The reason homosexuality is a choice

[Cold Fusion38]

How about we get the gov't out of RELIGION. Marriage is a RELIGIOUS institution so the gov't can give CIVIL UNIONS and your Chruch can or can NOT marry same sex persons if they WANT to. PROBLEM SOLVED!

How about not politicizing sexual lifestyles? Whatever one does in their bedroom sexually should stay there and not be politically legitimatized, if religion should should stay out o government so should sexual lifestyles.

How bout you worry about your OWN sex life and not OTHERS?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

Has anyone found out why The Bass is so obsesed with homosexuality in 26 pages?

 

[Misty]

Some gays may have stronger gay feelings than others. But so what? Who cares if they choose it or it chooses them.

 

[Father Time]

Still no compelling evidence that voting against gay marriage means one is imposing there religion onto others, you sodomite lovers can't have your way or no way.

It is when the only justification for it is 'It's against my religion'

 

[Father Time]

Still no compelling evidence that voting against gay marriage means one is imposing there religion onto others, you sodomite lovers can't have your way or no way.

Religious belief is a perspective

Everyone tends to vote there perspective

Therefore, not only are you trying to impose your religious beliefs on others, they are imposing their beliefs onto you!!!

On this issue, Bass, tell those hypocrites to back off!! Voting your beliefs is the American Way!!

Voting your religion isn't the American way, oh and if gay marraige was passed it wouldn't affect Bass unless he chose to marry a guy.

So to call it forcing beliefs is laughable at best.

 

[Father Time]

Marriages is *NOT* a basic right, the problem with a lot of us Americans is that we have so much freedom that we think falsely we have a "right" to almost anything to the point where we think its automatic and "basic," marriage is not one of them. Sodomites are not lacking basic rights nor are they an oppressed minority or a minority at all for that matter, they're simply a group of people with a sexually deviant lifestyle seeking to have that lifestyle legitimatized and accepted and want special right to get married.

You think Americans have too much freedom ? I'll bite what freedoms should be taken away.

 

[Liability]

Religious belief is a perspective

Everyone tends to vote there perspective

Therefore, not only are you trying to impose your religious beliefs on others, they are imposing their beliefs onto you!!!

On this issue, Bass, tell those hypocrites to back off!! Voting your beliefs is the American Way!!

Since I am not a strong advocate for the alleged "right" of gays to get "married," my question is more genuine than you might guess.

The question is: IS it really a matter about which the majority should have an absolute and determinative say?

Or, is it one of those matters that transcends any notion of majority rule?

For illustration only (not a true analog): this nation used to hold that blacks were inferior and worthy of being held as mere property. When slavery ended, there was a long period in our history (at least in some ares in the land) where blacks were not entitled to actual equal protection of the laws. If a majority wanted "those" blacks to live in separate communities and to be required to drink water from separate water fountains and dine at separate lunch counters, etc., was that properly something that was subject to the will of a voting majority? Or was that kind of legislation a wrong that transcended the will of the majority?

I personally think the issue "transcends any notion of majority rule".

The idea of keeping a group of people from practicing basic rights due to their eccentric behavior appears to be based on prejudices against that group.

But the Bass is trying to argue that he is not imposing his religious beliefs on others. When you put issues like this to a vote, you are expressing your sincerest beliefs. And since Homosexuals are a minority in the population, they will become oppressed by the majority of Heterosexuals until they wise up.

Like start a religion that marry Gays and get it recognized by the US government!! That is the quickest path to obtaining their rights--through the protection of a newly minted Gay friendly religion.

I wonder will their minister wear a Habit??

I think I have found an area of agreement between us.

While I believe that the legalization of "gay 'marriage'" is a matter better left to the People (or maybe the legislature) of the States than it is left to the Courts, I am also not entirely convinced that it is even proper fodder for the will of a majority. In other words, if the PEOPLE of the State of New Jersey wish to recognize a gay couple's union as a "marriage," they should be the ones to say so.

On the other hand, (and again noting it is not a valid analogy), if the citizens of a State wished to deny blacks the legal right to get "married," that would be pretty clearly a determination they have no right to make.

So on what basis would it be valid for the citizens of a state to deny gays the right to get "married," but invalid for the citizens of a State to deny such rights to blacks?

I'm not just taunting the Basshole here, either, just because he's a black racist and bigot as regards gays.

I mean only that there ARE some areas where we recognize that a tyranny of a majority is invalid. Where are such lines drawn?

 

[Toronado3800]

Perhaps if the the government used a different term for recognized marriages there would be less uproar.

Really I don't care if church "A" will marry two gay men or two lesbians. THAT is up to their interpretation of their holy book.

The government needs to be more lenient and pretty much marry any adults. Be it called a union, marriage, bonding, whatever as long as in the government's eyes and language it is the same word applied to heterosexual couples.

 

[Father Time]

For some reason whenever someone suggests that I sometimes hear people say that separate but equal is bad or that it only works on paper or whatever.

I don't see the problem or their argument. To me whether you call gay marriage a marriage or a civil union is pure aesthetics.

 

[eagleseven]

Did we let states vote to end Jim Crow laws, or did the Supreme Court strike them down?

Who today advocates for the states' rights to segregate? Only extremists...and so it shall be with homosexuality, come 50 years from now.