Republican Ken Buck Says Being Gay Is A Choice, And Also Like Alcoholism

In so far as?

Are you speaking of the inequality of taxes paid by single people compared to the taxes paid by married people? Or perhaps the inequality of taxes paid by married gay couples compared to the taxes paid by married straight couples?

You can look at it any way you wish. One american paying a higher percentage then the other is my only point. We were discussing equality. You do realize that even the higher earners would pay more being charged the same percentage.
Kind of a non sequitur considering the topic, but okay. Perhaps a starting a topic on a "fair" or flat tax might be a good idea. I'll join you there. I favor a consumption tax myself.

My only point is equality does not stop at gay marraige. Our government engages in discrimintory pratices by law. So if equality is to be brought into the discussion, all aspects should be examined.

I have no dog in this fight. But I oppose for the simple fact that those that make the equality argument are the very same folks willing to discriminate in other areas of our society.
 
Hell, even us rednecks in these parts know no one chooses what sex they get aroused from, are attracted to and fall in love with.
The problem is their failure to admit that it is all about attraction and LOVE.

:lol: you talk like you would be a perfect poster boy for the beastiality gene!!!
 
Maybe, but according to you there is no such thing.
Doesn't make a difference as your opinion and beliefs are not based on what I follow, the son of a Jewish carpenter.
He teaches me to love my neighbor and not to judge. He also was hated and condemned for the love and acceptance he taught.
You are not Christlike and never will be. Your problem, not mine.
 
As to the science, there is plenty of evidence that points to a genetic predisposition
Points to, could be, might indicate, leads one to believe, etc.

The language of the desperate homo agenda.

Still trying to justify their perversion with a non existent, so called gay gene. :cuckoo:

And your words are that of a closed minded bigot. Stop accussing people of making claims they aren't making. You are the on that keeps dodging the issues. All anyone is saying is that the sex you are attracted to is not a choice. I have challenged you on that an you have refused to answer. That's all the proof I need that I'm right.

Just so you don't try to bring them up again no has argued:

1) That there is one gay gene

2) that you, me or anyone else could not choose to engage in a behavior. This is not about a behavior it is about a feeling. Can you choose to FEEL attracted to a man?

Frankly Sunni your bull shit gays indoctrinate young people to be gay is the equivalent me accusing you (a Muslim) that you indoctrinate kids to strap bombs to their chests.
 
Maybe, but according to you there is no such thing.
Doesn't make a difference as your opinion and beliefs are not based on what I follow, the son of a Jewish carpenter.
He teaches me to love my neighbor and not to judge. He also was hated and condemned for the love and acceptance he taught.
You are not Christlike and never will be. Your problem, not mine.
The Bible says Jesus (a rabbi) taught the Law (Torah) and NEVER violated even one of the 613 commandments (mitzvot).

He is recorded to have even taught the laws in the Temple in Jerusalem.

One of the laws is that sodomites are to be stoned to death. :cool:
 
Last edited:
Frankly Sunni your bull shit gays indoctrinate young people to be gay is the equivalent me accusing you (a Muslim) that you indoctrinate kids to strap bombs to their chests.
Then why do homos insist that public schools include gay sex and lifestyle in school children's text books and curriculum?
 
Homos want to justify their sick behavior on an elusive gene that science somehow can't find.

Homos say that they don't have a choice. They just gotta do it.

Which brings up the question:

Is there a pedophile gene?

How about a rape gene?

Or a beastiality gene?
Maybe there is. I don't think we are done mapping yet. So what if there was? You have to come up with a compelling state reason to deny equality based on those things.
LOL. and you call me an extremist :lol:

So you also think pedophiles and rapists are being denied their equality if a rape/pedophile gene is found.

Wow, you are one sick puppy. :eek:
You aren't even coming at this conversation from a reasonable person standard. You are also intentionally misrepresenting what I said...more evidence that there is no reasonableness when having a discussion with you. I stated quite clearly that there is a compelling state reason for legislating against pedophilia, bestiality and rape. There is an overriding harm caused by these behaviors, not to mention a lack of consent.

Neither you or any of the other anti-marriage equality folks have yet to come up with an overriding harm by allowing gay and lesbian marriage equality. (Which is why marriage equality for gays and lesbians WILL win in a Supreme Court battle)
 
Neither you or any of the other anti-marriage equality folks have yet to come up with an overriding harm by allowing gay and lesbian marriage equality. (Which is why marriage equality for gays and lesbians WILL win in a Supreme Court battle)
Nope
 
Frankly Sunni your bull shit gays indoctrinate young people to be gay is the equivalent me accusing you (a Muslim) that you indoctrinate kids to strap bombs to their chests.
Then why do homos insist that public schools include gay sex and lifestyle in school children's text books and curriculum?

Sex education curriculum that doesn't include gay sex is irresponsible.

What "lifestyle" is included in curriculum? Why not mention that Alexander the Great was gay? Why must Walt Whitman's sexuality NOT be mentioned?
 
Neither you or any of the other anti-marriage equality folks have yet to come up with an overriding harm by allowing gay and lesbian marriage equality. (Which is why marriage equality for gays and lesbians WILL win in a Supreme Court battle)
Nope

ROFLMAO...Well, then it must be so. (Despite your not being able to come up with a single reason to deny gay and lesbian marriage equality). What color is your sky? :lol:
 
Homos want to justify their sick behavior on an elusive gene that science somehow can't find.

Homos say that they don't have a choice. They just gotta do it.

Which brings up the question:

Is there a pedophile gene?

How about a rape gene?

Or a beastiality gene?
Maybe there is. I don't think we are done mapping yet. So what if there was? You have to come up with a compelling state reason to deny equality based on those things. I'm fairly certain for pedophilia, rape and bestiality, that a compelling state reason to deny them could be argued. There is an overriding harm caused by those things, not to mention a lack of consent.

What is your compelling state reason for denying gays and lesbians marriage equality? What is the overriding harm caused by these legal unions that would hold up in court?

You are speaking a foreign language to them; reason and common sense.
Hell, even us rednecks in these parts know no one chooses what sex they get aroused from, are attracted to and fall in love with.
The problem is their failure to admit that it is all about attraction and LOVE.

I realize for some people, logic and reason need not apply. Of course, I also know that reasonable people DO read these boards and see that on one side of the argument there exists logic and reason and on the other side exists Sunni Man. :D
 
Why must Walt Whitman's sexuality NOT be mentioned?
Exactly why should the fact that he engaged in perverted sex be mentioned in a school class room?

Because it was part of who he was.

What harm is done by mentioning it? For gay youth, knowing there are famous and successful gay people "out there" is pretty helpful actually. Might even keep them from committing suicide when they are being continually bullied and taunted in school.
 
Why must Walt Whitman's sexuality NOT be mentioned?
Exactly why should the fact that he engaged in perverted sex be mentioned in a school class room?

Because it was part of who he was.

What harm is done by mentioning it? For gay youth, knowing there are famous and successful gay people "out there" is pretty helpful actually. Might even keep them from committing suicide when they are being continually bullied and taunted in school.
Guess I forgot, that in todays PC world a persons accomplishments aren't considered valid unless we know their sexual orientation. :doubt:
 
Last edited:
Sex education curriculum that doesn't include gay sex is irresponsible.

What "lifestyle" is included in curriculum? Why not mention that Alexander the Great was gay?
It's hilarious when sodomites use Alexander the Great as some kind of gay icon.

Most don't know that he became cured of his homosexuality, took a wife named Roxana, and fathered a son with her. :eusa_angel:
 
Exactly why should the fact that he engaged in perverted sex be mentioned in a school class room?

Because it was part of who he was.

What harm is done by mentioning it? For gay youth, knowing there are famous and successful gay people "out there" is pretty helpful actually. Might even keep them from committing suicide when they are being continually bullied and taunted in school.
Guess I forgot, that in todays PC world a persons accomplishments aren't considered valid unless we know their sexual orientation. :doubt:

Why shouldn't a historical figures sexual orientation be mentioned if that historical figure is being discussed. What is served by excluding that information?

I'm shooting out hypotheticals here. YOU brought up curriculum. What curriculum is it that you object to?
 
Sex education curriculum that doesn't include gay sex is irresponsible.

What "lifestyle" is included in curriculum? Why not mention that Alexander the Great was gay?
It's hilarious when sodomites use Alexander the Great as some kind of gay icon.

Most don't know that he became cured of his homosexuality, took a wife named Roxana, and fathered a son with her. :eusa_angel:

LOL...Alexander was, at best, most likely bisexual...which was pretty common at the time.

Hephaestion was a beloved of Alexander, in just the same way as Patroclus was of Achilles"

If curriculum mentions his wives, why should it not also mention Hephaestion?
 
Why shouldn't a historical figures sexual orientation be mentioned if that historical figure is being discussed. What is served by excluding that information?
What is served by including whether or not a famous writer or artist was getting his fudge packed?

Would this make his books more literary or art more artistic? :doubt:
 
Why shouldn't a historical figures sexual orientation be mentioned if that historical figure is being discussed. What is served by excluding that information?
What is served by including whether or not a famous writer or artist was getting his fudge packed?

Would this make his books more literary or art more artistic? :doubt:

It titillates College Freshmen.
 
'IF' homosexuality is a "choice" then the same must be said about heterosexuality, right? So, if the "choice" (for a man) is to engage in sex with a woman how many of you heterosexuals are "able" to choose a man instead of a woman? My guess is "none". Yet, you still think that it's a "choice?"

I'm heterosexual, and am attracted to women. I can't simply choose to change that. Apparently Ken Buck and many of our "conservative" bretheren have the ability to choose between a man or a woman and are attracted to both. Which is why they consider homosexuality (and heterosexuality) a "choice".

Seems to me that your logic is highly flawed.
 

Forum List

Back
Top