Texas vs Gay Sex Marriage. Are Behaviors The Same As Race?

[JGalt]

May well? So how do you know that? Is this something you know or something you heard?

LOL- you seem to want to believe that the only possible options are 'choice' or 'genetics'- science does not support either of those options.

The best alternative I have seen is epigenetics- but I no more care why someone is homosexual than I care why someone is left handed.

Some people are homosexuals- some people are left handed. Why they are is immaterial.

The only possible options are genetics or choice. First off, race is genetic. No matter what anyone says, you can't choose to be a black man. Or a white man. You were born the race you are. You can go through your life acting like a black man, but you're not.

Like race, our sexual identity is determined by our DNA. You are born either a man or a woman with the exception of an occasional freak of nature, which creates a hermaphrodite.

But a man going through life thinking he's a woman, or vice versa, is deceiving themselves into thinking they are something they're not. Worse yet, a person who surgically alters their own body to become something they're not, is committing a grievous crime against nature.

Religion is not genetic. Religion is a lifestyle choice. Owning a gun is not genetic. Owning a gun is a lifestyle choice.

What did my post say about religion or owning a gun? The point is that race and sex are both genetic.

So circumcision is a grievous crime against nature? What about shaving and getting haircuts?

I already posted that. Circumcision continues the species, since there are less diseases caused by uncircumcised dicks. And fewer head lice by shaving and getting a haircut.

 

[RKMBrown]

Religion is not genetic. Religion is a lifestyle choice. Owning a gun is not genetic. Owning a gun is a lifestyle choice.

What did my post say about religion or owning a gun? The point is that race and sex are both genetic.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

ROFL yeah cause everyone knows constitutional protections are only for genetic stuff... ROLLS EYES...

 

[Syriusly]

Religion is not genetic. Religion is a lifestyle choice. Owning a gun is not genetic. Owning a gun is a lifestyle choice.

What did my post say about religion or owning a gun? The point is that race and sex are both genetic.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

 

[Silhouette]

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

Yes dear, but polygamy and incest are also behaviors. Why aren't they getting special protection from majority regulation?

 

[JGalt]

What did my post say about religion or owning a gun? The point is that race and sex are both genetic.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

The Constitution prohibits religious displays, based on the First Amendment. Putting a statue with the Ten Commandments on a public building is not allowed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court made that ruling today. Yet you're saying the Constitution should protect immoral behavior like Sodomy? Did you study the U.S. Constitution when Obama was teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago or something?

 

[JGalt]

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

Yes dear, but polygamy and incest are also behaviors. Why aren't they getting special protection from majority regulation?

I can answer that: Because polygamy, bestiality, and incest are not based on genetics, like race or sex. The Constitution protects races or sexes, but not deviant behavior. (Unless you count unlimited terms for Senators and Congressmen).

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What did my post say about religion or owning a gun? The point is that race and sex are both genetic.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

ROFL yeah cause everyone knows constitutional protections are only for genetic stuff... ROLLS EYES...

Reader, understand that the origin of the Genetic Argument is the Ideological Left, who claimed equity with Legal Precedent regarding Race for the Homosexuals, on the basis that Homosexuality is GENETIC... 'THEY'RE BORN THAT WAY, THEY HAVE NO CHOICE'...

The relevance of Genetics is just THAT... And today, in the wake of the finality which comes with the knowledge that there is NO GENETIC component to Homosexuality, you need to continue to claim relevance with RACE, while rejecting any responsibility for your claim that Genetics was the key to your claim.

Not to worry, we, the Americans, will be here for you, to hold you accountable.

 

[OKTexas]

What did my post say about religion or owning a gun? The point is that race and sex are both genetic.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

Every thought that might be the reason religion is protected under a separate amendment?

 

[JGalt]

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

ROFL yeah cause everyone knows constitutional protections are only for genetic stuff... ROLLS EYES...

Reader, understand that the origin of the Genetic Argument is the Ideological Left, who claimed equity with Legal Precedent regarding Race for the Homosexuals, on the basis that Homosexuality is GENETIC... 'THEY'RE BORN THAT WAY, THEY HAVE NO CHOICE'...

The relevance of Genetics is just THAT... And today, in the wake of the finality which comes with the knowledge that there is NO GENETIC component to Homosexuality, you need to continue to claim relevance with RACE, while rejecting any responsibility for your claim that Genetics was the key to your claim.

Not to worry, we, the Americans, will be here for you, to hold you accountable.

You nailed it.

 

[JGalt]

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

Every thought that might be the reason religion is protected under a separate amendment?

The framers of the Constitution were smarter than people think they are. The First Amendment both protects and disallows religion.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

The Constitution prohibits religious displays, based on the First Amendment. Putting a statue with the Ten Commandments on a public building is not allowed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court made that ruling today. Yet you're saying the Constitution should protect immoral behavior like Sodomy? Did you study the U.S. Constitution when Obama was teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago or something?

Given your ignorance of the law you're in no position to question anyone else.

An example of your ignorance is the fact that 'sodomy laws' criminalizing homosexuality were struck down as un-Constitutional in 2003. (Lawrence v. Texas)

Consequently, homosexuality is neither 'immoral behavior' nor 'sodomy.' Gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty of choice guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

So all behavior is equal?

ROFL!

Reader... The PROBLEM is doing a great job of exposing itself in this thread. Feel free to grab some of those clues, there seems to be an endless supply today.

 

[Seawytch]

LOL- you seem to want to believe that the only possible options are 'choice' or 'genetics'- science does not support either of those options.

The best alternative I have seen is epigenetics- but I no more care why someone is homosexual than I care why someone is left handed.

Some people are homosexuals- some people are left handed. Why they are is immaterial.

The only possible options are genetics or choice. First off, race is genetic. No matter what anyone says, you can't choose to be a black man. Or a white man. You were born the race you are. You can go through your life acting like a black man, but you're not.

Like race, our sexual identity is determined by our DNA. You are born either a man or a woman with the exception of an occasional freak of nature, which creates a hermaphrodite.

But a man going through life thinking he's a woman, or vice versa, is deceiving themselves into thinking they are something they're not. Worse yet, a person who surgically alters their own body to become something they're not, is committing a grievous crime against nature.

Religion is not genetic. Religion is a lifestyle choice. Owning a gun is not genetic. Owning a gun is a lifestyle choice.

What did my post say about religion or owning a gun? The point is that race and sex are both genetic.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

Actually, they were afraid it would lead to interracial marriage. Those bigots were right. Oh well.

 

[OKTexas]

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

Every thought that might be the reason religion is protected under a separate amendment?

The framers of the Constitution were smarter than people think they are. The First Amendment both protects and disallows religion.

No where does the 1st disallow religion, it disallows federal imposition of religion.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

Every thought that might be the reason religion is protected under a separate amendment?

The framers of the Constitution were smarter than people think they are. The First Amendment both protects and disallows religion.

Oh the Founders were in possession of intellects beyond anything present today...

Of course, few people on this board could pass an 8th grade Civics Test from 1895. So... well... you know.

But the 1st amendment in no way disallows religion.

What the First Amendment does it to preclude the Federal Government from establishing a law that in any way effects the means of the individual to freely exercise their religion.

Which the SCOTUS just did, in SPADES.

 

[OKTexas]

The only possible options are genetics or choice. First off, race is genetic. No matter what anyone says, you can't choose to be a black man. Or a white man. You were born the race you are. You can go through your life acting like a black man, but you're not.

Like race, our sexual identity is determined by our DNA. You are born either a man or a woman with the exception of an occasional freak of nature, which creates a hermaphrodite.

But a man going through life thinking he's a woman, or vice versa, is deceiving themselves into thinking they are something they're not. Worse yet, a person who surgically alters their own body to become something they're not, is committing a grievous crime against nature.

Religion is not genetic. Religion is a lifestyle choice. Owning a gun is not genetic. Owning a gun is a lifestyle choice.

What did my post say about religion or owning a gun? The point is that race and sex are both genetic.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

Actually, they were afraid it would lead to interracial marriage. Those bigots were right. Oh well.

Link?

 

[JGalt]

Well, not any more, they did. How about you prove that the folks who proposed and ratified the 14th Amendment did so with the expressed intent to overturn the marriage laws in every State of the union.

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

The Constitution prohibits religious displays, based on the First Amendment. Putting a statue with the Ten Commandments on a public building is not allowed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court made that ruling today. Yet you're saying the Constitution should protect immoral behavior like Sodomy? Did you study the U.S. Constitution when Obama was teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago or something?

Given your ignorance of the law you're in no position to question anyone else.

An example of your ignorance is the fact that 'sodomy laws' criminalizing homosexuality were struck down as un-Constitutional in 2003. (Lawrence v. Texas)

Consequently, homosexuality is neither 'immoral behavior' nor 'sodomy.' Gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty of choice guaranteed by the Constitution.

We get those kind of rulings when the Supreme Court gets packed with liberal hacks. The law was only struck down in Texas, which is why we used to say "There's nothing in Texas but steers and queers."

 

[Syriusly]

LOL- you seem to want to believe that the only possible options are 'choice' or 'genetics'- science does not support either of those options.

The best alternative I have seen is epigenetics- but I no more care why someone is homosexual than I care why someone is left handed.

Some people are homosexuals- some people are left handed. Why they are is immaterial.

The only possible options are genetics or choice. First off, race is genetic. No matter what anyone says, you can't choose to be a black man. Or a white man. You were born the race you are. You can go through your life acting like a black man, but you're not.

Like race, our sexual identity is determined by our DNA. You are born either a man or a woman with the exception of an occasional freak of nature, which creates a hermaphrodite.

But a man going through life thinking he's a woman, or vice versa, is deceiving themselves into thinking they are something they're not. Worse yet, a person who surgically alters their own body to become something they're not, is committing a grievous crime against nature.

Religion is not genetic. Religion is a lifestyle choice. Owning a gun is not genetic. Owning a gun is a lifestyle choice.

What did my post say about religion or owning a gun? The point is that race and sex are both genetic.

So circumcision is a grievous crime against nature? What about shaving and getting haircuts?

I already posted that. Circumcision continues the species, since there are less diseases caused by uncircumcised dicks. And fewer head lice by shaving and getting a haircut.

And clearly both are Against the Laws of Nature.......

 

[Syriusly]

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

The Constitution prohibits religious displays, based on the First Amendment. Putting a statue with the Ten Commandments on a public building is not allowed. The Oklahoma Supreme Court made that ruling today. Yet you're saying the Constitution should protect immoral behavior like Sodomy? Did you study the U.S. Constitution when Obama was teaching Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago or something?

Given your ignorance of the law you're in no position to question anyone else.

An example of your ignorance is the fact that 'sodomy laws' criminalizing homosexuality were struck down as un-Constitutional in 2003. (Lawrence v. Texas)

Consequently, homosexuality is neither 'immoral behavior' nor 'sodomy.' Gay Americans are entitled to the protected liberty of choice guaranteed by the Constitution.

We get those kind of rulings when the Supreme Court gets packed with liberal hacks. The law was only struck down in Texas, which is why we used to say "There's nothing in Texas but steers and queers."

We get these kinds of rulings when we have a court which tells Christian Conservatives that States should not be telling Americans who they can have sex with- or what kind of sex they can.

Conservatives like you want the government policing our bedrooms.

The Supreme Court says you can't.

 

[JGalt]

Whether gay people are born that way or not is irrelevant. Civil rights under the Constitution of the United States of America have no meaningful connection to genetics.

It's very relevant. If homosexuality is a behavior instead of a genetic issue such as race or sex, it has no business being lumped in with constitutional protections of race and gender. Period.

If homosexuality is a behavior- then it is a behavior- just like religion is behavior.

Rights in the Constitution are not based upon genetics.

Every thought that might be the reason religion is protected under a separate amendment?

The framers of the Constitution were smarter than people think they are. The First Amendment both protects and disallows religion.

Oh the Founders were in possession of intellects beyond anything present today...

Of course, few people on this board could pass an 8th grade Civics Test from 1895. So... well... you know.

But the 1st amendment in no way disallows religion.

What the First Amendment does it to preclude the Federal Government from establishing a law that in any way effects the means of the individual to freely exercise their religion.

Which the SCOTUS just did, in SPADES.

That makes sense. But how would you explain the stories of Christian displays being removed from public buildings, as in Oklahoma today?