A Reasonable Solution To The Gay Marriage Debate

[WorldWatcher]

I am unaware of 1,400 benefits. I challenge you list 10 that are not related to children.

I'm thinking of these off the top of my head so they are in no particular order:

1. Military recognition of a legal spouse resulting in increased allowance for quarters and relocation of the spouse when executing permanent change of station orders. No children required.

2. Military health care for the spouse. No children required.

3. Eligibility for the spouse under Military Survivor Benefits Program if the retired members dies. No children required.

4. For honorably discharged veterans and retirees, burial of the spouse next to the service member in National Veteran's Cemeteries. No children required.

5. Tax free transfer of real property to a spouse. No children required.

6. The exemption from the Estate Tax applicable to the sale of a primary home, only Civil Marriage does that. (When a home is sold a single person can claim up to $250,000 in an exemption, $500,000 for a Civilly Married couple. When one spouse dies the surviving spouse can still claim the married exemption for up to two years after the death if the home is sold. No children required.

7. Spousal privilege against testifying in a criminal court case against a spouse. No children required.

8. Establishment of a family relationship for the spouse under the Family Medical Leave Act so that one spouse can care for an injured or sick spouse in a job protected status. No children required.

9. The ability to file join income tax statements. No children required.

10. Survivor benefits for Social Security whereby a spouse can receive benefits at the deceased spouses rate if they were married for a certain period and the deceased spouses benefit as/is higher then the surviving spouses benefit. No children required.

11. Sponsorship of a spouse for immigration purposes and preferential resident alien status. No children required.

12. Federal exemption from Federal Unemployment Tax when one spouse works for another as part of a small business. No children required.

13. Filing joint bankruptcy. No children required.

14. Legal next-of-kin status recognized by all 50-states and the federal government for emergency medical decisions. No children required.

15. Ability to file wrongful death claims against an individual or organization responsibile for the death of a spouse. No children required.

16. Preferential hiring of spouses of a veteran for federal jobs. No children required.

17. Right of property inheritance upon the death of a spouse under tax free status. No children required.

18. Consideration of spousal income under certain federal insured home loan programs. No children required.

19. Access to Hope and Lifetime learning credit programs for taxes for the education of a spouse. No children required.

20. The additional cost of health care insurance provided by employer to cover a spouse is not treated as taxable income for a legally married spouse. Such coverage for a non-spouse is treated as income for the individual and is therefore taxed. No children required.​

Sorry, I know you only asked for 10, but hey, I was on a roll.

>>>>

Civil unions and legal contracts between partners can remedy most of your objections without redefining the word marriage.

Almost all are federal, Civil Unions are not recognized by the federal government - on top of that none but the medical decisions can be done by contract and then there are some states that could void those contracts under State Constitutonal provisions which precent the state from recognizing contracts which attempt to duplicate rights, responsibilities, and privileges associated with civil marriage.

"Marriage" already has multiple definitions:

1. In some places it is one man and one woman.
2. In other places it is one man and multiple women.
3. In some places it is two consenting, non-related adults.​

Let alone the fact that speaking properly there are two types of "marriage": Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage. The two not being interdependent upon each other. A couple can enter into Religious Marriage without state recognition and couples can enter into Civil Marriage without Religious recognition.


Now if you mean replacing Civil Marriage with Civil Unions for all under the law, as a replacement to Civil Marriage for both same-sex and different-sex couples. The couples (both same-sex and different-sex) could then get Religiously Married of the religious organization of their choice. I could get on-board with that.

Are you open to that compromise?


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I don't believe in any standards for "groups" in America. We are all individuals. Our constitution does not address groups, only individuals. We are all entitled to equal justice under the law. People with homosexual desires are not excluded from getting married. Gay activists are demanding that we redefine marriage. The redefinition of marriage is not a right. Marriage is not even mentioned in the constitution.

Since you make the claim that the government deals with individuals and not groups, then to you disagree with the SCOTUS overturning Virginia's interracial Civil Marriage restrictions since under the law each individual still had the right to marry, just that they couldn't marry someone outside their race?


Under your "individual" only evaluation, the SCOTUS would have erred in barring laws based on group classifications such as race.



>>>

 

[BDBoop]

Neither Greese nor Rome achieved their successes through peace, love, and sexual activity. You do realize that right?

Nor did Greece, apparently.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What a sad warped perception... Anyway you can twist facts to fit your sick agenda for this country. I can't wait for the next civil war.

What he quoted has been consistently accepted by the highest courts in our country. That you call it "twisting facts" shows a lack of genuine argument.

Be careful what you wish for. The majority of the population is becoming more and more tolerant of homosexuality. The next civil war might just destroy your ilk rather than create the theocracy you seem to crave.

January 12, 2012
Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.
Overall, the nation has grown more polarized over the past decade
by Lydia Saad
PRINCETON, NJ -- Political ideology in the U.S. held steady in 2011, with 40% of Americans continuing to describe their views as conservative, 35% as moderate, and 21% as liberal. This marks the third straight year that conservatives have outnumbered moderates, after more than a decade in which moderates mainly tied or outnumbered conservatives.

Conservatives Remain the Largest Ideological Group in U.S.

I'm really not worried about it.... You seem to have some strange illusion that you are a majority... Sorry to burst your bubble...

Since you seem to accept Gallup as an authoritative source. Let's look at views on same sex Civil Marriage.

1. The majority of Americans support Same-sex Civil Marriage.

2. Not all conservatives are lock-step with the anti-homosexual agenda and 28% (and growing) feel same-sex couples deserve equal treatment under the law.​

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/first-time-majority-americans-favor-legal-gay-marriage.aspx


I consider myself quite conservative on a lot of issues centered on the military, immigration, smaller government, tax reform, etc. and so would most likely fall into that 28%.
>>>>

 

[JakeStarkey]

Network makes the obvious mistake of identifying "conservatives" as holding his opinions. Not the case.

 

[garyganu]

If your religion says you should not engage in homosexual activity, then maybe you shouldn't

Now, show me the part where you get to force your religious views on others

Show me the part where you have to accept the religious views of others forced on you.

If your religion says you should not accept homosexual activity as normal, no one should be required to do that.

Nobody is forcing you to accept homosexual marriage as normal. In fact, you are free to hate anyone you wish

What you can't do is force the government to accommodate your hatred

It is a very hateful pejorative to call those opposed to gay marriage, haters. This is proof that liberals are VERY intolerant of opposing beliefs.

 

[WinterBorn]

Show me the part where you have to accept the religious views of others forced on you.

If your religion says you should not accept homosexual activity as normal, no one should be required to do that.

Nobody is forcing you to accept homosexual marriage as normal. In fact, you are free to hate anyone you wish

What you can't do is force the government to accommodate your hatred

It is a very hateful pejorative to call those opposed to gay marriage, haters. This is proof that liberals are VERY intolerant of opposing beliefs.

Gay marriage will not change straight marriage at all. Gay marriage will not effect you at all. And yet you fight it. I'd call that hate.

Gays do nothing that straights do not do, and you would deny them something so basic. I'd call that hate.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Show me the part where you have to accept the religious views of others forced on you.

If your religion says you should not accept homosexual activity as normal, no one should be required to do that.

Nobody is forcing you to accept homosexual marriage as normal. In fact, you are free to hate anyone you wish

What you can't do is force the government to accommodate your hatred

It is a very hateful pejorative to call those opposed to gay marriage, haters. This is proof that liberals are VERY intolerant of opposing beliefs.

When you attack those defending universal marriage as perverted and or whatever, you clearly are the hater.

Now you are victimizing the victim.

You are in the growing minority, shrinking ever shrinking, and your kind will just wink out . . . just gone.

 

[WinterBorn]

garyganu, you made a challenge and I answered. I notice you refuse to do the same.

I made the following challenge (perhaps you missed it?):

Since I rose to your challenge, let me challenge you. Give me some reasons against gay marriage that do not have to do with religion, and then tell me how allowing gay marriage would effect you at all??

 

[garyganu]

garyganu, you made a challenge and I answered. I notice you refuse to do the same.

I made the following challenge (perhaps you missed it?):

Since I rose to your challenge, let me challenge you. Give me some reasons against gay marriage that do not have to do with religion, and then tell me how allowing gay marriage would effect you at all??

Winterborn, I did not make any arguments based on religion. Please re-read my original post and all of my comments for arguments that do not involve religion.

As for your second question, here is the answer:

"When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their heads. As a result, our popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between, good and bad, right and wrong, normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, constructive and destructive, considerate and rude, brave and cowardly, modest and lewd, vulgar and polite, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, open-minded and narrow-minded truth and deception, etc."

In today's popular culture, which rejects many social and spiritual restraints, I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance, gratitude and faith in God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, thrill seeking and self esteem.

IMHO, there can be no other possible outcome than our society and culture becoming more corrupt, greedy, lawless, poor, ignorant, powerless, and ultimately more restrained by our fears and/or our government. This is clearly witnessed by the current increase in crime, prisons, corruption, illiteracy, poverty, drug use, intolerance and governmental control in today's America.

 

[BDBoop]

garyganu, you made a challenge and I answered. I notice you refuse to do the same.

I made the following challenge (perhaps you missed it?):

Since I rose to your challenge, let me challenge you. Give me some reasons against gay marriage that do not have to do with religion, and then tell me how allowing gay marriage would effect you at all??

Winterborn, I did not make any arguments based on religion. Please re-read my original post and all of my comments for arguments that do not involve religion.

As for your second question, here is the answer:

"When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their heads. As a result, our popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between, good and bad, right and wrong, normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, constructive and destructive, considerate and rude, brave and cowardly, modest and lewd, vulgar and polite, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, open-minded and narrow-minded truth and deception, etc."

In today's popular culture, which rejects many social and spiritual restraints, I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance, gratitude and faith in God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, thrill seeking and self esteem.

IMHO, there can be no other possible outcome than our society and culture becoming more corrupt, greedy, lawless, poor, ignorant, powerless, and ultimately more restrained by our fears and/or our government. This is clearly witnessed by the current increase in crime, prisons, corruption, illiteracy, poverty, drug use, intolerance and governmental control in today's America.

Okay, you lost me immediately. "When you celebrate and embrace something that is unnatural and unhealthy."

No.

If you think being gay is a choice, I want to know how much of a chance you gave it before you decided you were straight.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVwjCppq82c]Are we born straight or gay? - Making of Me: John Barrowman - BBC - YouTube[/ame]

 

[BDBoop]

If anybody honestly is curious about the videos I've posted, Google "John Barrowman, the making of me."

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pe58_vd_5g4]Brain scan results - Making of Me: John Barrowman - BBC - YouTube[/ame]

 

[garyganu]

garyganu, you made a challenge and I answered. I notice you refuse to do the same.

I made the following challenge (perhaps you missed it?):

Since I rose to your challenge, let me challenge you. Give me some reasons against gay marriage that do not have to do with religion, and then tell me how allowing gay marriage would effect you at all??

Winterborn, I did not make any arguments based on religion. Please re-read my original post and all of my comments for arguments that do not involve religion.

As for your second question, here is the answer:

"When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their heads. As a result, our popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between, good and bad, right and wrong, normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, constructive and destructive, considerate and rude, brave and cowardly, modest and lewd, vulgar and polite, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, open-minded and narrow-minded truth and deception, etc."

In today's popular culture, which rejects many social and spiritual restraints, I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance, gratitude and faith in God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, thrill seeking and self esteem.

IMHO, there can be no other possible outcome than our society and culture becoming more corrupt, greedy, lawless, poor, ignorant, powerless, and ultimately more restrained by our fears and/or our government. This is clearly witnessed by the current increase in crime, prisons, corruption, illiteracy, poverty, drug use, intolerance and governmental control in today's America.

Okay, you lost me immediately. "When you celebrate and embrace something that is unnatural and unhealthy."

No.

If you think being gay is a choice, I want to know how much of a chance you gave it before you decided you were straight.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVwjCppq82c]Are we born straight or gay? - Making of Me: John Barrowman - BBC - YouTube[/ame]

Dear sweet BDBoop, I never wrote that homosexual desires are a choice. All I wrote is that this behavior should not be celebrated, embraced and encouraged by schools, the mainstream media, the entertainment industry and today's popular culture.

Although homosexual desires may not be a choice, bi-sexuals certainly do have a choice. why are our schools and popular culture encouraging those who have various degrees of bi-sexual desire to experiment with homosexuality which is unhealthy. We do not encourage experimentation with, tobacco, drugs and alcohol which are also unhealthy.

The unpredictable popular culture also celebrate and embrace various forms of "thrill seeking" behavior which are also dangerous including motorcycle riding, skydiving and pot smoking.

 

[syrenn]

The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion. It is about gay activists’ desire to change society's basic institutions out of the frustration that they are not included.

The proof is the term “gay marriage”. “Gay marriage” is an oxymoron. It is an attempt to “redefine” the word marriage. During all of recorded history, the word marriage (in every language) has been defined as the union between a man and a woman (or multiple women in some cases). Marriage has always been the foundation for families and it provides the means to care for the resulting children. Although there are some childless marriages, there would no necessity for the legal institution of marriage if not for the probability of raising children. Virtually every civilization in recorded history has instituted marriage to insure that both parents are legally responsible for raising their children.

Most all Americans that I know, whether conservative or liberal, whether agnostic or religious, are not opposed to civil unions between consenting adults. Civil unions give gays all of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage without re-defining the word “marriage”. Many states, including California, currently have civil unions available for gay couples. Unfortunately, gay activists reject civil unions for no logical reason what-so-ever. Their reason is emotional, not logical. Gay activists claim that only the word “marriage” would give them true equality. IMHO, this is absurd. The only objection that most Americans have to gay marriage is the redefinition of the WORD “marriage”.

Therefore I suggest a reasonable compromise. Instead of re-defining the word marriage to include gays, we should create a new word to define gay marriage. I propose the word “garriage”. Gay couples can get “garried” while straight straight couples can get “married”. Many languages use different words for feminine and masculine genders. Some languages even assign genders for inanimate objects such as car or boat. In English we say him or her, he or she, count and countess, king and queen, etc. Since a gay union is technically different than straight union, there is no reason why we can’t use different words to define them.

Unfortunately gay activists will not accept this compromise under the guise of equality because they are unwilling to accept the fact that they ARE different in significant ways when it comes to marriage. They will compare using different words to define different unions as “separate but equal” which was a term used for segregation of blacks. This excuse is a ridiculous as saying it is not fair to differentiate between apples and oranges, men and women, or whisky and rum. Traditional marriage, as it has been defined for 5,000 years, IS different than gay unions. A different word to define gay unions is appropriate and very reasonable.

Here is a reasonable solution....

Mind your own business.

easy.

 

[BDBoop]

Winterborn, I did not make any arguments based on religion. Please re-read my original post and all of my comments for arguments that do not involve religion.

As for your second question, here is the answer:

"When you celebrate and embrace something that is abnormal and unhealthy, reason and common sense are turned on their heads. As a result, our popular culture has lost the ability to distinguish between, good and bad, right and wrong, normal and abnormal, healthy and unhealthy, constructive and destructive, considerate and rude, brave and cowardly, modest and lewd, vulgar and polite, acceptable and unacceptable, respectful and contemptuous, virtuous and shameful, tolerant and intolerant, open-minded and narrow-minded truth and deception, etc."

In today's popular culture, which rejects many social and spiritual restraints, I see less value given to universal spiritual principles including love, selflessness, honesty, integrity, humility, patience, courage, sacrifice, compassion, forgiveness, acceptance, self-discipline, open-mindedness, perseverance, gratitude and faith in God. At the same time I see more value given to popularity, sexuality, wealth, pride, diversity ( as a virtue, in and of itself), fame, power, thrill seeking and self esteem.

IMHO, there can be no other possible outcome than our society and culture becoming more corrupt, greedy, lawless, poor, ignorant, powerless, and ultimately more restrained by our fears and/or our government. This is clearly witnessed by the current increase in crime, prisons, corruption, illiteracy, poverty, drug use, intolerance and governmental control in today's America.

Okay, you lost me immediately. "When you celebrate and embrace something that is unnatural and unhealthy."

No.

If you think being gay is a choice, I want to know how much of a chance you gave it before you decided you were straight.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVwjCppq82c]Are we born straight or gay? - Making of Me: John Barrowman - BBC - YouTube[/ame]

Dear sweet BDBoop, I never wrote that homosexual desires are a choice. All I wrote is that this behavior should not be celebrated, embraced and encouraged by schools, the mainstream media, the entertainment industry and today's popular culture.

Although homosexual desires may not be a choice, bi-sexuals certainly do have a choice. why are our schools and popular culture encouraging those who have various degrees of bi-sexual desire to experiment with homosexuality which is unhealthy. We do not encourage experimentation with, tobacco, drugs and alcohol which are also unhealthy.

The unpredictable popular culture also celebrate and embrace various forms of "thrill seeking" behavior which are also dangerous including motorcycle riding, skydiving and pot smoking.

Yes you did. If they are born that way, then they are entitled to be married. There is nothing abnormal or unnatural about them. Therefore.

 

[garyganu]

The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion. It is about gay activists’ desire to change society's basic institutions out of the frustration that they are not included.

The proof is the term “gay marriage”. “Gay marriage” is an oxymoron. It is an attempt to “redefine” the word marriage. During all of recorded history, the word marriage (in every language) has been defined as the union between a man and a woman (or multiple women in some cases). Marriage has always been the foundation for families and it provides the means to care for the resulting children. Although there are some childless marriages, there would no necessity for the legal institution of marriage if not for the probability of raising children. Virtually every civilization in recorded history has instituted marriage to insure that both parents are legally responsible for raising their children.

Most all Americans that I know, whether conservative or liberal, whether agnostic or religious, are not opposed to civil unions between consenting adults. Civil unions give gays all of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage without re-defining the word “marriage”. Many states, including California, currently have civil unions available for gay couples. Unfortunately, gay activists reject civil unions for no logical reason what-so-ever. Their reason is emotional, not logical. Gay activists claim that only the word “marriage” would give them true equality. IMHO, this is absurd. The only objection that most Americans have to gay marriage is the redefinition of the WORD “marriage”.

Therefore I suggest a reasonable compromise. Instead of re-defining the word marriage to include gays, we should create a new word to define gay marriage. I propose the word “garriage”. Gay couples can get “garried” while straight straight couples can get “married”. Many languages use different words for feminine and masculine genders. Some languages even assign genders for inanimate objects such as car or boat. In English we say him or her, he or she, count and countess, king and queen, etc. Since a gay union is technically different than straight union, there is no reason why we can’t use different words to define them.

Unfortunately gay activists will not accept this compromise under the guise of equality because they are unwilling to accept the fact that they ARE different in significant ways when it comes to marriage. They will compare using different words to define different unions as “separate but equal” which was a term used for segregation of blacks. This excuse is a ridiculous as saying it is not fair to differentiate between apples and oranges, men and women, or whisky and rum. Traditional marriage, as it has been defined for 5,000 years, IS different than gay unions. A different word to define gay unions is appropriate and very reasonable.

Here is a reasonable solution....

Mind your own business.

easy.

Wow, Politics and national debates are not my business according to you. Your comment proves that liberals intend to stifle opposing views.

 

[syrenn]

The gay marriage issue has never been about equal rights, marriage nor religion. It is about gay activists’ desire to change society's basic institutions out of the frustration that they are not included.

The proof is the term “gay marriage”. “Gay marriage” is an oxymoron. It is an attempt to “redefine” the word marriage. During all of recorded history, the word marriage (in every language) has been defined as the union between a man and a woman (or multiple women in some cases). Marriage has always been the foundation for families and it provides the means to care for the resulting children. Although there are some childless marriages, there would no necessity for the legal institution of marriage if not for the probability of raising children. Virtually every civilization in recorded history has instituted marriage to insure that both parents are legally responsible for raising their children.

Most all Americans that I know, whether conservative or liberal, whether agnostic or religious, are not opposed to civil unions between consenting adults. Civil unions give gays all of the legal rights and responsibilities of marriage without re-defining the word “marriage”. Many states, including California, currently have civil unions available for gay couples. Unfortunately, gay activists reject civil unions for no logical reason what-so-ever. Their reason is emotional, not logical. Gay activists claim that only the word “marriage” would give them true equality. IMHO, this is absurd. The only objection that most Americans have to gay marriage is the redefinition of the WORD “marriage”.

Therefore I suggest a reasonable compromise. Instead of re-defining the word marriage to include gays, we should create a new word to define gay marriage. I propose the word “garriage”. Gay couples can get “garried” while straight straight couples can get “married”. Many languages use different words for feminine and masculine genders. Some languages even assign genders for inanimate objects such as car or boat. In English we say him or her, he or she, count and countess, king and queen, etc. Since a gay union is technically different than straight union, there is no reason why we can’t use different words to define them.

Unfortunately gay activists will not accept this compromise under the guise of equality because they are unwilling to accept the fact that they ARE different in significant ways when it comes to marriage. They will compare using different words to define different unions as “separate but equal” which was a term used for segregation of blacks. This excuse is a ridiculous as saying it is not fair to differentiate between apples and oranges, men and women, or whisky and rum. Traditional marriage, as it has been defined for 5,000 years, IS different than gay unions. A different word to define gay unions is appropriate and very reasonable.

Here is a reasonable solution....

Mind your own business.

easy.

Wow, Politics and national debates are not my business according to you. Your comment proves that liberals intend to stifle opposing views.

Did i say that it was none of your business? And since you are new here and know zero about me...why would you assume i am a liberal? Did i tell you to shut up and try and stifle you in any way?

You asked for a reasonable solution.... a reasonable solution is that you mind your business and let others mind theirs. I would not think that was so hard to understand. I used small words and not to many of them.... 4 to be exact.

 

[BDBoop]

Wow, Politics and national debates are not my business according to you. Your comment proves that liberals intend to stifle opposing views.

She's not a liberal, so you missed the mark on that one. I am, though. And when the 'opposing view' is that people who are gay are somehow "less than"? There is no debate to be had. I refuse to entertain, respect, or support that view.

 

[BDBoop]

Here is a reasonable solution....

Mind your own business.

easy.

Wow, Politics and national debates are not my business according to you. Your comment proves that liberals intend to stifle opposing views.

Did i say that it was none of your business? And since you are new here and know zero about me...why would you assume i am a liberal? Did i tell you to shut up and try and stifle you in any way?

You asked for a reasonable solution.... a reasonable solution is that you mind your business and let others mind theirs. I would not think that was so hard to understand. I used small words and not to many of them.... 4 to be exact.

I always think your motto is "Doesn't suffer fools gladly."

 

[garyganu]

Okay, you lost me immediately. "When you celebrate and embrace something that is unnatural and unhealthy."

No.

If you think being gay is a choice, I want to know how much of a chance you gave it before you decided you were straight.

Are we born straight or gay? - Making of Me: John Barrowman - BBC - YouTube

Dear sweet BDBoop, I never wrote that homosexual desires are a choice. All I wrote is that this behavior should not be celebrated, embraced and encouraged by schools, the mainstream media, the entertainment industry and today's popular culture.

Although homosexual desires may not be a choice, bi-sexuals certainly do have a choice. why are our schools and popular culture encouraging those who have various degrees of bi-sexual desire to experiment with homosexuality which is unhealthy. We do not encourage experimentation with, tobacco, drugs and alcohol which are also unhealthy.

The unpredictable popular culture also celebrate and embrace various forms of "thrill seeking" behavior which are also dangerous including motorcycle riding, skydiving and pot smoking.

Yes you did. If they are born that way, then they are entitled to be married. There is nothing abnormal or unnatural about them. Therefore.

I agree, homosexuals are entitled to be married according to the tradition definition of marriage.

It is an abnormal sexual desire to be attracted to the same sex.

There are many other abnormal sexual desires. Many of them are harmful to others but homosexual behavior between consenting adults is not harmful (except to themselves because of reduced lifespans). Isn't addiction to pornography and addiction to prostitutes abnormal?

Is pedophilia abnormal just because it harms children? Is bestiality abnormal just because it is harmful to animals. The point is that harmful and abnormal are two different things.

For example: It is normal for virtually all parents to hope that their children provide genetic grandchildren for them. Parents of Gay children are always disappointed to some extent when their children do not produce grandchildren. Homosexual children are unlikely to produce grandchildren and it is normal for their loving parents to be disappointed.