Is It Reasonable That LGBT Activists Compare Same-Sex Marriage Rights To

[paddymurphy]

Sorry but I don't think that it was a fair or reasonable question at all. It was prejudicial in labeling homosexuality a perversion and simplistic in that it is looking for a "yes-no" answer to a highly complex issue of human sexuality that requires an understanding of nature vs. nurture. In addition it is off topic and clearly intended to derail the thread. She got the answer she deserves.

That is not what she asked or discussed, and, no, homosexuals are not the only ones in defining the physiology, psychology, and sociology of it. There can be no LGBT elitism final word permitted in definition or discussion.

Why the discontent? Let's stay with facts and science. There is no epigenetic proof as yet conclusively. OK, looking back, I came across too hard, doing exactly what I hate the hissies, pro and con, do too often on this Board. I apologize.

Not discontent. Confusion. I didn't understand your response and still don't. No need to apologies. Epigenetic proof is not at issue here. The law looks at homosexuality as immutable and even opponents of gay rights know better than to dispute that, at least in court.

Homisexuality is not immutable. It is a behavior. It is as immutable as pedophilia.

As immutable as being a Christian. Your point?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh, stop trolling. She asked a fair and interesting question.

Sorry but I don't think that it was a fair or reasonable question at all. It was prejudicial in labeling homosexuality a perversion and simplistic in that it is looking for a "yes-no" answer to a highly complex issue of human sexuality that requires an understanding of nature vs. nurture. In addition it is off topic and clearly intended to derail the thread. She got the answer she deserves.

That is not what she asked or discussed, and, no, homosexuals are not the only ones in defining the physiology, psychology, and sociology of it. There can be no LGBT elitism final word permitted in definition or discussion.

Why the discontent? Let's stay with facts and science. There is no epigenetic proof as yet conclusively. OK, looking back, I came across too hard, doing exactly what I hate the hissies, pro and con, do too often on this Board. I apologize.

Not discontent. Confusion. I didn't understand your response and still don't. No need to apologies. Epigenetic proof is not at issue here. The law looks at homosexuality as immutable and even opponents of gay rights know better than to dispute that, at least in court.

Everything before the last sentence does not matter, you are right. The last sentence is the important, and you are right about that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sorry but I don't think that it was a fair or reasonable question at all. It was prejudicial in labeling homosexuality a perversion and simplistic in that it is looking for a "yes-no" answer to a highly complex issue of human sexuality that requires an understanding of nature vs. nurture. In addition it is off topic and clearly intended to derail the thread. She got the answer she deserves.

That is not what she asked or discussed, and, no, homosexuals are not the only ones in defining the physiology, psychology, and sociology of it. There can be no LGBT elitism final word permitted in definition or discussion.

Why the discontent? Let's stay with facts and science. There is no epigenetic proof as yet conclusively. OK, looking back, I came across too hard, doing exactly what I hate the hissies, pro and con, do too often on this Board. I apologize.

Not discontent. Confusion. I didn't understand your response and still don't. No need to apologies. Epigenetic proof is not at issue here. The law looks at homosexuality as immutable and even opponents of gay rights know better than to dispute that, at least in court.

Homisexuality is not immutable. It is a behavior. It is as immutable as pedophilia.

Heterosexuals are pedophiliaics, just like homosexuals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

...The Black Civil Rights Movement?

It's not reasonable to compare same- sex marriage rights movement to civil rights movements. It's not right, because when your are comparing the ideology of being gay to the fighting for rights to live equally because of your skin color; you are comparing a Developed ideology to a immutable trait (Skin color) . Is my point clear? What do you think about it?

What do I think? That you are a moron. It does not matter if the trait upon which some want to base discriminatory laws is immutable or a choice. Religion is, without a doubt, a choice. Being gay is not a choice. The evidence is overwhelming that it is something predetermined in a person.

You could say the same thing about any compulsion.

Doesn't matter.

 

[WinterBorn]

Sorry but I don't think that it was a fair or reasonable question at all. It was prejudicial in labeling homosexuality a perversion and simplistic in that it is looking for a "yes-no" answer to a highly complex issue of human sexuality that requires an understanding of nature vs. nurture. In addition it is off topic and clearly intended to derail the thread. She got the answer she deserves.

That is not what she asked or discussed, and, no, homosexuals are not the only ones in defining the physiology, psychology, and sociology of it. There can be no LGBT elitism final word permitted in definition or discussion.

Why the discontent? Let's stay with facts and science. There is no epigenetic proof as yet conclusively. OK, looking back, I came across too hard, doing exactly what I hate the hissies, pro and con, do too often on this Board. I apologize.

Not discontent. Confusion. I didn't understand your response and still don't. No need to apologies. Epigenetic proof is not at issue here. The law looks at homosexuality as immutable and even opponents of gay rights know better than to dispute that, at least in court.

Homisexuality is not immutable. It is a behavior. It is as immutable as pedophilia.

The difference, whether immutable or not, is that one involves consenting adults and the other involves the abuse of children.

So, for legal purposes, the comparison is invalid.

 

[WinterBorn]

...The Black Civil Rights Movement?

It's not reasonable to compare same- sex marriage rights movement to civil rights movements. It's not right, because when your are comparing the ideology of being gay to the fighting for rights to live equally because of your skin color; you are comparing a Developed ideology to a immutable trait (Skin color) . Is my point clear? What do you think about it?

What do I think? That you are a moron. It does not matter if the trait upon which some want to base discriminatory laws is immutable or a choice. Religion is, without a doubt, a choice. Being gay is not a choice. The evidence is overwhelming that it is something predetermined in a person.

You could say the same thing about any compulsion.

...The Black Civil Rights Movement?

It's not reasonable to compare same- sex marriage rights movement to civil rights movements. It's not right, because when your are comparing the ideology of being gay to the fighting for rights to live equally because of your skin color; you are comparing a Developed ideology to a immutable trait (Skin color) . Is my point clear? What do you think about it?

What do I think? That you are a moron. It does not matter if the trait upon which some want to base discriminatory laws is immutable or a choice. Religion is, without a doubt, a choice. Being gay is not a choice. The evidence is overwhelming that it is something predetermined in a person.

You could say the same thing about any compulsion.

The difference is whether or not it is illegal.

Your comparison is like comparing someone who eats meat and someone who eats meat from humans.