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

[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?

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

They are treated like anyone else by government. What makes you think they aren’t?
Much of the American public does not respect them, they don’t see them as ‘normal’, decent or moral, they don’t want their children exposed to them, they don’t want their children to emulate their behavior....they don’t hold them in high regard.
Is that what has you a little pissed off? Do you believe the public should be forced to change their perception?
[/QUOTE]
Why not, we have to put up with a parade of fake religious people never following the tenets of their religions yet claiming piety, morality and normality.
[/QUOTE]

Not to mention judgmental leftists.

Clearly I said I'm against both. As I said in my quote, gays should be treated like everyone else

 

[BrokeLoser]

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?

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?

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

They are treated like anyone else by government. What makes you think they aren’t?
Much of the American public does not respect them, they don’t see them as ‘normal’, decent or moral, they don’t want their children exposed to them, they don’t want their children to emulate their behavior....they don’t hold them in high regard.
Is that what has you a little pissed off? Do you believe the public should be forced to change their perception?

Why not, we have to put up with a parade of fake religious people never following the tenets of their religions yet claiming piety, morality and normality.

I have no problem with you not holding Christians in high regard, not respecting them.....Go for it.

 

[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?

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

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

 

[BrokeLoser]

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

How is marriage being "watered down". Gay marriage has done NOTHING to affect my marriage, or life in my country. If anything, gay marriage has actually strengthened marriage. Most young people thought marriage was "old fashioned" and a lot of young people were just cohabitting - no messy court cases when you go your own way, but when gay marriage became a thing, people starting thinking that maybe it wasn't old fashioned at all. The fact that gays valued marriage so much, encouraged young straight people give it a second look.

How has it affected your marriage? Don't care. How has it affected society's marriages is the question. It works to destroy the nuclear family by making the structure unclear.

Mark

What's unclear about it?

What is a family? It is completely obvious that until recently, it was biological. What other parameters can be expanded? How about 3 or 4 marrying? Or maybe 6?

Mark

What is so confusing about what a family is? Is a spouse family, or is a spouse not family? What is it about allowing same sex folks to become spouses that makes your marriage so confusing to you? The structure is unclear? Thats what you said...the structure is unclear. So here, let me explain it to you like you're 5: da struktur is that two(2) adults can consent in a bond we call marriage which is a rekkugnized instuhhh tooshin by thaa state

Are you still confused by the structure? Does your marriage feel unbroken now? I'd be glad if it did.

Did the social acceptance of divorce cause you to get a divorce? Of course it didn't. But it certainly did to society as a whole, did it not?

Mark

Divorce is a personal choice and each human is personally responsible for their own...the buck stops with them, not the spooky gays. That argument doesn't really have any bearing.

It sure does. We are talking about effects on society and I have clearly proven that changes in our structure can affect the family unit.

Mark

No, you haven't proven that. The divorce rate did not coincide with gay marriage, and you didn't point to any structural change with marriage that correlated with an increased divorce rate. Divorce was always legal. It's choice and technology that likely caused its increase. Folks had more than their small town Betty or Frank to choose from and when their marriage became unhappy, such can be of human nature...they suddenly realized that nobody's desert religion is going to prevent them from correcting the course of their life and so they got divorced. Shocker, news at 11.

Sure I have proven it. When divorce became socially acceptable, what happened?

Mark

People stopped living in abusive, alcoholic and unhappy marriages like they should have always done.

News at 11.

Nobody give two fucks about the .2 percentile of divorced couples. Tell us about the other segment, the 99.8 percentile.

 

[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 fuck 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

Yeah , it's the Dems who are all wrapped up in being gay while it is Republicans who are all wrapped up in discriminating against gay people.

Your typical sarcasm, makes no sense. You really suck at it. You do hang in there and keep trying though!

I really have no control over your inability to decipher English.

You also have no grasp of how to write English

 

[G.T.]

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

How is marriage being "watered down". Gay marriage has done NOTHING to affect my marriage, or life in my country. If anything, gay marriage has actually strengthened marriage. Most young people thought marriage was "old fashioned" and a lot of young people were just cohabitting - no messy court cases when you go your own way, but when gay marriage became a thing, people starting thinking that maybe it wasn't old fashioned at all. The fact that gays valued marriage so much, encouraged young straight people give it a second look.

How has it affected your marriage? Don't care. How has it affected society's marriages is the question. It works to destroy the nuclear family by making the structure unclear.

Mark

What's unclear about it?

What is a family? It is completely obvious that until recently, it was biological. What other parameters can be expanded? How about 3 or 4 marrying? Or maybe 6?

Mark

What is so confusing about what a family is? Is a spouse family, or is a spouse not family? What is it about allowing same sex folks to become spouses that makes your marriage so confusing to you? The structure is unclear? Thats what you said...the structure is unclear. So here, let me explain it to you like you're 5: da struktur is that two(2) adults can consent in a bond we call marriage which is a rekkugnized instuhhh tooshin by thaa state

Are you still confused by the structure? Does your marriage feel unbroken now? I'd be glad if it did.

Did the social acceptance of divorce cause you to get a divorce? Of course it didn't. But it certainly did to society as a whole, did it not?

Mark

Divorce is a personal choice and each human is personally responsible for their own...the buck stops with them, not the spooky gays. That argument doesn't really have any bearing.

It sure does. We are talking about effects on society and I have clearly proven that changes in our structure can affect the family unit.

Mark

No, you haven't proven that. The divorce rate did not coincide with gay marriage, and you didn't point to any structural change with marriage that correlated with an increased divorce rate. Divorce was always legal. It's choice and technology that likely caused its increase. Folks had more than their small town Betty or Frank to choose from and when their marriage became unhappy, such can be of human nature...they suddenly realized that nobody's desert religion is going to prevent them from correcting the course of their life and so they got divorced. Shocker, news at 11.

Sure I have proven it. When divorce became socially acceptable, what happened?

Mark

People stopped living in abusive, alcoholic and unhappy marriages like they should have always done.

News at 11.

Nobody give two fucks about the .2 percentile of divorced couples. Tell us about the other segment, the 99.8 percentile.

I have no idea which statistic you're referring to, Loser. You'd have to elaborate before I provide you with a better insight than yours.

 

[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 fuck 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

You stumbled over the answer in the quesrio.

If it is limited to consenting adults then it is irrelevant whether it is a preference or genetic

But these days it is clear that minors and children are involved. If it is considered genetic then they can force people including parents to accept their kids being gay or even taught to embrace their sexuality at a young age. The justification will be that it causes psychological harm for parents to teach a kid to be straight if the kid has the gay gene.

its all about control

How do you even "teach a kid to be straight?"

 

[BrokeLoser]

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

How is marriage being "watered down". Gay marriage has done NOTHING to affect my marriage, or life in my country. If anything, gay marriage has actually strengthened marriage. Most young people thought marriage was "old fashioned" and a lot of young people were just cohabitting - no messy court cases when you go your own way, but when gay marriage became a thing, people starting thinking that maybe it wasn't old fashioned at all. The fact that gays valued marriage so much, encouraged young straight people give it a second look.

How has it affected your marriage? Don't care. How has it affected society's marriages is the question. It works to destroy the nuclear family by making the structure unclear.

Mark

What's unclear about it?

What is a family? It is completely obvious that until recently, it was biological. What other parameters can be expanded? How about 3 or 4 marrying? Or maybe 6?

Mark

What is so confusing about what a family is? Is a spouse family, or is a spouse not family? What is it about allowing same sex folks to become spouses that makes your marriage so confusing to you? The structure is unclear? Thats what you said...the structure is unclear. So here, let me explain it to you like you're 5: da struktur is that two(2) adults can consent in a bond we call marriage which is a rekkugnized instuhhh tooshin by thaa state

Are you still confused by the structure? Does your marriage feel unbroken now? I'd be glad if it did.

Did the social acceptance of divorce cause you to get a divorce? Of course it didn't. But it certainly did to society as a whole, did it not?

Mark

Divorce is a personal choice and each human is personally responsible for their own...the buck stops with them, not the spooky gays. That argument doesn't really have any bearing.

It sure does. We are talking about effects on society and I have clearly proven that changes in our structure can affect the family unit.

Mark

No, you haven't proven that. The divorce rate did not coincide with gay marriage, and you didn't point to any structural change with marriage that correlated with an increased divorce rate. Divorce was always legal. It's choice and technology that likely caused its increase. Folks had more than their small town Betty or Frank to choose from and when their marriage became unhappy, such can be of human nature...they suddenly realized that nobody's desert religion is going to prevent them from correcting the course of their life and so they got divorced. Shocker, news at 11.

Sure I have proven it. When divorce became socially acceptable, what happened?

Mark

People stopped living in abusive, alcoholic and unhappy marriages like they should have always done.

News at 11.

Nobody give two fucks about the .2 percentile of divorced couples. Tell us about the other segment, the 99.8 percentile.

I have no idea which statistic you're referring to, Loser. You'd have to elaborate before I provide you with a better insight than yours.

My point was made crystal clear for a third grader.
You weirdos always tend to pretend the micro-percentage should be acknowledged while we ignore the greater percentage. It’s kinda the Leftist M.O.

 

[kaz]

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

How is marriage being "watered down". Gay marriage has done NOTHING to affect my marriage, or life in my country. If anything, gay marriage has actually strengthened marriage. Most young people thought marriage was "old fashioned" and a lot of young people were just cohabitting - no messy court cases when you go your own way, but when gay marriage became a thing, people starting thinking that maybe it wasn't old fashioned at all. The fact that gays valued marriage so much, encouraged young straight people give it a second look.

How has it affected your marriage? Don't care. How has it affected society's marriages is the question. It works to destroy the nuclear family by making the structure unclear.

Mark

What's unclear about it?

What is a family? It is completely obvious that until recently, it was biological. What other parameters can be expanded? How about 3 or 4 marrying? Or maybe 6?

Mark

What is so confusing about what a family is? Is a spouse family, or is a spouse not family? What is it about allowing same sex folks to become spouses that makes your marriage so confusing to you? The structure is unclear? Thats what you said...the structure is unclear. So here, let me explain it to you like you're 5: da struktur is that two(2) adults can consent in a bond we call marriage which is a rekkugnized instuhhh tooshin by thaa state

Are you still confused by the structure? Does your marriage feel unbroken now? I'd be glad if it did.

Did the social acceptance of divorce cause you to get a divorce? Of course it didn't. But it certainly did to society as a whole, did it not?

Mark

Divorce is a personal choice and each human is personally responsible for their own...the buck stops with them, not the spooky gays. That argument doesn't really have any bearing.

It sure does. We are talking about effects on society and I have clearly proven that changes in our structure can affect the family unit.

Mark

No, you haven't proven that. The divorce rate did not coincide with gay marriage, and you didn't point to any structural change with marriage that correlated with an increased divorce rate. Divorce was always legal. It's choice and technology that likely caused its increase. Folks had more than their small town Betty or Frank to choose from and when their marriage became unhappy, such can be of human nature...they suddenly realized that nobody's desert religion is going to prevent them from correcting the course of their life and so they got divorced. Shocker, news at 11.

Sure I have proven it. When divorce became socially acceptable, what happened?

Mark

People stopped living in abusive, alcoholic and unhappy marriages like they should have always done.

News at 11.

I was divorced from my first marriage. I have no apologies. My wife was emotionally and verbally abusive. At first I tried to talk to her about what she was saying, but it didn't change and she claimed there was nothing wrong with how she treated me. I wasn't allowed to go out without verbal abuse, even to my brother's house or to play basketball after work with my friends. Then I started telling her that "I" think there's a problem with how she talks to me, and that is a problem in itself. We started going to counselors and they ALL took my side, she said they were biased against her. Including ... her minister ...

I finally told her I'm leaving and walked out the door. Thank God I did. I do not believe God wanted me to stay in an abusive relationship like that. I do think people quit too easily and quickly, but I do not believe we should stay in a bad marriage and be miserable the rest of our life once it's clear it won't change. I am SO much happier now.

No piece of paper from government had anything to do with how I handled it

 

[Moonglow]

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 fuck 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

Yeah , it's the Dems who are all wrapped up in being gay while it is Republicans who are all wrapped up in discriminating against gay people.

Your typical sarcasm, makes no sense. You really suck at it. You do hang in there and keep trying though!

I really have no control over your inability to decipher English.

You also have no grasp of how to write English

Amazingly,I can decipher your hen pecking.

 

[G.T.]

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

How is marriage being "watered down". Gay marriage has done NOTHING to affect my marriage, or life in my country. If anything, gay marriage has actually strengthened marriage. Most young people thought marriage was "old fashioned" and a lot of young people were just cohabitting - no messy court cases when you go your own way, but when gay marriage became a thing, people starting thinking that maybe it wasn't old fashioned at all. The fact that gays valued marriage so much, encouraged young straight people give it a second look.

How has it affected your marriage? Don't care. How has it affected society's marriages is the question. It works to destroy the nuclear family by making the structure unclear.

Mark

What's unclear about it?

What is a family? It is completely obvious that until recently, it was biological. What other parameters can be expanded? How about 3 or 4 marrying? Or maybe 6?

Mark

What is so confusing about what a family is? Is a spouse family, or is a spouse not family? What is it about allowing same sex folks to become spouses that makes your marriage so confusing to you? The structure is unclear? Thats what you said...the structure is unclear. So here, let me explain it to you like you're 5: da struktur is that two(2) adults can consent in a bond we call marriage which is a rekkugnized instuhhh tooshin by thaa state

Are you still confused by the structure? Does your marriage feel unbroken now? I'd be glad if it did.

Did the social acceptance of divorce cause you to get a divorce? Of course it didn't. But it certainly did to society as a whole, did it not?

Mark

Divorce is a personal choice and each human is personally responsible for their own...the buck stops with them, not the spooky gays. That argument doesn't really have any bearing.

It sure does. We are talking about effects on society and I have clearly proven that changes in our structure can affect the family unit.

Mark

No, you haven't proven that. The divorce rate did not coincide with gay marriage, and you didn't point to any structural change with marriage that correlated with an increased divorce rate. Divorce was always legal. It's choice and technology that likely caused its increase. Folks had more than their small town Betty or Frank to choose from and when their marriage became unhappy, such can be of human nature...they suddenly realized that nobody's desert religion is going to prevent them from correcting the course of their life and so they got divorced. Shocker, news at 11.

Sure I have proven it. When divorce became socially acceptable, what happened?

Mark

People stopped living in abusive, alcoholic and unhappy marriages like they should have always done.

News at 11.

Nobody give two fucks about the .2 percentile of divorced couples. Tell us about the other segment, the 99.8 percentile.

I have no idea which statistic you're referring to, Loser. You'd have to elaborate before I provide you with a better insight than yours.

My point was made crystal clear for a third grader.
You weirdos always tend to pretend the micro-percentage should be acknowledged while we ignore the greater percentage. It’s kinda the Leftist M.O.

No your post was super unclear. You said something about .2% of divorced couples and 99.8% of divorced couples without elucidating which statistic you were referring to. Sorry not sorry - your post made no sense.

 

[kaz]

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

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

 

[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 fuck 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

Yeah , it's the Dems who are all wrapped up in being gay while it is Republicans who are all wrapped up in discriminating against gay people.

Your typical sarcasm, makes no sense. You really suck at it. You do hang in there and keep trying though!

I really have no control over your inability to decipher English.

You also have no grasp of how to write English

Amazingly,I can decipher your hen pecking.

Moonglow: No I'm not, kaz, YOU ARE. You are, kaz, you are!

Yet another playgrounder leftist eight year old

 

[G.T.]

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

How is marriage being "watered down". Gay marriage has done NOTHING to affect my marriage, or life in my country. If anything, gay marriage has actually strengthened marriage. Most young people thought marriage was "old fashioned" and a lot of young people were just cohabitting - no messy court cases when you go your own way, but when gay marriage became a thing, people starting thinking that maybe it wasn't old fashioned at all. The fact that gays valued marriage so much, encouraged young straight people give it a second look.

How has it affected your marriage? Don't care. How has it affected society's marriages is the question. It works to destroy the nuclear family by making the structure unclear.

Mark

What's unclear about it?

What is a family? It is completely obvious that until recently, it was biological. What other parameters can be expanded? How about 3 or 4 marrying? Or maybe 6?

Mark

What is so confusing about what a family is? Is a spouse family, or is a spouse not family? What is it about allowing same sex folks to become spouses that makes your marriage so confusing to you? The structure is unclear? Thats what you said...the structure is unclear. So here, let me explain it to you like you're 5: da struktur is that two(2) adults can consent in a bond we call marriage which is a rekkugnized instuhhh tooshin by thaa state

Are you still confused by the structure? Does your marriage feel unbroken now? I'd be glad if it did.

Did the social acceptance of divorce cause you to get a divorce? Of course it didn't. But it certainly did to society as a whole, did it not?

Mark

Divorce is a personal choice and each human is personally responsible for their own...the buck stops with them, not the spooky gays. That argument doesn't really have any bearing.

It sure does. We are talking about effects on society and I have clearly proven that changes in our structure can affect the family unit.

Mark

No, you haven't proven that. The divorce rate did not coincide with gay marriage, and you didn't point to any structural change with marriage that correlated with an increased divorce rate. Divorce was always legal. It's choice and technology that likely caused its increase. Folks had more than their small town Betty or Frank to choose from and when their marriage became unhappy, such can be of human nature...they suddenly realized that nobody's desert religion is going to prevent them from correcting the course of their life and so they got divorced. Shocker, news at 11.

Sure I have proven it. When divorce became socially acceptable, what happened?

Mark

People stopped living in abusive, alcoholic and unhappy marriages like they should have always done.

News at 11.

I was divorced from my first marriage. I have no apologies. My wife was emotionally and verbally abusive. At first I tried to talk to her about what she was saying, but it didn't change and she claimed there was nothing wrong with how she treated me. I wasn't allowed to go out without verbal abuse, even to my brother's house or to play basketball after work with my friends. Then I started telling her that "I" think there's a problem with how she talks to me, and that is a problem in itself. We started going to counselors and they ALL took my side, she said they were biased against her. Including ... her minister ...

I finally told her I'm leaving and walked out the door. Thank God I did. I do not believe God wanted me to stay in an abusive relationship like that. I do think people quit too easily and quickly, but I do not believe we should stay in a bad marriage and be miserable the rest of our life once it's clear it won't change. I am SO much happier now.

No piece of paper from government had anything to do with how I handled it

You mean you handled it like a rational adult, as it should be. I'm glad you got out of there, too. Nobody deserves that.

 

[Moonglow]

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

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

The government can do nothing without the cooperation of society and citizens helping to enforce the law or abide to its terms.

 

[Moonglow]

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 fuck 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

Yeah , it's the Dems who are all wrapped up in being gay while it is Republicans who are all wrapped up in discriminating against gay people.

Your typical sarcasm, makes no sense. You really suck at it. You do hang in there and keep trying though!

I really have no control over your inability to decipher English.

You also have no grasp of how to write English

Amazingly,I can decipher your hen pecking.

Moonglow: No I'm not, kaz, YOU ARE. You are, kaz, you are!

Yet another playgrounder leftist eight year old

Yawn. Your banter stinks.

 

[kaz]

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

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

The government can do nothing without the cooperation of society and citizens helping to enforce the law or abide to its terms.

The reason the racists went to government was to force people to do what they wouldn't do on their own. Think about it, else there was no reason to pass a law.

Then when the FBI started coming in and going after the KKK, they were inundated with tips from within the KKK. They were turning down people offering to help.

Turns out that while there was a lot of racism, most of the people didn't want to be lynching and burning crosses and terrorizing black families. But they were afraid the mobs would be turned on them if they spoke up

 

[Moonglow]

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

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

The government can do nothing without the cooperation of society and citizens helping to enforce the law or abide to its terms.

The reason the racists went to government was to force people to do what they wouldn't do on their own. Think about it, else there was no reason to pass a law.

Then when the FBI started coming in and going after the KKK, they were inundated with tips from within the KKK. They were turning down people offering to help.

Turns out that while there was a lot of racism, most of the people didn't want to be lynching and burning crosses and terrorizing black families. But they were afraid the mobs would be turned on them if they spoke up

And yet it was the KKK who destroyed themselves during a rally in which shots were fired, all done in the court system by being sued.

 

[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 fuck 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

Yeah , it's the Dems who are all wrapped up in being gay while it is Republicans who are all wrapped up in discriminating against gay people.

Your typical sarcasm, makes no sense. You really suck at it. You do hang in there and keep trying though!

I really have no control over your inability to decipher English.

You also have no grasp of how to write English

Amazingly,I can decipher your hen pecking.

Moonglow: No I'm not, kaz, YOU ARE. You are, kaz, you are!

Yet another playgrounder leftist eight year old

Yawn. Your banter stinks.

It's not banter, you weren't up for the job.

WC Fields: I'd engage with you in a little intellectual repartee, but I never do battle with an unarmed man.

Note you're still stuck on the eight year playgrounding, no you're not, I am ...

 

[kaz]

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

I disagree.

Any and all citizens are entitles to all the legal protections as anyone else.

What do you care if two same sex people marry so that the partners can receive all the protections we as a society have agreed upon?

What does it matter when it comes decisions like medical care, or health insurance if a married couple is same sex or not?

On your last question, I agree as long as you mean it's between you, your employer, your insurance company, whoever, but it's not government regulation. Government should stay out of it

So you want to get rid of all anti-discrimination laws?

Yes. Government should not be allowed to discriminate. But government has no legitimate power to control the relationship between private citizens. Talk about being a slave to government

So then you want to go back to White only drinking fountains etc?

We benefit more as an inclusive society.

The more people that are included the happier and more productive they are.

Well, that's a totally vacuous statement since you were completely vague about what you meant. So let's go back to what I said.

Government drinking fountains could not be white only. Parks, government buildings, government schools, none cold do that. I said that. Sure, privately owned drinking fountains could be. Not that anyone would do that other than maybe some redneck bar on Boonieville where blacks wouldn't really want to go anyway.

Even the Montgomery Bus Company opposed the laws that forced their most loyal customers to the back of the bus and to stand, it was terrible for business. Pick up a history book. And that was 50s Alabama.

Public accommodation laws are a sledge hammer solution to a non-existent problem. Only a true government loving leftist would ever look at the reality of those laws and support them

you assume no one would do that again but I don't.

I have a feeling they would.

I don't find public accommodation laws to be a burden at all. And you might want to realize that the nonexistent problem you speak of is nonexistent because of public accommodation laws.

I just gave you the specific example that even in deep South Alabama the Montgomery Bus Company OPPOSED Jim Crow laws.

Note Jim Crow ... LAWS ... It was government that did that. And government is your solution to prevent it. See anything wrong with that at all?

The government can do nothing without the cooperation of society and citizens helping to enforce the law or abide to its terms.

The reason the racists went to government was to force people to do what they wouldn't do on their own. Think about it, else there was no reason to pass a law.

Then when the FBI started coming in and going after the KKK, they were inundated with tips from within the KKK. They were turning down people offering to help.

Turns out that while there was a lot of racism, most of the people didn't want to be lynching and burning crosses and terrorizing black families. But they were afraid the mobs would be turned on them if they spoke up

And yet it was the KKK who destroyed themselves during a rally in which shots were fired, all done in the court system by being sued.

I like how you started with "and yet" then didn't say anything that contradicted anything in my post.

Here's a ball, Bart. Go play in the yard for a while. Look, it's bouncy ...