is a side note to the discussion.
Gay men have excactly the same rights as straight men. So there is no discrimination. That's pretty much settled here.

No, nothing like those, but thanks for continually putting your ignorance on display. It only helps the side of marriage equality.

 

[The Rabbi]

It has been admitted before, so face it ladies and gents, if government wasn't handing out premiums to married couples (tax breaks for married couples) and if government would get out of the business of directing how people handle their personal affairs (end of life decisions, insurance, etc), this whole marriage thing would be a non-issue. THAT is the crux of this entire "marriage equality" brouhaha. Homosexuals want to be able to do for their chosen partners what heterosexual couples can do for each other. It has nothing to do with love or Nature or reproduction.
It should be unnecessary to beg permission from some government agency to form a union with someone you care for. If you cared so much for your partner, you would give a flip whether you got "equal treatment" for a treasured relationship.

You get to work on that legislation. In the meantime, we'll keep fighting for equal access to legal, civil marriage.

So no couples get married for love or only the straight ones do?

You have equal access to marriage. You can marry anyone any other woman can marry. What more do you want? Ohyeah, you want special privileges.

 

[The Rabbi]

It's not "acquired" like a taste for wine. As to why some people are born sliding more towards one side of the sexuality scale than to the other, scientists are not entirely sure. The consensus seems to be that there are both genetic and environmental factors at play. The consensus is however on the "not a choice" side in both the scientific and from gays themselves.

It seems to matter most to those that want to use it as a reason to prevent gays from equal rights and protections since it gives them "cover" to deny those rights.

In a free society, why should it matter?

So pretty much like pedophilia or bestiality or any other perversion. Got it.
Any way, that is a side note to the discussion.
Gay men have excactly the same rights as straight men. So there is no discrimination. That's pretty much settled here.

No, nothing like those, but thanks for continually putting your ignorance on display. It only helps the side of marriage equality.

Let's see. We have an attraction that may be genetic or may be the result of life experiences. The results of acting on it are anti social and life denying. Many people have the attraction but fewer act on it.

Am I describing homosexuality or pedophilia?

 

[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

Yeah, sure, you keep telling yourself that, if it brings you any comfort...

What a relative handful of people will accede to, in public, when pressed, is vastly different than what they think in private, and how they react, when there are no social consequences in connection with the trend du jour, and the same goes for the vast, vast, vast numbers of their fellow travelers who were NOT polled...

If these pollsters would get off their asses, and out of the big cities, and into the vast untapped and un-polled realm of Middle America, they would, in all likelihood, come up with different numbers...

Ditto for stacking the deck with other demographics likely to prove favorable to their pre-determined desired outcome...

Pollsters do not always do such things, but they DO operate in that mode often enough to chalk-up plenty of criticism and for their results to be viewed with suspicion much of the time...

One can lie with statistics a dozen-ways-to-Sunday... especially when one controls the construction and content and sequencing of the questions... so much so, that, in the long run, polls don't matter a damn... and especially when the national media goes all orgasmic in support of the trend du jour.

In the long run, Nature, and Mankind, make their preferences operative.

Enjoy the run while it lasts, because it may not last as long as you think.

Laws can be overturned in a heartbeat.

Constitutions can be reinterpreted to support a position-reversal in a heartbeat as well, once an opposing viewpoint gains (or re-gains) poltical power.

Especially when a given situation gets out of hand.

As seems to be unfolding now before our eyes.

Feel free to continue pushing the envelope.

You are probably damaging yourselves far more than you are progressing, in the final analysis.

Or so it seems to this observer...

Fighting marriage equality is to be on the wrong side of history. All you have to do is look at the trends.

 

[The Rabbi]

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

Yeah, sure, you keep telling yourself that, if it brings you any comfort...

What a relative handful of people will accede to, in public, when pressed, is vastly different than what they think in private, and how they react, when there are no social consequences in connection with the trend du jour, and the same goes for the vast, vast, vast numbers of their fellow travelers who were NOT polled...

If these pollsters would get off their asses, and out of the big cities, and into the vast untapped and un-polled realm of Middle America, they would, in all likelihood, come up with different numbers...

Ditto for stacking the deck with other demographics likely to prove favorable to their pre-determined desired outcome...

Pollsters do not always do such things, but they DO operate in that mode often enough to chalk-up plenty of criticism and for their results to be viewed with suspicion much of the time...

One can lie with statistics a dozen-ways-to-Sunday... especially when one controls the construction and content and sequencing of the questions... so much so, that, in the long run, polls don't matter a damn... and especially when the national media goes all orgasmic in support of the trend du jour.

In the long run, Nature, and Mankind, make their preferences operative.

Enjoy the run while it lasts, because it may not last as long as you think.

Laws can be overturned in a heartbeat.

Constitutions can be reinterpreted to support a position-reversal in a heartbeat as well, once an opposing viewpoint gains (or re-gains) poltical power.

Especially when a given situation gets out of hand.

As seems to be unfolding now before our eyes.

Feel free to continue pushing the envelope.

You are probably damaging yourselves far more than you are progressing, in the final analysis.

Or so it seems to this observer...

Fighting marriage equality is to be on the wrong side of history. All you have to do is look at the trends.

Whoops. Deflection. Must have won that argument.