Some Gays Turn Attention to Civil Unions

[Missourian]

So what is the difference, why should one be legal and the other illegal?

Because political beliefs are entirely subjective. Your gender, your race, your sexual orientation, your nationality, are all things you are born with. It's all about equal rights.

As for religion, that should be allowed to be practiced freely under the belief of freedom of religion. However, religion is not the law of the land. Which means religion should not be shaping our laws. However, one can not discriminate against someone because of their freedom to choose a certain religion.

Can you provide a link to that?

Conclusive evidence that a person is born with a homosexual orientation?

 

[Modbert]

Can you provide a link to that?

Conclusive evidence that a person is born with a homosexual orientation?

See Missourian, I get the point you're trying to get across. And personally? We're going to agree to disagree. Homosexuals are citizens too who deserve equal footing under the law. Does this mean other people's rights should be violated? No. However, this does not mean that their rights should be violated either.

The fault in this case lies with those in the Government who feel that they have a right to define what marriage is. Instead of giving everyone equal footing under the law by making all legal unions, civil unions, they have created this situation.

As a Social Libertarian really, this is the sort of behavior that makes this country not what it is suppose to be.

As for what you're looking for, there is no "conclusive" evidence that you'll accept, we both know it. However, Homosexuality is not a choice. It's all about biology.

Sexual orientation among men is connected with brain metabolism, University of Chicago research shows

Plus, there are plenty of species of animals in the wild that have homosexuals in that species.

 

[Missourian]

Can you provide a link to that?

Conclusive evidence that a person is born with a homosexual orientation?

See Missourian, I get the point you're trying to get across. And personally? We're going to agree to disagree. Homosexuals are citizens too who deserve equal footing under the law. Does this mean other people's rights should be violated? No. However, this does not mean that their rights should be violated either.

The fault in this case lies with those in the Government who feel that they have a right to define what marriage is. Instead of giving everyone equal footing under the law by making all legal unions, civil unions, they have created this situation.

As a Social Libertarian really, this is the sort of behavior that makes this country not what it is suppose to be.

As for what you're looking for, there is no "conclusive" evidence that you'll accept, we both know it. However, Homosexuality is not a choice. It's all about biology.

Sexual orientation among men is connected with brain metabolism, University of Chicago research shows

Plus, there are plenty of species of animals in the wild that have homosexuals in that species.

And not to take a cheap shot at anyone. But for the religious people to ask for conclusive evidence about Homosexuality being something you're born with but at the same time saying that they do not need to prove that there is a God is irony at it's best.

I take it that is a no.

I have not at any time in this thread made a religious argument.

 

[Modbert]

I take it that is a no.

I have not at any time in this thread made a religious argument.

I removed that comment for that reason if you notice.

However, if you are in favor of a religion's right to discriminate. And if you are going to take their side, you have to be accept the faults of their side.

If there is no conclusive evidence of being born with Homosexuality, then one also must accept there is no conclusive evidence of God's existence. And since God does not exist in that case, then one can not say he is against Gays. Which would furthermore make the case that the whole idea of Gays being wrong according to God to be a false one.

Plus, religious institutions rulings on topics have changed throughout the course of history. So one could also make the case that the supposedly religion of God and Jesus Christ for example is not even close to what it use to be.

There is no death penalty for Adultery, breaking any of the ten commandments. There is no penalty of ripping one's eyes out for even looking at another woman.

This is why you cannot rule society based on religion. Because religion is subjective as the people running it.

Again, I have already stated whom is at fault for this situation.

 

[Sunni Man]

Sexual orientation among men is connected with brain metabolism, University of Chicago research shows

The stude you cite Dogbert is a total joke. There were only 16 subjects in the study and half were given a placebo.

The others were given a drug to induce a certain result.

At the end of the article, the scientists stated that the study only "suggests' a link and is NOT conclusive.

 

[Modbert]

The stude you cite Dogbert is a total joke. There were only 16 subjects in the study and half were given a placebo. The others were given a drug. In the end of the article, the scientists stated that the study only "suggests' a link and is NOT conclusive.

As usual Sunni, you failed to read what I said before the link.

 

[Sunni Man]

Plus, there are plenty of species of animals in the wild that have homosexuals in that species.

Homos like to claim that there are all of these animal in the wild engaging in gay sex.

That is just idiotic nonsense.

Sometimes animals get confused or have a brain injury or disease which cause them to be disoriented.

Had a friend who's dog would hump anything that moved. Including everyone's leg who came to visit.

He finally had to put the dog down.

But homos would like to claim this mans dog was gay because it would hump other dogs, both male and female.

And then claim their homo perversionsis are normal based on the actions of a confused cocker spaniel.

 

[Modbert]

You keep thinking that Sunni. Being delusional must be fun.

 

[Missourian]

The argument I am making is not religious, or even anti-homosexual.

Any discussion about religion is defection.

I am not even making a 'homosexuality is a choice' argument.

The argument I am making is that sexual orientation is no different than political orientation or abortion orientation or 2nd amendment orientation and is different from race and national origin.


If someone like our hypothetical printer was pro-life and choose not to print pro-choice fliers, should he be sued for that choice?

Or if a photographer who belonged to the NRA choose not to do a Brady anti-gun photo shoot, should that be a violation of hate crime law?

 

[Modbert]

The argument I am making is not religious, or even anti-homosexual.

I am not even making a 'homosexuality is a choice' argument.

The argument I am making is that sexual orientation is no different than political orientation or abortion orientation or 2nd amendment orientation and is different from race and national origin.

I could no more choose to be liberal than you could choose to be a neocon.

Yet if someone like our hypothetical printer was pro-life and choose not to print pro-choice fliers, should he be sued for that choice?

Or if a photographer who belonged to the NRA choose not to do a Brady anti-gun photo shoot, should that be a violation of hate crime law?

Except the whole basis for the photogs argument is religion. So while you're not using a religious argument, the examples you are using are.

Sexual Orientation is different from Political Orientation. Trying to say that you can choose just as easily to be Gay as you can being a Conservative is wrong. You could perhaps force yourself to partake in either, but that's a whole different topic.

A pro-life printer should not be sued, neither should a photographer for the NRA. In both cases, you're invoking political orientation into the argument. It's dishonest to do so and say it's exactly like Sexual Orientation.

 

[Missourian]

The argument I am making is not religious, or even anti-homosexual.

I am not even making a 'homosexuality is a choice' argument.

The argument I am making is that sexual orientation is no different than political orientation or abortion orientation or 2nd amendment orientation and is different from race and national origin.

I could no more choose to be liberal than you could choose to be a neocon.

Yet if someone like our hypothetical printer was pro-life and choose not to print pro-choice fliers, should he be sued for that choice?

Or if a photographer who belonged to the NRA choose not to do a Brady anti-gun photo shoot, should that be a violation of hate crime law?

Except the whole basis for the photogs argument is religion. So while you're not using a religious argument, the examples you are using are.

Sexual Orientation is different from Political Orientation. Trying to say that you can choose just as easily to be Gay as you can being a Conservative is wrong. You could perhaps force yourself to partake in either, but that's a whole different topic.

A pro-life printer should not be sued, neither should a photographer for the NRA. In both cases, you're invoking political orientation into the argument. It's dishonest to do so and say it's exactly like Sexual Orientation.

I could never be a liberal, my entire being rebels against the idea.

Could you be a neocon?

 

[Modbert]

Could you be a neocon?

Huh? Rephrase that so it makes a little more sense please. Little confused.

Are you asking me if I am one?

 

[Missourian]

Could you be a neocon?

Huh? Rephrase that so it makes a little more sense please. Little confused.

Are you asking me if I am one?

Yeah, I added to it, to make it more clear.

Could you become a neocon?

 

[Modbert]

Yeah, I added to it, to make it more clear.

Could you become a neocon?

To use your previous example, you could become various things.

You could force yourself to be a Liberal, but you wouldn't truly believe in the policies of that ideology, would you?

Sorry if I'm not getting your question, think I'm still a little confused.

 

[Missourian]

Yeah, I added to it, to make it more clear.

Could you become a neocon?

To use your previous example, you could become various things.

You could force yourself to be a Liberal, but you wouldn't truly believe in the policies of that ideology, would you?

Sorry if I'm not getting your question, think I'm still a little confused.

No, you got it.

I wouldn't actually BE a liberal if I didn't truly believe in the ideology.

The answer is no, I couldn't be a liberal.

So if you as a liberal refuse to print my conservative PAC fliers, should that be illegal?

No, of course not.

Is that any different than the printer who wouldn't print the pro-homosexual groups letterhead?

No, it's not...yet one is legal and the other is illegal.

 

[Modbert]

No, you got it.

I wouldn't actually BE a liberal if I didn't truly believe in the ideology.

The answer is no, I couldn't be a liberal.

So if you as a liberal refuse to print my conservative PAC fliers, should that be illegal?

No, of course not.

Is that any different than the printer who wouldn't print the pro-homosexual groups letterhead?

No, it's not...yet one is legal and the other is illegal.

And here is why: Political ideology is all shaped upon your experiences and what you BELIEVE.

Sexual Orientation is something you either are or you're not. You can lie and try to act like one or the other, but you are only one. It's like those parents who send their kids to those reeducation camps in order to "get the Gay" out of them.

 

[Missourian]

No, you got it.

I wouldn't actually BE a liberal if I didn't truly believe in the ideology.

The answer is no, I couldn't be a liberal.

So if you as a liberal refuse to print my conservative PAC fliers, should that be illegal?

No, of course not.

Is that any different than the printer who wouldn't print the pro-homosexual groups letterhead?

No, it's not...yet one is legal and the other is illegal.

And here is why: Political ideology is all shaped upon your experiences and what you BELIEVE.

Sexual Orientation is something you either are or you're not. You can lie and try to act like one or the other, but you are only one. It's like those parents who send their kids to those reeducation camps in order to "get the Gay" out of them.

Do you have a link to support that.

I have known very few homosexuals that did not also engage in heterosexual intercourse.

 

[Sunni Man]

It's like those parents who send their kids to those reeducation camps in order to "get the Gay" out of them.

Any parent who has a child that they feel is exhibiting homosexual behavior.

Should be congradulated if they send their kid to a re-education camp.

The child will thank them when they grow up for saving them from a perverted and disease ridden lifestyle.

 

[Modbert]

Do you have a link to support that.

I have known very few homosexuals that did not also engage in heterosexual intercourse.

AFTER they figured out they became homosexual?

 

[Polk]

Do you have a link to support that.

I have known very few homosexuals that did not also engage in heterosexual intercourse.

And most heterosexuals have had some sort of homosexual experience as well.