The looming war over gay marriage

[Qball]

And yes, it IS about equal rights. If it wasn't then we wouldn't be asking FOR THE EXACT SAME THING that heterosexuals already have. BTW, even if gay marriage was legal doesn't mean you have to accept it. I know some people that are against the idea of marriage in general - but obviously marriage is still legal regardless of what some may think. Legality doesn't mean that you have to accept something, so enough with the "thought police" nonsense.

But that's just it, you already have the same exact thing heterosexuals have: the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Because gays and lesbians would want to enjoin in a legalized same-sex marriage doesn't mean they're lacking equal rights; they're lacking desirable policy that reflects their preferences.

As a policy matter, you can make all the subjective arguments you want and see what happens, but when the issue trying to be resolved in court, you have to focus on the law and the constitution. In that regard, the law is equal the way it is now.

Pretty funny. Did you know that the Virginia lawyers arguing in front of the Supreme Court said almost the same thing you did...that blacks and whites have equal rights...neither is allowed to marry outside their race. How'd that argument work for them?

It failed because it wasn't true. The Virginia statute banned whites from marrying nonwhites. It wasn't true that everyone had equal rights.

And anyway, what does that have to do with anything? I know you liberals like making allusions to that case as if it's a direct parallel to anything having to do with gay marriage, but for once I'd love to see one of you properly analogize it.

My point stands. Gays have the same right as straights to marry someone of the opposite sex, so the law is equal. (I'd even take issue with the claim that "equal protection = equal treatment", but that's not necessary since the law is still applied in the same way).

 

[FA_Q2]

The real question is WHY SHOULDN’T THEY BE ALLOWED TO MARRY? I keep reading all these reasons why there is no need to allow them to marry but that is not the issue at all. The fact is that there needs to be a good reason to take away the ability for gays to marry and I have not seen ONE good answer to this. If gays are allowed to marry then there is ZERO affect on straight couples and that needs to be addressed. I still stick to my original statement though. I do not want to see the courts take this rout as they are not the lawmakers.

If you are against gay marriage then answer this one question – why should they not be allowed to marry?

 

[bodecea]

But that's just it, you already have the same exact thing heterosexuals have: the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Because gays and lesbians would want to enjoin in a legalized same-sex marriage doesn't mean they're lacking equal rights; they're lacking desirable policy that reflects their preferences.

As a policy matter, you can make all the subjective arguments you want and see what happens, but when the issue trying to be resolved in court, you have to focus on the law and the constitution. In that regard, the law is equal the way it is now.

Pretty funny. Did you know that the Virginia lawyers arguing in front of the Supreme Court said almost the same thing you did...that blacks and whites have equal rights...neither is allowed to marry outside their race. How'd that argument work for them?

It failed because it wasn't true. The Virginia statute banned whites from marrying nonwhites. It wasn't true that everyone had equal rights.

And it banned nonwhites from marrying whites....see? Equal? Laughed out of court, just like your argument.

And anyway, what does that have to do with anything? I know you liberals like making allusions to that case as if it's a direct parallel to anything having to do with gay marriage, but for once I'd love to see one of you properly analogize it.

It does have a direct parallel...it's called precedent and is used in law all the time.

My point stands. Gays have the same right as straights to marry someone of the opposite sex, so the law is equal. (I'd even take issue with the claim that "equal protection = equal treatment", but that's not necessary since the law is still applied in the same way).

So, you support discimination based on gender. That is illegal, btw.

 

[logical4u]

The real question is WHY SHOULDN’T THEY BE ALLOWED TO MARRY? I keep reading all these reasons why there is no need to allow them to marry but that is not the issue at all. The fact is that there needs to be a good reason to take away the ability for gays to marry and I have not seen ONE good answer to this. If gays are allowed to marry then there is ZERO affect on straight couples and that needs to be addressed. I still stick to my original statement though. I do not want to see the courts take this rout as they are not the lawmakers.

If you are against gay marriage then answer this one question – why should they not be allowed to marry?

This is like a question: why should it be illegal to kill society's scum? What would be wrong with that. Or: why shouldn't "poor" people be able to take/steal from wealthy corportations. How about the answer: it is wrong. Reasons have been listed, in previous posts.

Reasons have been listed, but in true lib fashion, those reasons are ignored because they cannot fit your arguement or you are unable to twist them into 'fear' or insults to the poster.

 

[bodecea]

The real question is WHY SHOULDN’T THEY BE ALLOWED TO MARRY? I keep reading all these reasons why there is no need to allow them to marry but that is not the issue at all. The fact is that there needs to be a good reason to take away the ability for gays to marry and I have not seen ONE good answer to this. If gays are allowed to marry then there is ZERO affect on straight couples and that needs to be addressed. I still stick to my original statement though. I do not want to see the courts take this rout as they are not the lawmakers.

If you are against gay marriage then answer this one question – why should they not be allowed to marry?

This is like a question: why should it be illegal to kill society's scum? What would be wrong with that. Or: why shouldn't "poor" people be able to take/steal from wealthy corportations. How about the answer: it is wrong. Reasons have been listed, in previous posts.

Reasons have been listed, but in true lib fashion, those reasons are ignored because they cannot fit your arguement or you are unable to twist them into 'fear' or insults to the poster.

You are aware that we have due process in THIS country, the United States, right? What you try to compare to legal gay marriage "kill society's scum" is nothing but murder....it says a lot more about you and what you compare gay marriage to. Fortunately you and people like you are becoming rare and will soon fade away.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is like a question: why should it be illegal to kill society's scum? What would be wrong with that.

Because vigilantes and your definition of scum is not indicative of a society of law and order. That is what the court system is for. It IS legal to kill societies scum as it should be, we call it the death penalty.

Or: why shouldn't "poor" people be able to take/steal from wealthy corportations. How about the answer: it is wrong. Reasons have been listed, in previous posts.

Because the basis of our society is the ownership of property and the concept that one must actually work and be rewarded for that work. Thievery from the rich to give to the poor is what we call socialism and is NOT an effective form of economics. Oddly enough, the libs would actually agree with you that this should not be illegal

Reasons have been listed, but in true lib fashion, those reasons are ignored because they cannot fit your arguement or you are unable to twist them into 'fear' or insults to the poster.

For one, I AM NOT A LIB, please don’t insult me For another, I have not come across any good reasons yet so please paraphrase what you think are the strong ones. I would bet dimes to donuts that they are poor reasons at best.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

But that's just it, you already have the same exact thing heterosexuals have: the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Because gays and lesbians would want to enjoin in a legalized same-sex marriage doesn't mean they're lacking equal rights; they're lacking desirable policy that reflects their preferences.

As a policy matter, you can make all the subjective arguments you want and see what happens, but when the issue trying to be resolved in court, you have to focus on the law and the constitution. In that regard, the law is equal the way it is now.

Pretty funny. Did you know that the Virginia lawyers arguing in front of the Supreme Court said almost the same thing you did...that blacks and whites have equal rights...neither is allowed to marry outside their race. How'd that argument work for them?

It failed because it wasn't true. The Virginia statute banned whites from marrying nonwhites. It wasn't true that everyone had equal rights.

And anyway, what does that have to do with anything? I know you liberals like making allusions to that case as if it's a direct parallel to anything having to do with gay marriage, but for once I'd love to see one of you properly analogize it.

My point stands. Gays have the same right as straights to marry someone of the opposite sex, so the law is equal. (I'd even take issue with the claim that "equal protection = equal treatment", but that's not necessary since the law is still applied in the same way).

Loring was about: The 14th amendment

"It wasn't true that everyone had equal rights."

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

14th amendment
Section 1.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

[logical4u]

This is like a question: why should it be illegal to kill society's scum? What would be wrong with that.

Because vigilantes and your definition of scum is not indicative of a society of law and order. That is what the court system is for. It IS legal to kill societies scum as it should be, we call it the death penalty.

Or: why shouldn't "poor" people be able to take/steal from wealthy corportations. How about the answer: it is wrong. Reasons have been listed, in previous posts.

Because the basis of our society is the ownership of property and the concept that one must actually work and be rewarded for that work. Thievery from the rich to give to the poor is what we call socialism and is NOT an effective form of economics. Oddly enough, the libs would actually agree with you that this should not be illegal

Reasons have been listed, but in true lib fashion, those reasons are ignored because they cannot fit your arguement or you are unable to twist them into 'fear' or insults to the poster.

For one, I AM NOT A LIB, please don’t insult me For another, I have not come across any good reasons yet so please paraphrase what you think are the strong ones. I would bet dimes to donuts that they are poor reasons at best.

Read the previous posts.

 

[Father Time]

This is like a question: why should it be illegal to kill society's scum? What would be wrong with that.

Because vigilantes and your definition of scum is not indicative of a society of law and order. That is what the court system is for. It IS legal to kill societies scum as it should be, we call it the death penalty.


Because the basis of our society is the ownership of property and the concept that one must actually work and be rewarded for that work. Thievery from the rich to give to the poor is what we call socialism and is NOT an effective form of economics. Oddly enough, the libs would actually agree with you that this should not be illegal

Reasons have been listed, but in true lib fashion, those reasons are ignored because they cannot fit your arguement or you are unable to twist them into 'fear' or insults to the poster.

For one, I AM NOT A LIB, please don’t insult me For another, I have not come across any good reasons yet so please paraphrase what you think are the strong ones. I would bet dimes to donuts that they are poor reasons at best.

Read the previous posts.

I haven't seen a single post where you've given a good reason show them to us again.

 

[logical4u]

The real question is WHY SHOULDN’T THEY BE ALLOWED TO MARRY? I keep reading all these reasons why there is no need to allow them to marry but that is not the issue at all. The fact is that there needs to be a good reason to take away the ability for gays to marry and I have not seen ONE good answer to this. If gays are allowed to marry then there is ZERO affect on straight couples and that needs to be addressed. I still stick to my original statement though. I do not want to see the courts take this rout as they are not the lawmakers.

If you are against gay marriage then answer this one question – why should they not be allowed to marry?

This is like a question: why should it be illegal to kill society's scum? What would be wrong with that. Or: why shouldn't "poor" people be able to take/steal from wealthy corportations. How about the answer: it is wrong. Reasons have been listed, in previous posts.

Reasons have been listed, but in true lib fashion, those reasons are ignored because they cannot fit your arguement or you are unable to twist them into 'fear' or insults to the poster.

You are aware that we have due process in THIS country, the United States, right? What you try to compare to legal gay marriage "kill society's scum" is nothing but murder....it says a lot more about you and what you compare gay marriage to. Fortunately you and people like you are becoming rare and will soon fade away.

I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of the question. If the laws are going to be based on what a small percentage of the population wants, why not pass laws that are just as silly. I have repeatedly asked what benefit same sex marriage offers society with no response. It is all about what a SMALL percentage WANTS. There is no legal leg to stand on, no physical equivalent to 'interracial marriage', no logic, just a SMALL percentage saying 'give it to me, because I look at it THIS way'.

I was not comparing homosexuals to murderers: those that were killing law breakers (the scum of society) would be benefiting society by saving the costs for investigations, trials, incarcerations, etc (it would not be acceptable, because of where it COULD lead).

Gays have the right to "marry", they can marry a person of the opposite sex that agrees to marry them.
Because the gov/society has said' that', is not acceptable (different from tolerated), gays want to use civil rights as a tool to force their lifestyle to be 'legitimized' and to place the costs of their 'choices' onto the taxpayer (medicare, medicaid, social security collected thru a spouse).

 

[Father Time]

This is like a question: why should it be illegal to kill society's scum? What would be wrong with that. Or: why shouldn't "poor" people be able to take/steal from wealthy corportations. How about the answer: it is wrong. Reasons have been listed, in previous posts.

Reasons have been listed, but in true lib fashion, those reasons are ignored because they cannot fit your arguement or you are unable to twist them into 'fear' or insults to the poster.

You are aware that we have due process in THIS country, the United States, right? What you try to compare to legal gay marriage "kill society's scum" is nothing but murder....it says a lot more about you and what you compare gay marriage to. Fortunately you and people like you are becoming rare and will soon fade away.

I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of the question. If the laws are going to be based on what a small percentage of the population wants, why not pass laws that are just as silly. I have repeatedly asked what benefit same sex marriage offers society with no response.

They can adopt kids and take some burden off the state. I thought I mentioned that before.

 

[Vortex]

If homosexuality is natural then why doesn't one of the gay guys have a vagoo?

Or one of the gay ladies have a penor?

That would seem natural to me.

 

[FA_Q2]

This is like a question: why should it be illegal to kill society's scum? What would be wrong with that. Or: why shouldn't "poor" people be able to take/steal from wealthy corportations. How about the answer: it is wrong. Reasons have been listed, in previous posts.

Reasons have been listed, but in true lib fashion, those reasons are ignored because they cannot fit your arguement or you are unable to twist them into 'fear' or insults to the poster.

You are aware that we have due process in THIS country, the United States, right? What you try to compare to legal gay marriage "kill society's scum" is nothing but murder....it says a lot more about you and what you compare gay marriage to. Fortunately you and people like you are becoming rare and will soon fade away.

I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of the question. If the laws are going to be based on what a small percentage of the population wants, why not pass laws that are just as silly. I have repeatedly asked what benefit same sex marriage offers society with no response. It is all about what a SMALL percentage WANTS. There is no legal leg to stand on, no physical equivalent to 'interracial marriage', no logic, just a SMALL percentage saying 'give it to me, because I look at it THIS way'.

And as I pointed out that is untrue. There are some benefits for society for recognizing marriage of gay couples, mainly the EXACT SAME benefits for society that straight couples give minus the ability to have children. Children are not the only benefit to marriage. Stable family units and the ability to adopt are some of these benefits. It is not a ridiculous question.

In at least one state (CA) it is not a matter of the few saying give it to me as the law was rewritten to disallow gays. That makes the majority saying you can’t have it. The fact is there are many positive things for both society and the gay community themselves to allow state recognized long term and stable relationships for gays.

I was not comparing homosexuals to murderers: those that were killing law breakers (the scum of society) would be benefiting society by saving the costs for investigations, trials, incarcerations, etc (it would not be acceptable, because of where it COULD lead).

Gays have the right to "marry", they can marry a person of the opposite sex that agrees to marry them.
Because the gov/society has said' that', is not acceptable (different from tolerated), gays want to use civil rights as a tool to force their lifestyle to be 'legitimized' and to place the costs of their 'choices' onto the taxpayer (medicare, medicaid, social security collected thru a spouse).

Once again, why would so called ‘legitimizing’ gay INDIVIDUALS be such an abhorrent thing in this land of equality and opportunity. Are you afraid of the choice of gay? I would point out that gay is not a choice so I see no reason to ostracize them.

 

[JD_2B]

I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of the question. If the laws are going to be based on what a small percentage of the population wants, why not pass laws that are just as silly.

Claiming that a small percentage of the population is undeserving of equal rights to the remaining larger percentage of the country, is a logical fallicy. That is like saying that dwarfs (little people) are in such small number, so to tell them that they can't marry other dwarfs just because there is a higher chance of the children suffering from dwarfism, is truly just oppressive.

I have repeatedly asked what benefit same sex marriage offers society with no response. It is all about what a SMALL percentage WANTS. There is no legal leg to stand on, no physical equivalent to 'interracial marriage', no logic, just a SMALL percentage saying 'give it to me, because I look at it THIS way'.

How nice of you to compare gay marriage to interracial marriage. Let's talk slavery also. Surely you understand that the basis for oppression against certain groups stems from not understanding them as people.
Also, your own logical fallicy that the small percentage groups are unimportant, should tell you to stop fighting so hard to keep them (the unimportant, the irrelevant) from being able to do the same things that the rest of society does.

I was not comparing homosexuals to murderers: those that were killing law breakers (the scum of society) would be benefiting society by saving the costs for investigations, trials, incarcerations, etc (it would not be acceptable, because of where it COULD lead).

??? Many, no- MOST states are pretty lax about vigilante justice in terms of protecting one's self and one's property, and have been for many years. PLUS the murder rate is down.
So where exactly could this all lead?? LOL!!

Gays have the right to "marry", they can marry a person of the opposite sex that agrees to marry them.

Same argument used towards blacks in response to them wanting to marry/ become integrated into society fully, and not have to use separate bathroom facilities, sit elsewhere, etc. Try again.

Because the gov/society has said' that', is not acceptable (different from tolerated), gays want to use civil rights as a tool to force their lifestyle to be 'legitimized' and to place the costs of their 'choices' onto the taxpayer (medicare, medicaid, social security collected thru a spouse).

Awww GEE whiz. Do you realize that married homosexuals would qualify for insurance benefits, and pension benefits, and many other types of trusts and contractual benefits that they do NOT qualify for now? Have you ever considered that having life insurance and such might keep someone from having to apply for those services?? PS- One does not need to be married to collect medicare, medicaid, or Social Security.
PSS- People pay INTO social security. It is not an "entitlement", it is earned.
Try try again..

 

[logical4u]

You are aware that we have due process in THIS country, the United States, right? What you try to compare to legal gay marriage "kill society's scum" is nothing but murder....it says a lot more about you and what you compare gay marriage to. Fortunately you and people like you are becoming rare and will soon fade away.

I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of the question. If the laws are going to be based on what a small percentage of the population wants, why not pass laws that are just as silly. I have repeatedly asked what benefit same sex marriage offers society with no response.

They can adopt kids and take some burden off the state. I thought I mentioned that before.

You do not need to be married to adopt kids to take the burden off the state.

 

[logical4u]

You are aware that we have due process in THIS country, the United States, right? What you try to compare to legal gay marriage "kill society's scum" is nothing but murder....it says a lot more about you and what you compare gay marriage to. Fortunately you and people like you are becoming rare and will soon fade away.

I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of the question. If the laws are going to be based on what a small percentage of the population wants, why not pass laws that are just as silly. I have repeatedly asked what benefit same sex marriage offers society with no response. It is all about what a SMALL percentage WANTS. There is no legal leg to stand on, no physical equivalent to 'interracial marriage', no logic, just a SMALL percentage saying 'give it to me, because I look at it THIS way'.

And as I pointed out that is untrue. There are some benefits for society for recognizing marriage of gay couples, mainly the EXACT SAME benefits for society that straight couples give minus the ability to have children. Children are not the only benefit to marriage. Stable family units and the ability to adopt are some of these benefits. It is not a ridiculous question.

In at least one state (CA) it is not a matter of the few saying give it to me as the law was rewritten to disallow gays. That makes the majority saying you can’t have it. The fact is there are many positive things for both society and the gay community themselves to allow state recognized long term and stable relationships for gays.

I was not comparing homosexuals to murderers: those that were killing law breakers (the scum of society) would be benefiting society by saving the costs for investigations, trials, incarcerations, etc (it would not be acceptable, because of where it COULD lead).

Gays have the right to "marry", they can marry a person of the opposite sex that agrees to marry them.
Because the gov/society has said' that', is not acceptable (different from tolerated), gays want to use civil rights as a tool to force their lifestyle to be 'legitimized' and to place the costs of their 'choices' onto the taxpayer (medicare, medicaid, social security collected thru a spouse).

Once again, why would so called ‘legitimizing’ gay INDIVIDUALS be such an abhorrent thing in this land of equality and opportunity. Are you afraid of the choice of gay? I would point out that gay is not a choice so I see no reason to ostracize them.

Any point made with "x" is exactly the same as "y" makes that point irrelevant.

If "gay" is not a choice, why are there ex-homosexuals? Why are there people that are attracted to the same sex, but use self control and do not act on those 'temptations'?

"Legitimizing" homosexual marriage would go against 'moral' laws (the ten Commandments) and cause many more problems for society. It would not be beneficial to society or people. It would only serve to give those that do not use self-control the right to 'use' & 'abuse' others.

 

[FA_Q2]

"Legitimizing" homosexual marriage would go against 'moral' laws (the ten Commandments) and cause many more problems for society. It would not be beneficial to society or people. It would only serve to give those that do not use self-control the right to 'use' & 'abuse' others.

And here you fail at pointing out ANY of those ills that it will cause for society. Here is one moral for you - marriage helps curtail infidelity. It builds a more stable relationship where there is more to a couple than fickle feelings. Legitimizing gays would not go against ANY MORAL LAW AT ALL. Forget that the 10 commandments are not law either. DO NOT BRING RELIGON INTO THIS. That is a massive false argument. Religion is NOT the base of state marriage or else atheists would be SOL.

If "gay" is not a choice, why are there ex-homosexuals? Why are there people that are attracted to the same sex, but use self control and do not act on those 'temptations'?

So you are telling me that one day you woke up and said “hey I think I am going to be attracted to the opposite sex from now on.” Bullshit. It happens automatically and without your consent. I do not choose what arouses me, that is in my biology.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

"Legitimizing" homosexual marriage would go against 'moral' laws (the ten Commandments).

Nobody does a better job than you do of arguing against laws prohibiting same sex marriage.

 

[Father Time]

I was trying to point out the ridiculousness of the question. If the laws are going to be based on what a small percentage of the population wants, why not pass laws that are just as silly. I have repeatedly asked what benefit same sex marriage offers society with no response. It is all about what a SMALL percentage WANTS. There is no legal leg to stand on, no physical equivalent to 'interracial marriage', no logic, just a SMALL percentage saying 'give it to me, because I look at it THIS way'.

And as I pointed out that is untrue. There are some benefits for society for recognizing marriage of gay couples, mainly the EXACT SAME benefits for society that straight couples give minus the ability to have children. Children are not the only benefit to marriage. Stable family units and the ability to adopt are some of these benefits. It is not a ridiculous question.

In at least one state (CA) it is not a matter of the few saying give it to me as the law was rewritten to disallow gays. That makes the majority saying you can’t have it. The fact is there are many positive things for both society and the gay community themselves to allow state recognized long term and stable relationships for gays.

I was not comparing homosexuals to murderers: those that were killing law breakers (the scum of society) would be benefiting society by saving the costs for investigations, trials, incarcerations, etc (it would not be acceptable, because of where it COULD lead).

Gays have the right to "marry", they can marry a person of the opposite sex that agrees to marry them.
Because the gov/society has said' that', is not acceptable (different from tolerated), gays want to use civil rights as a tool to force their lifestyle to be 'legitimized' and to place the costs of their 'choices' onto the taxpayer (medicare, medicaid, social security collected thru a spouse).

Once again, why would so called ‘legitimizing’ gay INDIVIDUALS be such an abhorrent thing in this land of equality and opportunity. Are you afraid of the choice of gay? I would point out that gay is not a choice so I see no reason to ostracize them.

Any point made with "x" is exactly the same as "y" makes that point irrelevant.

If "gay" is not a choice, why are there ex-homosexuals? Why are there people that are attracted to the same sex, but use self control and do not act on those 'temptations'?

They're probably bi.