What difference does it make if being gay is genetic or if it's a choice?

[justinacolmena]

As long as it's a consenting adult, so the **** what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice?

By law, a man must be at least 18 years of age to have the right to refuse anal sex.

It's a developmental disorder.

A developmental disorder being the exceptional case where the right of a man 18 or over to refuse anal sex is revoked.

 

[busybee01]

Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the **** what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?

Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.

www.usatoday.com

The trouble is that Republicans want to discriminate against gays. You are not going to roll back the calendar. Republicans seem to think you can.

 

[justinacolmena]

The trouble is that Republicans want to discriminate against gays.

Yep. That's old-school Establishment G.O.P.

They have to determine somehow who's gay and who's not gay if they're going to discriminate against gays.

They don't know who anyone else is having sex with or not having sex with, but they do make certain ingratiating "assumptions" of excessive propriety, e.g. if a man is not gay (a "philanderer") then he's a "womanizer" in which case they press charges or serve civil process if he looks at their wife, sister, girlfriend, etc.

 

[Seawytch]

Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the **** what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?

Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.

www.usatoday.com

Why aren't you directing your question to those that continually insist that being gay is a choice? Why is it so important to them that gays have chosen to be with members of the same gender? If homophobes were not continually trying to discriminate against gays, it really wouldn't matter a whit if being gay were a choice or something people are born being.

 

[justinacolmena]

If homophobes were not continually trying to discriminate against gays

Well I have a stalker, an older female, probably a concerned mother, pillar of the community, friend and neighbor concerned for the welfare of children in the neighborhood, etc., etc.

Drives past my place 20 times a day, follows me obsessively on the road, tampers with my vehicle, but the law is on her side, especially if she's queer or bisexual, and besides that the laws against stalking and other such crimes are only applicable, either by statute or by long-standing and well-established practice, to straight men who stalk women.

 

[Juicin]

There is evidence it is genetic for men

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2019/08/29/theres-no-gay-gene-genetics-are-linked-same-sex-behavior-new-study-says/

women are of course all have a little lesbian in em jejejejeje

 

[Andylusion]

Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the **** what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?

Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.

www.usatoday.com

Well from a Christian perspective, it doesn't make any difference. Most men, when they see a good looking women, want to have sex with her. That doesn't change the fact a Christian is not supposed to cheat on their wives, and sleep with another man's wife, or someone they are not married too.

So whether the attraction is genetic or not, doesn't change the fact that we are to avoid sin.

The reason people actually want to believe that homosexuality is genetic, is the same reason they have for nearly every position on the left-wing. They don't want to take responsibility.

We have to have welfare, because it's not their fault they are poor.
We have to have medicare, because it's not their fault they didn't buy insurance.
We have to have income redistribution, because it's not their fault they blew all their money.

And homosexuality is genetic, because it can't be their fault they are gay.

That's really what it all boils down to.

If you analyze every position a left-winger takes on any topic, every single one boils down to.... "It's not my fault".

Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged" all the way back in the 1957, portrayed the left-wing as constantly saying "It's not my fault!", and in the last 60+ years, nothing has changed.

This is why any failure of socialism anywhere, is instantly backed up by accusations of blame against others. Hugo Chavez, blamed the US and Columbia. Greece blamed the IMF and Chase. North Korea blames South Korea. Cuba blames the US 'embargo' that doesn't exist.

Over and over, every time socialism fails, the result is consistently, that they find someone to blame.

Blaming Genetics is just another blame game, in a 100 years of blaming.

 

[kaz]

Democrats are all wrapped up in that it has to be genetic, not a choice. What difference does it make? Why is that so critically important to them? Either way, it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with. As long as it's a consenting adult, so the **** what? Why is this such a critical distinction to the Democrats whether it's genetic or choice? What does it change?

Judge Barrett, don't use 'sexual preference' for LGBTQ people. It's incorrect and alarming.

Amy Coney Barrett graduated from law school first in her class. She's 48 and came of age with the LGBTQ rights movement. She should have known better.

www.usatoday.com

Well from a Christian perspective, it doesn't make any difference. Most men, when they see a good looking women, want to have sex with her. That doesn't change the fact a Christian is not supposed to cheat on their wives, and sleep with another man's wife, or someone they are not married too.

So whether the attraction is genetic or not, doesn't change the fact that we are to avoid sin.

The reason people actually want to believe that homosexuality is genetic, is the same reason they have for nearly every position on the left-wing. They don't want to take responsibility.

We have to have welfare, because it's not their fault they are poor.
We have to have medicare, because it's not their fault they didn't buy insurance.
We have to have income redistribution, because it's not their fault they blew all their money.

And homosexuality is genetic, because it can't be their fault they are gay.

That's really what it all boils down to.

If you analyze every position a left-winger takes on any topic, every single one boils down to.... "It's not my fault".

Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged" all the way back in the 1957, portrayed the left-wing as constantly saying "It's not my fault!", and in the last 60+ years, nothing has changed.

This is why any failure of socialism anywhere, is instantly backed up by accusations of blame against others. Hugo Chavez, blamed the US and Columbia. Greece blamed the IMF and Chase. North Korea blames South Korea. Cuba blames the US 'embargo' that doesn't exist.

Over and over, every time socialism fails, the result is consistently, that they find someone to blame.

Blaming Genetics is just another blame game, in a 100 years of blaming.

I think you hit on the true answer. Democrats run around saying there is nothing wrong with being gay. But then they feel the need to say it's not their fault, it's genetic. Why make excuses if there is nothing wrong with it? Democrats yet again show their double standard.

I see nothing wrong with being gay. That is the irony, isn't it? As you said, Democrats say there's nothing wrong with being gay, but then they have to alibi gays. I don't see the difference because I actually don't see the problem with it in the first place

 

[kaz]

billions of people, billions of reasons why, certainly not just one or the other reason

I agree, but that misses the point of my question.

Democrats consider it an insult now to call gay a "preference." They demand it's not a choice.

My question is why? What difference does it make?

To me, I oppose discriminating against gays whether it's genetic or a preference. I oppose giving gays party favors and government handouts whether it's a preference or genetic. But that applies to every group, not just gays.

Why do leftists find it so critical that it's genetic and not a preference? That's my question

leftists/democrats find power by creating groups they can protect

I agree with that, but I don't see what it has to do with gay. Can you explain?

 

[kaz]

This is a really strange whine since both sides argue over whether its genetic or not...but your "what difference does it make" is only directed at the folks living the experience and not the right whangers whining the opposite.

Partisan whine thread #6, 472, 836

I'm "whining" that I don't care if gay is genetic or not and I don't think it should make any difference.

Government schools just fucked you up. I'm so sorry for you, shit head

 

[colfax_m]

Discrimination against gays is often founded on the idea that the discrimination is a consequence of a choice for people to be gay.

We have a natural aversion to discrimination based on inherent characteristics, but if you believe there is nothing inherent to being gay, it makes it easier to justify it.

 

[kaz]

This is a really strange whine since both sides argue over whether its genetic or not...but your "what difference does it make" is only directed at the folks living the experience and not the right whangers whining the opposite.

Partisan whine thread #6, 472, 836

I'm "whining" that I don't care if gay is genetic or not and I don't think it should make any difference.

Government schools just fucked you up. I'm so sorry for you, shit head

You're whining towards Gays / the left that you don't care...while the Right is also involved in the argument. That's what makes it another partisan whine show, same shit different day.

So yes, we know you're stupid and you didn't actually read the OP. You already announced that.

So which part do you disagree with me on?

1) It doesn't matter if it's genetic or a choice

2) Either way gays should be treated like anyone else. No better, no worse

I want to get to what you consider "whining."

Did they tell you to hate gays at your bigoted, extremist Christian church? Has a black or a gay ever gone to your church? What's the source of your homophobia?

 

[80zephyr]

billions of people, billions of reasons why, certainly not just one or the other reason

I agree, but that misses the point of my question.

Democrats consider it an insult now to call gay a "preference." They demand it's not a choice.

My question is why? What difference does it make?

To me, I oppose discriminating against gays whether it's genetic or a preference. I oppose giving gays party favors and government handouts whether it's a preference or genetic. But that applies to every group, not just gays.

Why do leftists find it so critical that it's genetic and not a preference? That's my question

Because its not discrimination if its a choice.

And it is a choice.

Mark

 

[kaz]

billions of people, billions of reasons why, certainly not just one or the other reason

I agree, but that misses the point of my question.

Democrats consider it an insult now to call gay a "preference." They demand it's not a choice.

My question is why? What difference does it make?

To me, I oppose discriminating against gays whether it's genetic or a preference. I oppose giving gays party favors and government handouts whether it's a preference or genetic. But that applies to every group, not just gays.

Why do leftists find it so critical that it's genetic and not a preference? That's my question

Because its not discrimination if its a choice.

And it is a choice.

Mark

I don't follow your logic, can you break it down for me a little more?

I think government should treat all citizens the same. Do you agree with that?

If someone is left handed (genetic) or a baseball player (choice), should either matter?

 

[Blues Man]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

 

[80zephyr]

billions of people, billions of reasons why, certainly not just one or the other reason

I agree, but that misses the point of my question.

Democrats consider it an insult now to call gay a "preference." They demand it's not a choice.

My question is why? What difference does it make?

To me, I oppose discriminating against gays whether it's genetic or a preference. I oppose giving gays party favors and government handouts whether it's a preference or genetic. But that applies to every group, not just gays.

Why do leftists find it so critical that it's genetic and not a preference? That's my question

Because its not discrimination if its a choice.

And it is a choice.

Mark

I don't follow your logic, can you break it down for me a little more?

I think government should treat all citizens the same. Do you agree with that?

If someone is left handed (genetic) or a baseball player (choice), should either matter?

The government should. But they SHOULD NOT, thru the force of law make me do so. And that is what they are doing.

Mark

 

[kaz]

billions of people, billions of reasons why, certainly not just one or the other reason

I agree, but that misses the point of my question.

Democrats consider it an insult now to call gay a "preference." They demand it's not a choice.

My question is why? What difference does it make?

To me, I oppose discriminating against gays whether it's genetic or a preference. I oppose giving gays party favors and government handouts whether it's a preference or genetic. But that applies to every group, not just gays.

Why do leftists find it so critical that it's genetic and not a preference? That's my question

Because its not discrimination if its a choice.

And it is a choice.

Mark

I don't follow your logic, can you break it down for me a little more?

I think government should treat all citizens the same. Do you agree with that?

If someone is left handed (genetic) or a baseball player (choice), should either matter?

The government should. But they SHOULD NOT, thru the force of law make me do so. And that is what they are doing.

Mark

OK, I agree with that. But I did say in the OP, " it's not a job for government either to discriminate against gays or to validate who they have sex with."

Meaning government should do nothing for them or against them for being gay regardless of whether it's a choice or not.

I believe government should tread ALL citizens the same. Which means no redistribution of wealth as taking money from one citizen and giving it to another is clearly not treating us the same.

I also oppose government marriage for the same reason. Coupling shouldn't entitle anyone to government perks at the expense of others.

That way we really treat gays like anyone else. No government marriage or the associated handouts for anyone, gay or straight

 

[80zephyr]

I just can't figure out why you people care who another person is attracted to.

Life is short so if a same sex partner makes people happy who are any of you to stop them?

I don't care who they love. I do care that it is the law. Our society is dying the "death of 1000 cuts", and watering down marriage is simply one more cut.

Mark