"Born Gay!" "Not Born Gay!"

[Toronado3800]

The great majority of U.S. citizens oppose gay marriage because gays are ABNORMAL

I will argue this point.

Good, bad, or indifferent, I see much naturally occurring bi and homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

"Can't you keep your dog from humping my leg!"

Disagreeing with homosexuality or attempting to ban it is like telling a heterosexual couple not to have anal sex. The next step is telling me birth control is immoral because it wastes god's gift of life to us. Masturbation? Certainly using moon or body cycles to avoid pregnancy in marriage is an overt act against god's gift. Could be thought of as a sin. A mortal one?

 

[Oscar Wao]

Whether you are or are not, it's still a sin in God's eyes!

God is a fictional character created by those in power to control the masses.

So God is alot like AGW?!! Go God Go!!!

Good one!

 

[AllieBaba]

The great majority of U.S. citizens oppose gay marriage because gays are ABNORMAL

I will argue this point.

Good, bad, or indifferent, I see much naturally occurring bi and homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

"Can't you keep your dog from humping my leg!"

Disagreeing with homosexuality or attempting to ban it is like telling a heterosexual couple not to have anal sex. The next step is telling me birth control is immoral because it wastes god's gift of life to us. Masturbation? Certainly using moon or body cycles to avoid pregnancy in marriage is an overt act against god's gift. Could be thought of as a sin. A mortal one?

They're all sins, aside from masturbation, outside of marriage. Including the leg humping. I suggest you give it up.

Masturbation is frowned upon but not actually forbidden.

 

[Toronado3800]

They're all sins, aside from masturbation, outside of marriage. Including the leg humping. I suggest you give it up.

Masturbation is frowned upon but not actually forbidden.

So your religion classifies them all as sins? That's entirely within their right to do so.

What are we going to do though if my religion says something "radical" like consuming alcohol is a sin? Ban that also?

Then what about my neighbor's religion that says going to the doctor is a sign you have no faith in god? He's a very nice guy. Are we to ban doctor's?

Then there are the folks who think having more than one wife is a sin. Others have disagreed.

My guiding idea is we should be careful before we all end up too much in eachother's business and at war over our ideas of sin.

 

[William Joyce]

So for the purpose of this discussion let's assume being gay is strictly a choice. How does that justify denying gays Equal Protection of the law?

Well, logically, that's easy... the entire raison d'etre of equal protection is that it's unfair to treat people differently based on factors they have no control over.

 

[DiamondDave]

The great majority of U.S. citizens oppose gay marriage because gays are ABNORMAL

I will argue this point.

Good, bad, or indifferent, I see much naturally occurring bi and homosexuality in the animal kingdom.

"Can't you keep your dog from humping my leg!"

Disagreeing with homosexuality or attempting to ban it is like telling a heterosexual couple not to have anal sex. The next step is telling me birth control is immoral because it wastes god's gift of life to us. Masturbation? Certainly using moon or body cycles to avoid pregnancy in marriage is an overt act against god's gift. Could be thought of as a sin. A mortal one?

An act of dominance is not homosexuality... but nice try

 

[bodecea]

So for the purpose of this discussion let's assume being gay is strictly a choice. How does that justify denying gays Equal Protection of the law?

Well, logically, that's easy... the entire raison d'etre of equal protection is that it's unfair to treat people differently based on factors they have no control over.

No, that it's unfair to treat people differently based on factors that affect no one else. Equal protection is given to people of different religions and they have control over that.

 

[manifold]

No, that it's unfair to treat people differently based on factors that affect no one else. Equal protection is given to people of different religions and they have control over that.

The religion example is definitely the best argument. That's why I conveniently left religion off my previously posted explanation.

 

[CurveLight]

Here is an even better example.

The KKK wants to hire a black photographer to photograph a KKK conference.

He/she refuses...so the KKK sues them, then moves on the next black photographer.

Or a Jewish photograph t0 take photos at a neo-nazi skinhead convention.

Etc...etc...


Should a black person be COMPELLED to attend a KKK conference?

Should a Jewish person be COERCED to attend a neo-nazi convention?

Should a Christian person be FORCED under penalty of law to attend a Homosexual ceremony?

The answer should be no to all of the above.

And here we have the Homosexuals = NeoNazis, KKK Gambit.

Way to deflect.

They are examples, not a comparison.

You put gays in the same categories of neo nazis and skinheads.

 

[DiamondDave]

And here we have the Homosexuals = NeoNazis, KKK Gambit.

Way to deflect.

They are examples, not a comparison.

You put gays in the same categories of neo nazis and skinheads.

Only in the context of abnormal or 'deviant' behavior choices.. not in terms of specific actions... not as some apples to apples line being drawn...

But nice try

 

[CurveLight]

So for the purpose of this discussion let's assume being gay is strictly a choice. How does that justify denying gays Equal Protection of the law?

Well, logically, that's easy... the entire raison d'etre of equal protection is that it's unfair to treat people differently based on factors they have no control over.

Here is the 14th Amendment:

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: Fourteenth Amendment

Show us where it is endemic to Equal Protection based on things out of peoples' control?

 

[CurveLight]

Here is an even better example.

The KKK wants to hire a black photographer to photograph a KKK conference.

He/she refuses...so the KKK sues them, then moves on the next black photographer.

Or a Jewish photograph t0 take photos at a neo-nazi skinhead convention.

Etc...etc...


Should a black person be COMPELLED to attend a KKK conference?

Should a Jewish person be COERCED to attend a neo-nazi convention?

Should a Christian person be FORCED under penalty of law to attend a Homosexual ceremony?

The answer should be no to all of the above.

Bad analogies aside, what does this have to do with the OP? What is it about homosexuality that justifies denying equal protection of the law?

 

[CurveLight]

Way to deflect.

They are examples, not a comparison.

You put gays in the same categories of neo nazis and skinheads.

Only in the context of abnormal or 'deviant' behavior choices.. not in terms of specific actions... not as some apples to apples line being drawn...

But nice try

No. It clearly tries to demonize gays much like references to pedophilia.

So how do you justify denying equal rights? If it's as simple as immature bigotry then man up and say so.

 

[DiamondDave]

You put gays in the same categories of neo nazis and skinheads.

Only in the context of abnormal or 'deviant' behavior choices.. not in terms of specific actions... not as some apples to apples line being drawn...

But nice try

No. It clearly tries to demonize gays much like references to pedophilia.

So how do you justify denying equal rights? If it's as simple as immature bigotry then man up and say so.

No

It shows that their chosen behavior deviated from the norm.. AKA abnormal.. and even if it is a frowned upon activity, people do choose to do such behaviors... and as shown with pedos and KKK members, even worse things are chosen by people as behaviors even though they know it means ridicule and consequences

I do not justify denying any citizen their legal rights... but they have no legal right to redefine marriage.... I am all for equal treatment under the law (unlike lefties who support situational equality)... Make all adult family couplings designated as civil unions in terms of legalities... ensuring every civil union couple (whether they be straight or gay) has the same legal status and benefits including inheritance, joint taxation, power of attorney for emergencies, etc....

Whether i think the choice of these people is disgusting or not, they can be with whomever they choose as consenting human adults... but no special rights because of their being a 'minority' with this lifestyle choice...

 

[CurveLight]

Only in the context of abnormal or 'deviant' behavior choices.. not in terms of specific actions... not as some apples to apples line being drawn...

But nice try

No. It clearly tries to demonize gays much like references to pedophilia.

So how do you justify denying equal rights? If it's as simple as immature bigotry then man up and say so.

No

It shows that their chosen behavior deviated from the norm.. AKA abnormal.. and even if it is a frowned upon activity, people do choose to do such behaviors... and as shown with pedos and KKK members, even worse things are chosen by people as behaviors even though they know it means ridicule and consequences

I do not justify denying any citizen their legal rights... but they have no legal right to redefine marriage.... I am all for equal treatment under the law (unlike lefties who support situational equality)... Make all adult family couplings designated as civil unions in terms of legalities... ensuring every civil union couple (whether they be straight or gay) has the same legal status and benefits including inheritance, joint taxation, power of attorney for emergencies, etc....

Whether i think the choice of these people is disgusting or not, they can be with whomever they choose as consenting human adults... but no special rights because of their being a 'minority' with this lifestyle choice...

Bigots are the only ones saying gays are demanding special treatment. It is the most common strawman followed closely by the "redefining marriage" rhetoric. Marriage has never had a single universal definition and even IF it did, so what? That would not justify discrimination based on sex.

 

[DiamondDave]

No. It clearly tries to demonize gays much like references to pedophilia.

So how do you justify denying equal rights? If it's as simple as immature bigotry then man up and say so.

No

It shows that their chosen behavior deviated from the norm.. AKA abnormal.. and even if it is a frowned upon activity, people do choose to do such behaviors... and as shown with pedos and KKK members, even worse things are chosen by people as behaviors even though they know it means ridicule and consequences

I do not justify denying any citizen their legal rights... but they have no legal right to redefine marriage.... I am all for equal treatment under the law (unlike lefties who support situational equality)... Make all adult family couplings designated as civil unions in terms of legalities... ensuring every civil union couple (whether they be straight or gay) has the same legal status and benefits including inheritance, joint taxation, power of attorney for emergencies, etc....

Whether i think the choice of these people is disgusting or not, they can be with whomever they choose as consenting human adults... but no special rights because of their being a 'minority' with this lifestyle choice...

Bigots are the only ones saying gays are demanding special treatment. It is the most common strawman followed closely by the "redefining marriage" rhetoric. Marriage has never had a single universal definition and even IF it did, so what? That would not justify discrimination based on sex.

Then by definition you argument is not about equal rights under law, it is indeed about imposing your will about the personal choices of homosexuals... what I have stated would in fact be equality under the law and the absence of discrimination.... much like you do not and can not demand of the government to change the definition of aardvark, so that the government can deem you to be one because you feel that you are or because you wish to be designated as one; you also do not have the right to force government to redefine marriage and declare you married in a union other than what marriage has been defined as historically

Historically marriage has indeed been referring to the union of a man and a woman info a family.. to state otherwise is not only attempting to deceive others, but you are deceiving yourself

 

[bodecea]

No

It shows that their chosen behavior deviated from the norm.. AKA abnormal.. and even if it is a frowned upon activity, people do choose to do such behaviors... and as shown with pedos and KKK members, even worse things are chosen by people as behaviors even though they know it means ridicule and consequences

I do not justify denying any citizen their legal rights... but they have no legal right to redefine marriage.... I am all for equal treatment under the law (unlike lefties who support situational equality)... Make all adult family couplings designated as civil unions in terms of legalities... ensuring every civil union couple (whether they be straight or gay) has the same legal status and benefits including inheritance, joint taxation, power of attorney for emergencies, etc....

Whether i think the choice of these people is disgusting or not, they can be with whomever they choose as consenting human adults... but no special rights because of their being a 'minority' with this lifestyle choice...

Bigots are the only ones saying gays are demanding special treatment. It is the most common strawman followed closely by the "redefining marriage" rhetoric. Marriage has never had a single universal definition and even IF it did, so what? That would not justify discrimination based on sex.

Then by definition you argument is not about equal rights under law, it is indeed about imposing your will about the personal choices of homosexuals... what I have stated would in fact be equality under the law and the absence of discrimination.... much like you do not and can not demand of the government to change the definition of aardvark, so that the government can deem you to be one because you feel that you are or because you wish to be designated as one; you also do not have the right to force government to redefine marriage and declare you married in a union other than what marriage has been defined as historically

Historically marriage has indeed been referring to the union of a man and a woman info a family.. to state otherwise is not only attempting to deceive others, but you are deceiving yourself

Not always. And the definitions of words are never static. Even tho those with long term memory loss want to pretend words and their meanings don't naturally evolve.

 

[DiamondDave]

Bigots are the only ones saying gays are demanding special treatment. It is the most common strawman followed closely by the "redefining marriage" rhetoric. Marriage has never had a single universal definition and even IF it did, so what? That would not justify discrimination based on sex.

Then by definition you argument is not about equal rights under law, it is indeed about imposing your will about the personal choices of homosexuals... what I have stated would in fact be equality under the law and the absence of discrimination.... much like you do not and can not demand of the government to change the definition of aardvark, so that the government can deem you to be one because you feel that you are or because you wish to be designated as one; you also do not have the right to force government to redefine marriage and declare you married in a union other than what marriage has been defined as historically

Historically marriage has indeed been referring to the union of a man and a woman info a family.. to state otherwise is not only attempting to deceive others, but you are deceiving yourself

Not always. And the definitions of words are never static. Even tho those with long term memory loss want to pretend words and their meanings don't naturally evolve.

In the history of western civilization we have the definite knowledge that the union between a man and a woman for family has indeed been the definition of marriage....

As stated.. what I have proposed and what I support does indeed afford equal treatment under the law... but as we see, this is not about equality at all.. it is about a forced agenda

 

[CurveLight]

Then by definition you argument is not about equal rights under law, it is indeed about imposing your will about the personal choices of homosexuals... what I have stated would in fact be equality under the law and the absence of discrimination.... much like you do not and can not demand of the government to change the definition of aardvark, so that the government can deem you to be one because you feel that you are or because you wish to be designated as one; you also do not have the right to force government to redefine marriage and declare you married in a union other than what marriage has been defined as historically

Historically marriage has indeed been referring to the union of a man and a woman info a family.. to state otherwise is not only attempting to deceive others, but you are deceiving yourself

Not always. And the definitions of words are never static. Even tho those with long term memory loss want to pretend words and their meanings don't naturally evolve.

In the history of western civilization we have the definite knowledge that the union between a man and a woman for family has indeed been the definition of marriage....

As stated.. what I have proposed and what I support does indeed afford equal treatment under the law... but as we see, this is not about equality at all.. it is about a forced agenda

I've already stated if the government calls it all civil unions that is fine. You want to use the government to strong arm your idea of marriage onto others. I don't give a fuck how people label their intimate personal commitments because I'm not some control freak in need of policing others' private lives. All I care about is the government affording equal rights and right now it is not doing so because people like you spend more time examine other peoples' crotches than you do the Constitution.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Not always. And the definitions of words are never static. Even tho those with long term memory loss want to pretend words and their meanings don't naturally evolve.

In the history of western civilization we have the definite knowledge that the union between a man and a woman for family has indeed been the definition of marriage....

As stated.. what I have proposed and what I support does indeed afford equal treatment under the law... but as we see, this is not about equality at all.. it is about a forced agenda

I've already stated if the government calls it all civil unions that is fine. You want to use the government to strong arm your idea of marriage onto others. I don't give a fuck how people label their intimate personal commitments because I'm not some control freak in need of policing others' private lives. All I care about is the government affording equal rights and right now it is not doing so because people like you spend more time examine other peoples' crotches than you do the Constitution.

Yes.....marriage is based on the distinction of sex....

....marriage is much more than just a legal agreement.....