What difference does it make if being gay is genetic or if it's a choice?

[badger2]

The LGBTQ vote is misdirected, especially as America suffered the raunchy violence of b.l.m.-a.n.t.i.f.a racism and destruction as the dems did a voyeur imitation. In addition, Amy knows that, a la Freud's inner circle, the female who aligns herself with the christian trinity has only two choices: ecstatic melancholy or thinking of herself as a male homosexual. Amy does not seem to express any melancholic symptoms at this time, so will probably be an excellent (neutral [italics]) judge in upcoming LGBTQ cases.

 

[Dragonlady]

Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the fuck what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?

Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.

www.usatoday.com

If being gay is genetic, it can't be changed. If being gay is a choice, YOU can make a different choice, and society can and will shun you if you don't, because you don't have to be that way and we don't have to accept you. The right is very big on declaring being "gay" a choice. That way they can send you for re-programming and say its for you own good. If being gay is genetic, that would be torture.

ACB refused to answer when asked if she would criminalize gay sex. The questions she refused to answer, were very telling indeed. Would she overturn an election? There is only one answer under the Constitution and that's "No". She said it would depend on the evidence presented.

There is a huge movement on the elite right to save Downs Syndrome babies from abortion, and it is noteable that she has a Downs child because Republican Senators all made a big deal about it. Down's children are very sweet and adoreable, and there used to be a lot more of them. Genetic testing has drastically reduced their numbers and had my last pregnancy been a Downs child, I would have aborted the pregancy.

I have friends with Downs children, and I've seen their needs overwhelm families. These children will never be independent and required special education and care all of their lives. Even in Canada, where there are a lot of government supports, it's very expensive and you have to advocate for your child's needs constantly. As you age, their needs grow, and by the time you're my age, they need a level of care I would not be able to provide at this stage of my life, either physically or financially.

A wealthy lawyer I worked for had handicapped child. He was in a very expensive residential care facility because of violent outbursts. His Dad was 6' 4" and large framed and they couldn't manage him. The parents were approaching 70, and they had a trust fund set up to ensure his care there for life - even after his parents passed. There was more than a million dollars in that trust.

If you're not a wealthy person who can afford to hire caregivers, special classes, and treatment facilities, both the financial and physical needs will overwhelm you. If you have other children, the needs of the Downs child will swamp a family, both emotionally and financially. And every parent has to face the moment when they can't anymore, and send the child to live in a "home" forever. One older mother told me that her child was now basically alone (husband dead, mother ill, no siblings), and would be for the rest of his life. If she had it to do over, she would have terminated the pregancy, not for her sake, but for his.

The anti-abortionists are big on saving the lives of Downs babies, with little thought to the lives they'll have or how their parents will cope, if they're born into poverty.

 

[80zephyr]

billions of people, billions of reasons why, certainly not just one or the other reason

I agree, but that misses the point of my question.

Democrats consider it an insult now to call gay a "preference." They demand it's not a choice.

My question is why? What difference does it make?

To me, I oppose discriminating against gays whether it's genetic or a preference. I oppose giving gays party favors and government handouts whether it's a preference or genetic. But that applies to every group, not just gays.

Why do leftists find it so critical that it's genetic and not a preference? That's my question

Because its not discrimination if its a choice.

And it is a choice.

Mark

I don't follow your logic, can you break it down for me a little more?

I think government should treat all citizens the same. Do you agree with that?

If someone is left handed (genetic) or a baseball player (choice), should either matter?

The government should. But they SHOULD NOT, thru the force of law make me do so. And that is what they are doing.

Mark

OK, I agree with that. But I did say in the OP, " it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with."

Meaning government should do nothing for them or against them for being gay regardless of whether it's a choice or not.

I believe government should tread ALL citizens the same. Which means no redistribution of wealth as taking money from one citizen and giving it to another is clearly not treating us the same.

I also oppose government marriage for the same reason. Coupling shouldn't entitle anyone to government perks at the expense of others.

That way we really treat gays like anyone else. No government marriage or the associated handouts for anyone, gay or straight

The "handouts" are too promote children. I see nothing wrong with that. Even if government didn't provide a license, you would still need some type of contract. I see no problem with a license.

Mark

 

[kaz]

This is a really strange whine since both sides argue over whether its genetic or not...but your "what difference does it make" is only directed at the folks living the experience and not the right whangers whining the opposite.

Partisan whine thread #6, 472, 836

I'm "whining" that I don't care if gay is genetic or not and I don't think it should make any difference.

Government schools just fucked you up. I'm so sorry for you, shit head

You're whining towards Gays / the left that you don't care...while the Right is also involved in the argument. That's what makes it another partisan whine show, same shit different day.

So yes, we know you're stupid and you didn't actually read the OP. You already announced that.

So which part do you disagree with me on?

1) It doesn't matter if it's genetic or a choice

2) Either way gays should be treated like anyone else. No better, no worse

I want to get to what you consider "whining."

Did they tell you to hate gays at your bigoted, extremist Christian church? Has a black or a gay ever gone to your church? What's the source of your homophobia?

The part I took issue with was you calling out democrats for making this genetic/not genetic argument when it's the right making/partaking in this argument as well. You excluded that from the OP - cuz you're a little partisan whiny bitch. I saw through it. News at 11. It's not that difficult to recognize your partisan oversight in excluding the right for their part in the argument that you're "sick of." Whiney.

I'll never grasp hard right wing Christian bigots like you who hate blacks and gays. Why do you care what other people do? What is your problem with treating everyone the same?

I asked a question and clearly advocated to the right and left my view that gays regardless of the answer should be treated like anyone else.

But some right wing hate filled Christian bigot like you is going to come in and dump all over any conversation, aren't you? Why? Because some guy said 2,000 years ago that gay is an abomination?

Why don't you let God worry about the judging? I'm not like you. I think God won't have a problem with consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone.

On a side note, are you ready to stop being a dick and attacking things I didn't say and participate in the actual discussion? I'm guessing no

 

[Blues Man]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitled to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

 

[Dragonlady]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

How is marriage being "watered down". Gay marriage has done NOTHING to affect my marriage, or life in my country. If anything, gay marriage has actually strengthened marriage. Most young people thought marriage was "old fashioned" and a lot of young people were just cohabitting - no messy court cases when you go your own way, but when gay marriage became a thing, people starting thinking that maybe it wasn't old fashioned at all. The fact that gays valued marriage so much, encouraged young straight people give it a second look.

 

[kaz]

billions of people, billions of reasons why, certainly not just one or the other reason

I agree, but that misses the point of my question.

Democrats consider it an insult now to call gay a "preference." They demand it's not a choice.

My question is why? What difference does it make?

To me, I oppose discriminating against gays whether it's genetic or a preference. I oppose giving gays party favors and government handouts whether it's a preference or genetic. But that applies to every group, not just gays.

Why do leftists find it so critical that it's genetic and not a preference? That's my question

Because its not discrimination if its a choice.

And it is a choice.

Mark

I don't follow your logic, can you break it down for me a little more?

I think government should treat all citizens the same. Do you agree with that?

If someone is left handed (genetic) or a baseball player (choice), should either matter?

The government should. But they SHOULD NOT, thru the force of law make me do so. And that is what they are doing.

Mark

OK, I agree with that. But I did say in the OP, " it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with."

Meaning government should do nothing for them or against them for being gay regardless of whether it's a choice or not.

I believe government should tread ALL citizens the same. Which means no redistribution of wealth as taking money from one citizen and giving it to another is clearly not treating us the same.

I also oppose government marriage for the same reason. Coupling shouldn't entitle anyone to government perks at the expense of others.

That way we really treat gays like anyone else. No government marriage or the associated handouts for anyone, gay or straight

The "handouts" are too promote children. I see nothing wrong with that. Even if government didn't provide a license, you would still need some type of contract. I see no problem with a license.

Mark

You could have a contract without government "marriage." Government marriage is not a contract. A contract is between two parties. It doesn't involve other people. Government marriage clearly is a government program.

And if you can't afford to have kids, you shouldn't have them. You certainly shouldn't be getting someone else's money to raise them. What kind of a welfare program is that?

 

[kaz]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

 

[G.T.]

This is a really strange whine since both sides argue over whether its genetic or not...but your "what difference does it make" is only directed at the folks living the experience and not the right whangers whining the opposite.

Partisan whine thread #6, 472, 836

I'm "whining" that I don't care if gay is genetic or not and I don't think it should make any difference.

Government schools just fucked you up. I'm so sorry for you, shit head

You're whining towards Gays / the left that you don't care...while the Right is also involved in the argument. That's what makes it another partisan whine show, same shit different day.

So yes, we know you're stupid and you didn't actually read the OP. You already announced that.

So which part do you disagree with me on?

1) It doesn't matter if it's genetic or a choice

2) Either way gays should be treated like anyone else. No better, no worse

I want to get to what you consider "whining."

Did they tell you to hate gays at your bigoted, extremist Christian church? Has a black or a gay ever gone to your church? What's the source of your homophobia?

The part I took issue with was you calling out democrats for making this genetic/not genetic argument when it's the right making/partaking in this argument as well. You excluded that from the OP - cuz you're a little partisan whiny bitch. I saw through it. News at 11. It's not that difficult to recognize your partisan oversight in excluding the right for their part in the argument that you're "sick of." Whiney.

I'll never grasp hard right wing Christian bigots like you who hate blacks and gays. Why do you care what other people do? What is your problem with treating everyone the same?

I asked a question and clearly advocated to the right and left my view that gays regardless of the answer should be treated like anyone else.

But some right wing hate filled Christian bigot like you is going to come in and dump all over any conversation, aren't you? Why? Because some guy said 2,000 years ago that gay is an abomination?

Why don't you let God worry about the judging? I'm not like you. I think God won't have a problem with consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone.

On a side note, are you ready to stop being a dick and attacking things I didn't say and participate in the actual discussion? I'm guessing no

Are you senile, or clinically insane?

Your OP was a bitch to Democrats.

Did you forget the first few words?

"Democrats are all wrapped up in" -kaz, on the internet

Were you dropped on your head one too many times? I'm not right wing, I'm not Christian. I'm pointing out to you that your dumbass OP whines to the "Democrats" over an argument BOTH SIDES are taking part in.

But you're apparently too stupid to understand that.

 

[Blues Man]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

 

[kaz]

Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the fuck what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?

Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.

www.usatoday.com

If being gay is genetic, it can't be changed. If being gay is a choice, YOU can make a different choice, and society can and will shun you if you don't, because you don't have to be that way and we don't have to accept you. The right is very big on declaring being "gay" a choice. That way they can send you for re-programming and say its for you own good. If being gay is genetic, that would be torture.

ACB refused to answer when asked if she would criminalize gay sex. The questions she refused to answer, were very telling indeed. Would she overturn an election? There is only one answer under the Constitution and that's "No". She said it would depend on the evidence presented.

There is a huge movement on the elite right to save Downs Syndrome babies from abortion, and it is noteable that she has a Downs child because Republican Senators all made a big deal about it. Down's children are very sweet and adoreable, and there used to be a lot more of them. Genetic testing has drastically reduced their numbers and had my last pregnancy been a Downs child, I would have aborted the pregancy.

I have friends with Downs children, and I've seen their needs overwhelm families. These children will never be independent and required special education and care all of their lives. Even in Canada, where there are a lot of government supports, it's very expensive and you have to advocate for your child's needs constantly. As you age, their needs grow, and by the time you're my age, they need a level of care I would not be able to provide at this stage of my life, either physically or financially.

A wealthy lawyer I worked for had handicapped child. He was in a very expensive residential care facility because of violent outbursts. His Dad was 6' 4" and large framed and they couldn't manage him. The parents were approaching 70, and they had a trust fund set up to ensure his care there for life - even after his parents passed. There was more than a million dollars in that trust.

If you're not a wealthy person who can afford to hire caregivers, special classes, and treatment facilities, both the financial and physical needs will overwhelm you. If you have other children, the needs of the Downs child will swamp a family, both emotionally and financially. And every parent has to face the moment when they can't anymore, and send the child to live in a "home" forever. One older mother told me that her child was now basically alone (husband dead, mother ill, no siblings), and would be for the rest of his life. If she had it to do over, she would have terminated the pregancy, not for her sake, but for his.

The anti-abortionists are big on saving the lives of Downs babies, with little thought to the lives they'll have or how their parents will cope, if they're born into poverty.

Funny how leftists have to say there is nothing wrong with being gay, but then you turn around and say it's not their fault, they were born that way as if there is something wrong with being gay.

You expressed the exact double standard the discussion is getting at. If there is nothing wrong with it, why doesn't matter?

My answer to those is there is nothing wrong with it and it doesn't matter.

Clearly gayness is a curve though. There isn't a single answer to the question. Some are overwhelmingly born gay. Others are closer to the line and could go either way. Still doesn't matter though. Funny how I think that and the left doesn't

 

[kaz]

This is a really strange whine since both sides argue over whether its genetic or not...but your "what difference does it make" is only directed at the folks living the experience and not the right whangers whining the opposite.

Partisan whine thread #6, 472, 836

I'm "whining" that I don't care if gay is genetic or not and I don't think it should make any difference.

Government schools just fucked you up. I'm so sorry for you, shit head

You're whining towards Gays / the left that you don't care...while the Right is also involved in the argument. That's what makes it another partisan whine show, same shit different day.

So yes, we know you're stupid and you didn't actually read the OP. You already announced that.

So which part do you disagree with me on?

1) It doesn't matter if it's genetic or a choice

2) Either way gays should be treated like anyone else. No better, no worse

I want to get to what you consider "whining."

Did they tell you to hate gays at your bigoted, extremist Christian church? Has a black or a gay ever gone to your church? What's the source of your homophobia?

The part I took issue with was you calling out democrats for making this genetic/not genetic argument when it's the right making/partaking in this argument as well. You excluded that from the OP - cuz you're a little partisan whiny bitch. I saw through it. News at 11. It's not that difficult to recognize your partisan oversight in excluding the right for their part in the argument that you're "sick of." Whiney.

I'll never grasp hard right wing Christian bigots like you who hate blacks and gays. Why do you care what other people do? What is your problem with treating everyone the same?

I asked a question and clearly advocated to the right and left my view that gays regardless of the answer should be treated like anyone else.

But some right wing hate filled Christian bigot like you is going to come in and dump all over any conversation, aren't you? Why? Because some guy said 2,000 years ago that gay is an abomination?

Why don't you let God worry about the judging? I'm not like you. I think God won't have a problem with consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone.

On a side note, are you ready to stop being a dick and attacking things I didn't say and participate in the actual discussion? I'm guessing no

Are you senile, or clinically insane?

Your OP was a bitch to Democrats.

Did you forget the first few words?

"Democrats are all wrapped up in" -kaz, on the internet

Were you dropped on your head one too many times? I'm not right wing, I'm not Christian. I'm pointing out to you that your dumbass OP whines to the "Democrats" over an argument BOTH SIDES are taking part in.

But you're apparently too stupid to understand that.

I didn't say my question wasn't to the left, I said I advocated to the right and left that gays should be treated the same. That is not a contrdiction.

You're a fucking troll and a wasted government educated blob (throwing a bone to candycorn) of hate and bigotry

 

[kaz]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

 

[G.T.]

This is a really strange whine since both sides argue over whether its genetic or not...but your "what difference does it make" is only directed at the folks living the experience and not the right whangers whining the opposite.

Partisan whine thread #6, 472, 836

I'm "whining" that I don't care if gay is genetic or not and I don't think it should make any difference.

Government schools just fucked you up. I'm so sorry for you, shit head

You're whining towards Gays / the left that you don't care...while the Right is also involved in the argument. That's what makes it another partisan whine show, same shit different day.

So yes, we know you're stupid and you didn't actually read the OP. You already announced that.

So which part do you disagree with me on?

1) It doesn't matter if it's genetic or a choice

2) Either way gays should be treated like anyone else. No better, no worse

I want to get to what you consider "whining."

Did they tell you to hate gays at your bigoted, extremist Christian church? Has a black or a gay ever gone to your church? What's the source of your homophobia?

The part I took issue with was you calling out democrats for making this genetic/not genetic argument when it's the right making/partaking in this argument as well. You excluded that from the OP - cuz you're a little partisan whiny bitch. I saw through it. News at 11. It's not that difficult to recognize your partisan oversight in excluding the right for their part in the argument that you're "sick of." Whiney.

I'll never grasp hard right wing Christian bigots like you who hate blacks and gays. Why do you care what other people do? What is your problem with treating everyone the same?

I asked a question and clearly advocated to the right and left my view that gays regardless of the answer should be treated like anyone else.

But some right wing hate filled Christian bigot like you is going to come in and dump all over any conversation, aren't you? Why? Because some guy said 2,000 years ago that gay is an abomination?

Why don't you let God worry about the judging? I'm not like you. I think God won't have a problem with consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone.

On a side note, are you ready to stop being a dick and attacking things I didn't say and participate in the actual discussion? I'm guessing no

Are you senile, or clinically insane?

Your OP was a bitch to Democrats.

Did you forget the first few words?

"Democrats are all wrapped up in" -kaz, on the internet

Were you dropped on your head one too many times? I'm not right wing, I'm not Christian. I'm pointing out to you that your dumbass OP whines to the "Democrats" over an argument BOTH SIDES are taking part in.

But you're apparently too stupid to understand that.

I didn't say my question wasn't to the left, I said I advocated to the right and left that gays should be treated the same. That is not a contrdiction.

You're a fucking troll and a wasted government educated blob (throwing a bone to candycorn) of hate and bigotry

Your question was to the left because you're partisan whining, just like I told you.

Not only that, but your question has been answered and it was a beyond stupid question to begin with.

Why do they argue whether its a choice or genetic?? Because, fucking duh, if it's considered a "choice" then the right can use that to subjugate the Gays' rights. You dont want the right to do that, you've said as much...so you should understand WHY they argue over this.

But you dont want to understand, you want to bitch about Democrats. Thumbs up, see through. C minus thread.

 

[DukeU]

It's no wonder the suicide rate is highest among the alphabet soup bunch. They have so many life choices to make..... Boy or girl?!? Lesbian, Gay, Bi, Trans., Questioning?!? Which bathroom to use?!?

It's a shame they have to rely on normal people to continue with their lifestyle. Who wouldn't want to be that confused?!?

 

[kaz]

Discrimination against gays is often founded on the idea that the discrimination is a consequence of a choice for people to be gay.

We have a natural aversion to discrimination based on inherent characteristics, but if you believe there is nothing inherent to being gay, it makes it easier to justify it.

And that's why no one should ever trust a single thing a leftist says. You're here clearly stating you should lie for the greater good.

That's why no rational person trusts what you say when you melt down about straws and say not wearing a mask is murdering people. Then you say you're the party of science when you just admitted that you lie

 

[Blues Man]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

 

[kaz]

This is a really strange whine since both sides argue over whether its genetic or not...but your "what difference does it make" is only directed at the folks living the experience and not the right whangers whining the opposite.

Partisan whine thread #6, 472, 836

I'm "whining" that I don't care if gay is genetic or not and I don't think it should make any difference.

Government schools just fucked you up. I'm so sorry for you, shit head

You're whining towards Gays / the left that you don't care...while the Right is also involved in the argument. That's what makes it another partisan whine show, same shit different day.

So yes, we know you're stupid and you didn't actually read the OP. You already announced that.

So which part do you disagree with me on?

1) It doesn't matter if it's genetic or a choice

2) Either way gays should be treated like anyone else. No better, no worse

I want to get to what you consider "whining."

Did they tell you to hate gays at your bigoted, extremist Christian church? Has a black or a gay ever gone to your church? What's the source of your homophobia?

The part I took issue with was you calling out democrats for making this genetic/not genetic argument when it's the right making/partaking in this argument as well. You excluded that from the OP - cuz you're a little partisan whiny bitch. I saw through it. News at 11. It's not that difficult to recognize your partisan oversight in excluding the right for their part in the argument that you're "sick of." Whiney.

I'll never grasp hard right wing Christian bigots like you who hate blacks and gays. Why do you care what other people do? What is your problem with treating everyone the same?

I asked a question and clearly advocated to the right and left my view that gays regardless of the answer should be treated like anyone else.

But some right wing hate filled Christian bigot like you is going to come in and dump all over any conversation, aren't you? Why? Because some guy said 2,000 years ago that gay is an abomination?

Why don't you let God worry about the judging? I'm not like you. I think God won't have a problem with consenting adults who aren't hurting anyone.

On a side note, are you ready to stop being a dick and attacking things I didn't say and participate in the actual discussion? I'm guessing no

Are you senile, or clinically insane?

Your OP was a bitch to Democrats.

Did you forget the first few words?

"Democrats are all wrapped up in" -kaz, on the internet

Were you dropped on your head one too many times? I'm not right wing, I'm not Christian. I'm pointing out to you that your dumbass OP whines to the "Democrats" over an argument BOTH SIDES are taking part in.

But you're apparently too stupid to understand that.

I didn't say my question wasn't to the left, I said I advocated to the right and left that gays should be treated the same. That is not a contrdiction.

You're a fucking troll and a wasted government educated blob (throwing a bone to candycorn) of hate and bigotry

Your question was to the left because you're partisan whining, just like I told you.

Not only that, but your question has been answered and it was a beyond stupid question to begin with.

Why do they argue whether its a choice or genetic?? Because, fucking duh, if it's considered a "choice" then the right can use that to subjugate the Gays' rights. You dont want the right to do that, you've said as much...so you should understand WHY they argue over this.

But you dont want to understand, you want to bitch about Democrats. Thumbs up, see through. C minus thread.

If you're this angry in the middle of the morning, what are you like at the end of the day?

You not only didn't address the OP, you clearly didn't read it, bigot

 

[kaz]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

 

[kaz]

if it's considered a "choice" then the right can use that to subjugate the Gays' rights. You dont want the right to do that, you've said as much

You sir, are a total dick. Complete lying garbage scum. Fuck the shit out of you, liar.

Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the fuck what?