Admit it guys… gayness is a part of nature. That means it’s not a lifestyle “choice”, it’s a lifestyle natural determination that is made for us. It’s a choice on par with the reason I like vanilla. If I don’t like chocolate ice cream, I just don’t like it. You can put me in therapy, tell me it’s a sin to like vanilla, you can try hypnosis or all kinds of crazy things, but I’m still not going to like chocolate ice cream. Therefore I choose vanilla.
“Show me the vanilla ice cream gene!”
That’s what you sound like to me RJ, I’m sorry. All you guys crack me up though. Maybe someday you’ll wake up and think to yourself “what is so wrong about not liking chocolate ice cream?”
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Admit it guys… gayness is a part of nature. That means it’s not a lifestyle “choice”, it’s a lifestyle natural determination that is made for us. It’s a choice on par with the reason I like vanilla. If I don’t like chocolate ice cream, I just don’t like it. You can put me in therapy, tell me it’s a sin to like vanilla, you can try hypnosis or all kinds of crazy things, but I’m still not going to like chocolate ice cream. Therefore I choose vanilla.
“Show me the vanilla ice cream gene!”
That’s what you sound like to me RJ, I’m sorry. All you guys crack me up though. Maybe someday you’ll wake up and think to yourself “what is so wrong about not liking chocolate ice cream?” [/quote]
Deeper than that, their line of thinking is on par with believing that fetishes have a certain gene attached to them. Some guys like feet on a woman more than any other body part. Does there need to be a specific gene that shows this as far as why they don’t like a girl’s ass or thighs with as much passion? Do they turn that fetish off simply because you may like asses? The human mind is far from being mapped out. Its complexity is slightly beyond trying to reduce this to only an issue of choice. Your flavor analogy was a good one and the closest to exposing how off that line of thinking is. No one chooses what they truly like or don’t like. You simply like something because that is a part of who you are. What is learned, however, is bigotry and hatred due to differences. Children have to be taught to hate and despise someone with that much passion. In that case, it was originally someone’s choice to instill that in you.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You are totally missing the point. The pro gay marraige clan is crying that gays are made that way - hardwired. (honestly, I’ve typed this same damn thing 20 times today). The burden is on them is to show that they are different because of genetic differences - not environmental differences.
The studies you cite, while making the anti-hetero crowd feel all warm and fuzzy, proves nothing other than there are some exterior factors that can come into play to make a person more effeminate(sp). Being girly is not being gay. No one is denying the gays the opportunity to be gay. It’s not my life - I don’t care what they do.
But the argument here is that they should not be afforded special treatment under the constitution because of their choice to persue a lifestyle - regardless of what’s going on in their hypothalmus gland.
[/quote]
There’s no evidence that this IS a lifestyle choice (I must have type this a thousand times) The evidence that I quickly posted is of the genetic, biological type. The burden is on Dobson,Robertson,and all the other fake-christian, america hating nut-jobs to prove that gays do choose to be that way (which by default meant that they choose to be straight–there by stripping them of their right to marry —cause hetero rights stem from being genetic?) Regardless marrying a loved one is hardly a special treatment under the constitution. I can’t stress how arbitrary it is to pick one civil contact type and say this one is off limits. Are the theocrats gonna ban all types of civil contracts between “lifestyle choosers”?
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
Admit it guys… gayness is a part of nature. That means it’s not a lifestyle “choice”, it’s a lifestyle natural determination that is made for us. It’s a choice on par with the reason I like vanilla. If I don’t like chocolate ice cream, I just don’t like it. You can put me in therapy, tell me it’s a sin to like vanilla, you can try hypnosis or all kinds of crazy things, but I’m still not going to like chocolate ice cream. Therefore I choose vanilla.
“Show me the vanilla ice cream gene!”
[/quote]
However, with enough therapy and strong enough emotional and social pressure –(you’re going to hell, you goddamn vanilla licker!) – you certainly might find it in your best interest to pretend you like chocolate.
As for challenge to find a gene, it’s fairly disingenuous since the founding father’s had no information about genetic coding. However, it’s nice to see that many certainly agree that if it is genetic, then homosexuals deserve legal protection. That’s a huge step forward.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
No - the court house is not where legislation takes place[/quote]
Correct. The court house is where statutes inconsistent with the Constitution are struck down. Far from jumping in front of anyone, the Court is carefully proceeding as slowly as possible, modifying as little law as it can without denying the Bill of Rights altogether.
Sorry the context got lost due to an editing error. The comment about visibility is a delayed rejoinder to BostonBarrister’s objection that since homosexuality is ‘invisible’ (a somewhat technical term) it doesn’t qualify for nomination as a suspect case requiring special protections. For this objection to apply, homosexuality would have to be always invisible. In fact it is often quite visible.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
I hate to barge into the “liberal fest” but couldn’t resist.
Just a few corrections for those who are still blinded by all of the PC language that has been thrown at them since they were old enough to turn on the television all by themselves:
“Equal rights” are already given to Gay men. They are able to marry any female that will say yes. Isn’t that what heterosexuals have? What Gays want are extra rights. Think about it.[/quote]
They want the right to marry a partner, not a woman. You’re playing semantic games.
Even animals are gay Zeb, just look at bonobo chimps. Why don’t you go and try to ‘convert’ a gay man or woman, Im not sure youll have success.
I’m repulsed by obese people but I’m not gonna start lobbying for a ban on their rights. Conservatives are supposed to be all about personal rights (like owning guns) so leave people alone, whether you find them repugnant or not. Does it not bug you when law tells you what you can do as opposed to what you cant do?
[quote]Professor X wrote:
lothario1132 wrote:
Admit it guys… gayness is a part of nature. That means it’s not a lifestyle “choice”, it’s a lifestyle natural determination that is made for us. It’s a choice on par with the reason I like vanilla. If I don’t like chocolate ice cream, I just don’t like it. You can put me in therapy, tell me it’s a sin to like vanilla, you can try hypnosis or all kinds of crazy things, but I’m still not going to like chocolate ice cream. Therefore I choose vanilla.
“Show me the vanilla ice cream gene!”
That’s what you sound like to me RJ, I’m sorry. All you guys crack me up though. Maybe someday you’ll wake up and think to yourself “what is so wrong about not liking chocolate ice cream?”
Deeper than that, their line of thinking is on par with believing that fetishes have a certain gene attached to them. Some guys like feet on a woman more than any other body part. Does there need to be a specific gene that shows this as far as why they don’t like a girl’s ass or thighs with as much passion? Do they turn that fetish off simply because you may like asses? The human mind is far from being mapped out. Its complexity is slightly beyond trying to reduce this to only an issue of choice. Your flavor analogy was a good one and the closest to exposing how off that line of thinking is. No one chooses what they truly like or don’t like. You simply like something because that is a part of who you are. What is learned, however, is bigotry and hatred due to differences. Children have to be taught to hate and despise someone with that much passion. In that case, it was originally someone’s choice to instill that in you.[/quote]
[quote]rainjack wrote:
You are totally missing the point. The pro gay marraige clan is crying that gays are made that way - hardwired. (honestly, I’ve typed this same damn thing 20 times today). The burden is on them is to show that they are different because of genetic differences - not environmental differences.
[/quote]
RJ, you’re confusing me with this whole “Show me the gay gene and you win” thing.
At first I thought your argument was that homosexuality is not protected because it is a behavior. More specifically, homosexuality is defined by the actions that one takes, not an external physical characteristic. In that case having a strong predilection, even a predilection so strong that chosing an alternative behavior would be repulisive to the individual, is irrelvant. In other words, you can’t offer protected status to “people who like X”, even if the desire for X is so deep as to be genetic.
To use the vanilla ice cream example: Even if there was a gene that made you throw up if you ate anything other than vanilla ice cream, there would be no constitutional basis for protecting “vanilla lovers”, unless that gene also expressed itself as a observable physical characteristic (i.e. it made your skin dark).
That argument makes a lot a sense, though it certainly has its holes. That’s what I THOUGHT your argument was anyway.
But then you go on to say that an unobservable physical characteristic, i.e. “homosexual genetic material”, would be sufficient for protected status. My question is, why did you arbitrarily pick differentiated genetic material and dismiss differentiated hormonal profile when the observed effect of having a differentiated genetic make-up would be differentiated hormonal profile?
I mean I understand that you correctly want to make a distinction between “innate” and “environmental” differentiation, but you do understand that it’s entirely plausible (and perhaps likely) for a distinct, innate, “homosexual” chemical environment to be expressed without there being a singular, oberservable genetic ‘X’ that marks the spot.
This isn’t true. He cited a study done on twins that whose outcome showed evidence that being gay is genetic and specifically tried to eliminate exterior factors. Our did you dismiss that study for some reason that I overlooked?
Vroom was right, there is a good set of about 15 posts on this thread that discuss specific legal reprecussions of varying interpretations, but all this “Marrying daughters & dogs/NAMBLA likes gay people/It doesn’t hurt anyone/Right to pursue happiness/Show me the gay gene!” shit is just chaff.
[quote]100meters wrote:
In conclusion, homosexuality is obviously not a choice. Do you think gays are debating right now whether heteros choose to be that way or not? Who can control what they’re attracted to? We’re talking about a complex combination of hormones controlling desires and emotion–that are obviouslly beyond control.
Why would someone choose to love someone of the same gender? Isn’t the whole coming out thing a realization of one’s attraction to the same gender? There was no choice there, anymore than my choice to fall in love with my wife. Being against gay marriage is just not an intellectually honest argument.Why should straight people have the right to marry?
Are you seriously going to present tradition, and religion to Mr. Constitution? (Keep in mind hating gays also is an invalid point) I just don’t get the real “agenda” for the objection. It’s not constitutional (hence the amendment wanted). It’s not religous (nobody cares about atheist getting married, or hindus, eskimos, etc.) It can’t be tradition (slavery was a tradition, women’s inferiority was a tradition, stigma on interracial marriage was a tradition). It’s NOT logic. So what’s left appears to be a bias towards butt sex between men (because I’m sure the bias isn’t towards just butt sex, I’ve seen the ass threads on these boards). That being the case, then I’ll remind you that similar attitudes in men led people to not liking “coloreds” in the same room with whites, and if shit like that was “left up to the states” well we’d still have those Jim Crow laws today(That’s why we got those post-civil war amendments-- Because when you leave things up to the states then select groups can get pissed on–just like Liberal Lincoln learned.)[/quote]
Correction – it is Constitutional, under any and all current USSC doctrine.
The argument for the Amendment, for those who want it, is that activist judges (particularly in the Supreme Court) will stretch the Constitution beyond both its original meaning and our current understanding to make marriage as it has been defined Unconstitutional – either by making a direct ruling, or indirectly by forcing states that don’t recognize gay marriages, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, to recognize homosexual marriages or civil unions from states who do (this was what Congress was trying to address by the Defense of Marriage Act, which may or may not be Constitutional).
[quote]endgamer711 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
No - the court house is not where legislation takes place
Correct. The court house is where statutes inconsistent with the Constitution are struck down. Far from jumping in front of anyone, the Court is carefully proceeding as slowly as possible, modifying as little law as it can without denying the Bill of Rights altogether.
Sorry the context got lost due to an editing error. The comment about visibility is a delayed rejoinder to BostonBarrister’s objection that since homosexuality is ‘invisible’ (a somewhat technical term) it doesn’t qualify for nomination as a suspect case requiring special protections. For this objection to apply, homosexuality would have to be always invisible. In fact it is often quite visible.[/quote]
“Often” wouldn’t qualify under my understanding of USSC doctrine – I think they went through quite a bit of verbiage in making an explanation that was applicable only to skin color – which gender managed to fit into. It would take quite a bit of the USSC ignoring its previous reasoning (probably deciding it is “dicta”) for the recognition of behavior to fit in.
Not saying they absolutely wouldn’t do it – just that it would be pretty obvious and make them look very activist, which is something that, as you say, they’ve been trying to avoid lately. And of course any discussions about likeliehood are going to hinge a lot on who Bush appoints – I personally think he’s going to get to make 3, for Rehnquist, Stevens and at least one of Ginsberg and O’Connor.
Yeah, that’s what we all are – all us pussy lovers who happen to think gays deserve equal protection under the law.
We’re nothing but a bunch of self-loathing anti-heterosexuals. Right, Prof X?
[/quote]
Hey futuredave - do you have a fucking point or are you just wearing your cheeleader outfit because you think you might score a brownie point with profX?
Well, another question popped into my mind this morning…
Don’t laugh, but how do you define the sex of an individual? With gender transformations, various operations, and hormonal adjustment this can be in question!
Seriously. After some or all of the above procedures, how would you ascertain the sex of an individual wanting to get married?
Is the sex of a person simply physical? Is that it? Or, can sex be a bit more of a continuum, with the hormonal profile more important than the bits of flesh on or not on the body? Is part of defining sex the sexual preference of the individual?
Heck, aren’t gay males often referred to as being effeminate in their appearance and behavior? Aren’t gay women referred to as being butch?
If you crack this door even the slightest amount, then banning gay marriage is discrimination based on sex. Why? Because sexual preference is simply an attribute in determining the sex of an individual.
To all you pro-gay marraige, “it’s not their fault they are made that way” folks.
If there were REAL proof differentiating homosexuals from heterosexuals - don’t you think it would have been used in court somewhere? I know if I were fighting for some special constitutional consideration, I would certainly pull every trick out of the bag. But they haven’t used the studies/propoganda to make their case. Go figure.
Nice try throwing religion into the argument as well the beastiality connection. I believe that is the classic Strawman Tactic. It’s good to know that you guys are that desparate to shut me up. I must be right.
Please Morty - faking confusion after I have written my position ad nauseum? It’s not my fault you have no reading comprehension skills.
Honestly - you gay marraige-lovers really band together when you know your argument is lost. Seems to me you would change you debate style or leadership one.
How many political debates in a row do you plan to lose before taking ProfX - aka ‘Professor Strawman’ off your recruiting poster?
Your arguments are weak, pathetic, and for the most partcompetely off topic.
[quote]lothario1132 wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Because I’m not the one wanting to change the status quo, and guarantee preferential constitutional rights to homosexuals. They are making the charge that homosexuality is not a choice. The burden of proof is on them.
My opinion is the opinion of the vast majority of americans - judging from the last election I believe “my opinion” prevailed by a 2-1 margin. Hardly something I just thought up while taking a shit this morning.
This is why I have said repeatedly that this country probably isn’t ready for gay marriage. Oh well.
RJ: I see you’re still hung up on the choice vs. nature thing. A conscious choice can only be made by a self-aware person, right? Then why are there gay animals? Do a google for “gay animals”… it’s weird. Gayness is a part of nature.
Vroom: Nice pontification post earlier. I wish sometimes that we could all act more like dogs. Dogs don’t care what breed they each are, they’ll run around and chase sticks or whatever with each other just fine. Even the gay dogs. :)[/quote]
lothario:
Up to this post you had my attention, but the “gay dog” thing really is sort of lowering the standard of debate huh? Yes, of course, let’s all act like dogs! After all there is no God right lothario?
“This line of reasoning is unsustainable. If seemingly “homosexual” acts among animals are in accordance with animal nature, then parental killing of offspring and intra-species devouring are also in accordance with animal nature. Bringing man into the equation complicates things further. Are we to conclude that filicide and cannibalism are according to human nature?”
Yeah, that’s what we all are – all us pussy lovers who happen to think gays deserve equal protection under the law.
We’re nothing but a bunch of self-loathing anti-heterosexuals. Right, Prof X?
[/quote]
Not at all! You are simply misguided social liberals who think that nothing can harm anything as long as everyone is free to do what they want and love is in the air…(hey that’s a song isn’t it?)
[quote]rainjack wrote:
To all you pro-gay marraige, “it’s not their fault they are made that way” folks.
If there were REAL proof differentiating homosexuals from heterosexuals - don’t you think it would have been used in court somewhere? I know if I were fighting for some special constitutional consideration, I would certainly pull every trick out of the bag. But they haven’t used the studies/propoganda to make their case. Go figure. [/quote]
Bullshit argument. The reason it is bullshit is because we are no where near understanding everything that has to do with the human body. Even muscle growth and the causes of it is largely still a theory. Does this mean we don’t have a pretty good idea what causes muscle growth? Of course not, but we couldn’t PROVE it without a shadow of a doubt that A+B always equals C. The DNA molecular structure, as far as the helix form, is a theory. It is a well thought out and well supported theory, but a theory none the less. That means you will have your answer the moment we understand every inch of the human mental and physiological make up. Until then, making judgements as if it has been proven one way or the other is simply the wrong way to handle this.
Yeah, that’s what we all are – all us pussy lovers who happen to think gays deserve equal protection under the law.
We’re nothing but a bunch of self-loathing anti-heterosexuals. Right, Prof X?
Not at all! You are simply misguided social liberals who think that nothing can harm anything as long as everyone is free to do what they want and love is in the air…(hey that’s a song isn’t it?)
[/quote]
I don’t think that way at all. I asked the question specifically, HOW WILL TWO GAY PEOPLE GETTING MARRIED AFFECT YOU? You haven’t answered that yet.
[quote]100meters wrote:
In conclusion, homosexuality is obviously not a choice. Do you think gays are debating right now whether heteros choose to be that way or not? Who can control what they’re attracted to? We’re talking about a complex combination of hormones controlling desires and emotion–that are obviouslly beyond control.
Why would someone choose to love someone of the same gender? Isn’t the whole coming out thing a realization of one’s attraction to the same gender? There was no choice there, anymore than my choice to fall in love with my wife. Being against gay marriage is just not an intellectually honest argument.Why should straight people have the right to marry?
Are you seriously going to present tradition, and religion to Mr. Constitution? (Keep in mind hating gays also is an invalid point) I just don’t get the real “agenda” for the objection. It’s not constitutional (hence the amendment wanted). It’s not religous (nobody cares about atheist getting married, or hindus, eskimos, etc.) It can’t be tradition (slavery was a tradition, women’s inferiority was a tradition, stigma on interracial marriage was a tradition). It’s NOT logic. So what’s left appears to be a bias towards butt sex between men (because I’m sure the bias isn’t towards just butt sex, I’ve seen the ass threads on these boards). That being the case, then I’ll remind you that similar attitudes in men led people to not liking “coloreds” in the same room with whites, and if shit like that was “left up to the states” well we’d still have those Jim Crow laws today(That’s why we got those post-civil war amendments-- Because when you leave things up to the states then select groups can get pissed on–just like Liberal Lincoln learned.)[/quote]
You are kidding right?..
If there is some sort of psychological occurence in your childhood which tends to push you into homosexuality you would not be making any sort of “concious choice” would you? The “distant father-dominating mother” theory is just as strong at this point as the genetic theory.
And for the last freaking time…stop comparing race bias of the 1950’s with homosexuals! There is virtually nothing similar in the two.
Black is genetic. Homosexuals, probably not genetic, certainly unproven.
One is race the other is an action. Whether it is a conscious choice or not we don’t know, but it is a choice none the less.
The more you politically correct types compare homosexuals with blacks the more laughable your argument becomes!
