Sexuality and Choice...

[Kerr]

I, for one, came from a household with only one parent. My mother was single from the time i was born to the time she passed away. There are circumstances that are out of our control, but that does not mean we should provide privileges to people who behave abnormally willingly.

My mother is a very strong woman, she is one of the things that taught me that we are not defined by our gender, we define ourselves. That is the only acceptable approach from the society as well.

 

[madhatter85]

My mother is a very strong woman, she has taught me that we are not defined by our gender, we define ourselves. That is the only acceptable approach from the society as well.

So are you saying homosexuality is a choice?

 

[Perfect Circle]

I re-cited the decision of the court and you have yet to show how homosexual unions are fundamental to our very existence and survival.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... -

But a couple that doesn't want to have children (and sterile couples, though you refuse to accept it) does not fit this model. If so, you are in favor of revoking their marriage certificates. You just keep avoiding it... and because of it, you're argument and credibility suffer.

 

[madhatter85]

It's not that I don't like it. It's that it wasn't an answer. If I ask you if you like french fries, and you say "No", that's a direct answer. If I say "Should we allow people who don't want to have children to get married?" and you reply "I don't like those people.", then all you've done is let me know how you feel about them. You have dodged the question. I personally believe you're doing so because if you admit that they should be allowed to get married, then your entire argument against prohibiting homosexuals from marriage is broken. All of the reasons you provide for homosexuals not being allowed to have children apply in that situation, and you simply don't want to admit it.

I don't think there is any reason people should get married if they are not willing to raise a family. You may as well be roommates who sodomize each other once a month

 

[Kerr]

Sterility does not compare because it is not behavioral.

That it is behavioral does not matter either, all that matters is the nature of it. And since homosexuality is not destrucive in nature, the only logical conclusion is that we should not care about it.

 

[Kerr]

So are you saying homosexuality is a choice?

No, I am saying traditional gender rolls are flawed, they inhibit individuality.

 

[Kerr]

Sterility does not compare because it is not behavioral.

And I take that as a yes, by the way.

 

[madhatter85]

But a couple that doesn't want to have children (and sterile couples, though you refuse to accept it) does not fit this model. If so, you are in favor of revoking their marriage certificates. You just keep avoiding it... and because of it, you're argument and credibility suffer.

Nice straw man.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... -
Please explain how homosexual unions are Fundamental to our very existence and survival.

You have to take the sentence in the context in which it was put. This was in regards to interracial relationships. Not homosexual relationships.

 

[madhatter85]

That it is behavioral does not matter either, all that matters is the nature of it. And since homosexuality is not destrucive in nature, the only logical conclusion is that we should not care about it.

It actually is destructive at a fundamental level. It inhibits one's desire to further the species.

 

[madhatter85]

No, I am saying traditional gender rolls are flawed, they inhibit individuality.

I have to disagree. At a physiological level Men and Women are both geared towards different actions and thought patterns based on the same information given to the brain through their senses. This is a fundamental human trait that shows men and women have different roles in society. However, if you wish to discuss this aspect further, please create a different thread as this is off-topic.

 

[Autodidact]

Ethnicity is not behavioral.

But interracial marriage is.

And you have yet to explain why something being "behavioral" makes a difference. After all, marriage is behavioral.

Not when based on behavioral abnormality.

If it makes you feel more secure, call it an abnormality. Difference is a good thing, and should be valued. The fact that you don't says much more about you than about gay people.

Ethnic persecution is wrong was always wrong.

So is homosexual persecution. We're at the same place now as we were at with racial persecution a few decades ago, and a few decades from now you will realize that you were on the wrong side--the side the LDS Church is always on.

A Minority who organize themselves based on a behavioral abnormality?

I didn't realize we were talking about Mormons. Because, of course, practicing LDS theology is a behavioral abnormality.

I suppose if you manage to characterize a group with a sufficiently pejorative nomenclature, it makes you feel better about discriminating against them.

And you continue to insist on bringing religious ideals into this debate.
I have not once based any of my views expressed here on religious ideals.:sleep:

Yes, I'm sure it's just a random coincidence...not.

 

[Autodidact]

Tell them to go to a lawyer and form a partnership, but marriage is between two people of the opposite sex

Not in Canada, Spain, etc. etc.

which may result in begetting of children. The tax benifits exist to promote child raising and not sexual agendas....

Then why do we extend them to childless couples?

 

[Autodidact]

No, they are based on the fact that our DNA governs that for us.

Our DNA does what exactly?

 

[Autodidact]

Nice straw man.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... -
Please explain how homosexual unions are Fundamental to our very existence and survival.

And another entry in the Olympic goal-post moving competition.

Read very carefully: MARRIAGE IS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. Marriage. Not homosexual unions, marriage. The case was cited against your position (necessary to your argument) that marriage is a privilege. It isn't. IT'S A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. Your argument fails.

You have to take the sentence in the context in which it was put. This was in regards to interracial relationships. Not homosexual relationships.

The court has held this in several contexts, including as applied to prisoners. Marriage is a fundamental right. That is the law of the U.S. Now that you know this, either show why the Supreme Court is wrong, or stop maintaining that it's a special privilege.

 

[Autodidact]

I, for one, came from a household with only one parent. My mother was single from the time i was born to the time she passed away. There are circumstances that are out of our control, but that does not mean we should provide privileges to people who behave abnormally willingly.

So Mormons shouldn't be allowed to marry, I guess. Why should we extend that privilege to people who behave abnormally willingly?

 

[Autodidact]

I'm sorry if you don't like my answer but the question is not simply so black and white as you try to paint it.

I'm sorry, I missed your answer. These couples SHOULD be allowed to marry, or SHOULD NOT.

Everyone here knows that when you refuse to answer a simple question, it's because you know the answer is devastating to your argument, so own up and take your medicine. Answer the question.

People in prison are generally not allowed to marry. Their privileges have been taken away by the way they choose to behave. Rapists belong in prison don't you agree? Peopel who suffer from insanity generally are not held accountable for thier actions and are not held liable for contractual obligations and sometimes laws. This includes marriage. your argument is extremely thin as insanity and incarceration are handled on a case by case basis.

If madhatter would read my posts, he would learn something and not make such spectacular bloopers. The Supreme Court in Turner v. Safley held that prisoners cannot be denied the right to marry, because marriage is a fundamental right. And why on earth are we talking about rapists and crazy people? (although he's completely wrong about crazy people too. Insane people have the same rights as anyone else, unless they are found unable to manage their own affairs by a court.)

I'll ignore the fact that you see no difference between the roles that males and females play in society. That still does not mean that we should grant the same privileges to people who chose to behave contrary to the reasons the privileges were instituted in the first place.

O.K., What are those reasons?

 

[Autodidact]

In this instance you are backpedaling. first you say we are overpopulated [unfounded] and that homosexuality is the answer to slow down population growth. Now you say it makes little difference? :cover:

Which means it is not an inheritable trait. But since gay supporters claim it to be genetics, it must be a flaw in the genetic code.
Pure logic does not need to be complex. Occam's razor right?

It makes absolutely no difference which it is, since there is nothing harmful, negative or wrong with it. The only objection to it is sheer unadulterated prejudice, dressed up in sciencey sounding Mengelesque eugenics.

 

[YamiB.]

It actually is destructive at a fundamental level. It inhibits one's desire to further the species.

Homosexuality does not inhibit the furthering of the species. For example homosexual couples can raise children who are in need of being adopted. Of course anybody can contribute to society through their individual action so that is really a moot point.

If you mean furthering the species by physically having children as a couple then how does this statement not apply to infertile couples?

Nice straw man.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... -
Please explain how homosexual unions are Fundamental to our very existence and survival.

You have to take the sentence in the context in which it was put. This was in regards to interracial relationships. Not homosexual relationships.

Yes, and that doesn't matter because he was not using it to argue that they found same-sex marriages legal. The point was that they found marriage to be a right.

 

[Autodidact]

Exactly, Homosexuality does not promote survival of the human race. Nor did i say it would kill us all. I am merely stating that abnormal behavior does not necessitate delivery of privileges to they who chose to behave contrary to the reasons why those privileges were given in the first place.

1. It's no more abnormal than being LDS.
2. You seem to have an inability to assimilate new information. It's not a privilege; it's a right. Loving v. Virginia, Zablocki v. Redhail, Turner v. Safley.

So you would sacrifice the greater good of mankind for a paltry desire to behave abnormally? Interesting.

Please explain exactly how allowing same-sex marriage will harm mankind. On the contrary, it will be greatly beneficial to society at large.

 

[Autodidact]

Sterility does not compare because it is not behavioral.

So, if I understand you right, what you're saying is that you refuse to answer the question. That's what I figured. FAIL