Born a Homo? Part II.

[MissileMan]

Man and woman Missle, man and woman. Memorize it, learn it, live it and love it. Its what America wants. Maybe Canada would be better for you.

Having served this country for 21 years in the USAF, let me start by saying EAT SHIT, OCA! That being said, I notice that you skipped my earlier comment about letting the states vote on it. What do you say? Let all the states vote on allowing civil unions between gays, but if even one state passes it, then it has to be adopted in all the states. Try to come up with something better than "cause I know so" for an argument though.

 

[deaddude]

Having served this country for 21 years in the USAF, let me start by saying EAT SHIT, OCA! That being said, I notice that you skipped my earlier comment about letting the states vote on it. What do you say? Let all the states vote on allowing civil unions between gays, but if even one state passes it, then it has to be adopted in all the states. Try to come up with something better than "cause I know so" for an argument though.

It would not have to be passed by all of the other states. If one state passes it, then civil unions created in that state are recognised by the other states under full faith and credit.

Or is their somthing about civil unions that immunizes them to full faith and credit?

 

[MissileMan]

It would not have to be passed by all of the other states. If one state passes it, then civil unions created in that state are recognised by the other states under full faith and credit.

Or is their somthing about civil unions that immunizes them to full faith and credit?

That was my implication. That if passed in one state, it would have to be accepted as legal in all states. But a state would be hard pressed to recognize a gay civil union from another state while banning the same in their own.

 

[InfitiasFatalis]

asanine

sorry jim its just i like the word too much to see it misspelled lol

Asinine meaning to be silly or like an ass. :hail:

 

[OCA]

Having served this country for 21 years in the USAF, let me start by saying EAT SHIT, OCA! That being said, I notice that you skipped my earlier comment about letting the states vote on it. What do you say? Let all the states vote on allowing civil unions between gays, but if even one state passes it, then it has to be adopted in all the states. Try to come up with something better than "cause I know so" for an argument though.

Bullshit, no state has to recognize the laws or regulations of another. Sorry that isn't going to happen. Notice that if two fags get married in Queerachusets Florida doesn't recognize their marriage. Hell even the IRS isn't accepting joint tax returns from these queers because it violates the DMA.

You served your country, congratulations. Thats the first intelligent thing you've uttered.

 

[MissileMan]

Bullshit, no state has to recognize the laws or regulations of another. Sorry that isn't going to happen. Notice that if two fags get married in Queerachusets Florida doesn't recognize their marriage. Hell even the IRS isn't accepting joint tax returns from these queers because it violates the DMA.

You served your country, congratulations. Thats the first intelligent thing you've uttered.

There is currently an interstate agreement that each state recognizes the marriages and civil unions from all of the other states. It would throw the entire country into chaos if couples had to remarry every time they moved to another state. The states could not recognize only the heterosexual marriages or civil unions because they would lose in court based on discrimination. So, unless you are prepared to have all marriages and civil unions only legal and valid in the state where they were performed, all states will have to accept gay civil unions.

 

[OCA]

There is currently an interstate agreement that each state recognizes the marriages and civil unions from all of the other states. It would throw the entire country into chaos if couples had to remarry every time they moved to another state. The states could not recognize only the heterosexual marriages or civil unions because they would lose in court based on discrimination. So, unless you are prepared to have all marriages and civil unions only legal and valid in the state where they were performed, all states will have to accept gay civil unions.

But currently this is not true nor will it be in the future. Face it Americans overwhelmingly dissapprove of homosexuality and in turn queer marriage. What are you gonna do? Force the good people of Missouri to accept what 1 judge thinks in Queerachusets?

Just for your info this issue is up for vote in like 10 states this November and at last polling it was well aheafor my stance in all the states. The only way for queers to get marriage is the underhanded way, through activist judges because they know the people don't want it.

And again, heterosexual, yes the people will accept having only heterosexual marriages recognized and not queer because most people in America recognize that its wrong. Unless some liberal pantywaist judge steps in and ORDERS(ala Massachusets) a legislature to pass queer marriage legislation then its not going to happen.

 

[007]

Here's a pretty good article on this topic:

J.B.S. Haldane: Born in Scotland into Britain's intellectual aristocracy and educated at Eton and Oxford, Haldane had every possible advantage. Nevertheless, his mind was open and alert and he set upon the course that was to lead him to Marxist philosophy and to the Communist Party.

This author of yours is a piece of shit, euro born, athietist, evolution preaching, liberal, and probably a dick licker himself. That piece above was filled with OPINION... NOT FACTS! He probably wrote that piece at the urging of his ****** butt buddy.

You'll have to do better than that if you're going defend this vile, sick, perverted, disgusting and vulgar life style choice around here. Go back over to the democraptic underground and tell them how beautiful men ******* each other up the ass is, and why they all do it because their dog humped their leg when they were ten.

 

[wade]

J.B.S. Haldane: Born in Scotland into Britain's intellectual aristocracy and educated at Eton and Oxford, Haldane had every possible advantage. Nevertheless, his mind was open and alert and he set upon the course that was to lead him to Marxist philosophy and to the Communist Party.

This author of yours is a piece of shit, euro born, athietist, evolution preaching, liberal, and probably a dick licker himself. That piece above was filled with OPINION... NOT FACTS! He probably wrote that piece at the urging of his ****** butt buddy.

You'll have to do better than that if you're going defend this vile, sick, perverted, disgusting and vulgar life style choice around here. Go back over to the democraptic underground and tell them how beautiful men ******* each other up the ass is, and why they all do it because their dog humped their leg when they were ten.

It is not my purpose to defend the homosexual lifestyle. The issue at hand is "are some people born congenitally homosexual?". The article presented provides a variety of arguments showing that there is a good case to be made that some homosexuals are born that way. You're character attack on the author is meaningless - but it is all you have since you cannot really argue the facts.

Wade.

 

[007]

It is not my purpose to defend the homosexual lifestyle. The issue at hand is "are some people born congenitally homosexual?". The article presented provides a variety of arguments showing that there is a good case to be made that some homosexuals are born that way. You're character attack on the author is meaningless - but it is all you have since you cannot really argue the facts.

Wade.

In order for me to dispute facts, there has to BE some first. And you certainly haven't provided any. You come up with some ad-hock piece written by some euro liberal 50 years ago. It's crap at best.

And it doesn't matter to me whether or not queers are born queer. A human being is supposed to be able to differentiate between what's right and wrong. Fags suck and poke on each other in full knowledge of it being wrong. They err in their ways willingly.

 

[no1tovote4]

In order for me to dispute facts, there has to BE some first. And you certainly haven't provided any. You come up with some ad-hock piece written by some euro liberal 50 years ago. It's crap at best.

And it doesn't matter to me whether or not queers are born queer. A human being is supposed to be able to differentiate between what's right and wrong. Fags suck and poke on each other in full knowledge of it being wrong. They err in their ways willingly.

So do drunks, those who would cheat on their wives and many other sins. However it is not illegal to cheat on your wife, or to get drunk. Why not? And if it is simply the moral issue that you argue then how do you defend that you are not championing the cause to create laws against gambling, smoking, etc.

Simply being bad by your moral code is not reason enough to create specific laws and Constitutional Amendments against something that has happened in some State other than yours, or even for something that has happened in your State for that matter.

There are other moral codes than yours, and you have provided no reason why we should all follow yours above any other or as to why we should change the Constitution to match what your moral code says.

 

[wade]

In order for me to dispute facts, there has to BE some first. And you certainly haven't provided any. You come up with some ad-hock piece written by some euro liberal 50 years ago. It's crap at best.

And it doesn't matter to me whether or not queers are born queer. A human being is supposed to be able to differentiate between what's right and wrong. Fags suck and poke on each other in full knowledge of it being wrong. They err in their ways willingly.

But first you have to define right and wrong. You seem to think it's your perogative to do so - it isn't.

If thier biology tells them to screw members of the same sex, then that is what is right for them. Just because you don't like it and think it is wrong is totally irrelevant.

And as for the peice being "ad-hoc", the point is that it references facts that are easily confirmed, and that indicate that homosexuality is in fact common in the animal kingdom of which humans are a part.

All your religious based arguments as to how it is a sin for them to do so are pure shit - why would God make them that way if he thought it was a "sin"? Or do you believe in a cruel God?

 

[5stringJeff]

But first you have to define right and wrong. You seem to think it's your perogative to do so - it isn't.

If thier biology tells them to screw members of the same sex, then that is what is right for them. Just because you don't like it and think it is wrong is totally irrelevant.

Ahh... moral relativism. What a great fallback. If homosexuality is neither right nor wrong, but it depends on the eye of the beholder, than how should our democracy treat gay marriage? By a majority rule. And the majority of Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of gay marriage, even in liberal states like Hawaii. In the same way, the majority of Americans (according to polls I've seen, can't quote them) say that what two consenting adults do to each other sexually behind closed doors should be none of the government's business - as it is in America. So if you subscribe to moral relativism, then you must also subscribe to the majority-rules handling of homosexual behavior and gay marriage.

And as for the peice being "ad-hoc", the point is that it references facts that are easily confirmed, and that indicate that homosexuality is in fact common in the animal kingdom of which humans are a part.

All your religious based arguments as to how it is a sin for them to do so are pure shit - why would God make them that way if he thought it was a "sin"? Or do you believe in a cruel God?

My point exactly. Why would an unchangably good God make someone irrevokably sinful if that sin would cause God to condemn that person to eternal punishment? The answer, of course, is that He wouldn't. So either God exists and homosexuality is a choice, or God does not exist and homosexuality may be biologically forced on someone. Because I believe that God exists (the topic of another thread) then I must believe that homosexuality is a choice - as is claimed in the Bible (see Romans chapter 1).

 

[wade]

Ahh... moral relativism. What a great fallback. If homosexuality is neither right nor wrong, but it depends on the eye of the beholder, than how should our democracy treat gay marriage? By a majority rule. And the majority of Americans overwhelmingly disapprove of gay marriage, even in liberal states like Hawaii. In the same way, the majority of Americans (according to polls I've seen, can't quote them) say that what two consenting adults do to each other sexually behind closed doors should be none of the government's business - as it is in America. So if you subscribe to moral relativism, then you must also subscribe to the majority-rules handling of homosexual behavior and gay marriage.

Umm.. this is the "Born a Homo?" thread, not the "Gay marriage?" thread. The issue is whether or not some people are born homosexuals or not. We have deviated into the Gay marriage debate too much in this thread, if you want to discuss that topic - make a new thread!

My point exactly. Why would an unchangably good God make someone irrevokably sinful if that sin would cause God to condemn that person to eternal punishment? The answer, of course, is that He wouldn't. So either God exists and homosexuality is a choice, or God does not exist and homosexuality may be biologically forced on someone. Because I believe that God exists (the topic of another thread) then I must believe that homosexuality is a choice - as is claimed in the Bible (see Romans chapter 1).

I see. So your whole argument that homosexuality is a choice, that no one is born homosexual, is based entirely upon your belief in God and the Bible. Well, just because you believe does not mean the rest of the US population must believe as you do. You are trying to force your morality on others, pure and simple.

All the arguments so far in this thread for homosexuality being a choice not a biological factor are based upon such emotional arguments, not science and/or logic. This nation is not supposed to make its decisions based upon such flawed thinking. It is supposed to uphold the rights of the minority against the opression of such majority opinion.

People in this nation have a right to live as they choose and not to be discriminated against for those choices or financially penalized for them. That is a fundimental principal upon which this nation is founded.

Wade.

 

[deaddude]

That was my implication. That if passed in one state, it would have to be accepted as legal in all states. But a state would be hard pressed to recognize a gay civil union from another state while banning the same in their own.

Legal incest in North Carolina used to be different than legal incest in Arkansas. North Carolina allowed 1st cousins to marry where Arkansas only allowed 2nd cousins to marry. If two 1st cousins who were married in North Carolina and then moved to Arkansas, then the Arkansans must recognize the marriage of the 1st cousins under full faith and credit.

Why would civil unions be any different?

 

[jimnyc]

if you want to discuss that topic - make a new thread!

Wade, you do not run this board. You do not tell the moderators what they can and cannot post. You do not tell them to start new threads. Got it?

 

[5stringJeff]

I see. So your whole argument that homosexuality is a choice, that no one is born homosexual, is based entirely upon your belief in God and the Bible. Well, just because you believe does not mean the rest of the US population must believe as you do. You are trying to force your morality on others, pure and simple.

All the arguments so far in this thread for homosexuality being a choice not a biological factor are based upon such emotional arguments, not science and/or logic. This nation is not supposed to make its decisions based upon such flawed thinking. It is supposed to uphold the rights of the minority against the opression of such majority opinion.

To rip off John Paul Jones: I have not yet begun to prove the existence of God through logical arguments! And once that is proven, then my argument regarding homosexuality falls into place. But I didn't want to hijack the thread that you didn't start into a topic you probably don't want to get into.

 

[wade]

Wade, you do not run this board. You do not tell the moderators what they can and cannot post. You do not tell them to start new threads. Got it?

Ummm.. how can I tell who are moderators? I had no idea GOP_Jeff was a moderator on this board.

It seems there are a ton of them - and all right wing too. Why do you call this the USA Message Board? It seems to me a more fitting name would be the NeoConservative Message Board.

And I was not "telling" someone (moderator or not) what they can and cannot post, I was trying to refocus this thread back to the topic from which it has diverged, and point out that the Gay Marriage issue is another issue which would be better handled in another thread.

Wade.

 

[wade]

To rip off John Paul Jones: I have not yet begun to prove the existence of God through logical arguments! And once that is proven, then my argument regarding homosexuality falls into place. But I didn't want to hijack the thread that you didn't start into a topic you probably don't want to get into.

I have no problem with that topic. However my point is simply that the existance of God as you define him/her/it as per the Bible is irrelevant to this discussion. It requires all to believe as you do. You need to prove your case without requiring me and everyone else to accept your faith based beliefs as the premise of your arguments.

Wade.

 

[jimnyc]

Ummm.. how can I tell who are moderators? I had no idea GOP_Jeff was a moderator on this board.

Try looking at the bottom of the board and clicking on the link that says "Forum Leaders"

It seems there are a ton of them - and all right wing too. Why do you call this the USA Message Board? It seems to me a more fitting name would be the NeoConservative Message Board.

A ton? I guess so if you consider 5 active moderators to be a lot.

Is your sorry ass not still posting here, Wade? Just because the liberals and their weak arguments get toasted here daily doesn't mean that this board isn't open to liberals and conservatives alike. Don't blame the board for the shortcomings of those who drool while subscribing to the latest conspiracy theories.

And I was not "telling" someone (moderator or not) what they can and cannot post, I was trying to refocus this thread back to the topic from which it has diverged, and point out that the Gay Marriage issue is another issue which would be better handled in another thread.

Wade.

Then state it that way next time instead of demanding someone "make a new thread!"