NY: Homosexuals Win but Society Loses

[bcp]

Wirelessly posted



You're the one that made the statement that it is a choice. The burden is on you to provide proof

ok
there are no known reasons for someone to be gay, nothing medical, or genetic has been found.
currently, the available information proves it to be a choice.

glad you are willing to accept the facts finally.

now, how far do we have to go to accomadate a choice.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



You're the one that made the statement that it is a choice. The burden is on you to provide proof

ok
there are no known reasons for someone to be gay, nothing medical, or genetic has been found.
currently, the available information proves it to be a choice.

glad you are willing to accept the facts finally.

now, how far do we have to go to accomadate a choice.

Wow, it's sad that you have to misrepresent my statements in order to make your point. You seem to do it a lot, must mean your argument is weak...glad you are willing to accept the facts finally. Look! I can do it too!

 

[bcp]

Wirelessly posted



Wow, it's sad that you have to misrepresent my statements in order to make your point. You seem to do it a lot, must mean your argument is weak...glad you are willing to accept the facts finally. Look! I can do it too!

If you don't agree with me, go ahead and bring some facts that will convince me I'm wrong.
Don't just keep playing that liberal shift game.

now. I have come up with what you asked, since there is no proof of anything but choice, choice must currently be the answer.

again, if your mind is able to comprehend what I am saying, PLEASE provide the proof that it is not a choice.

I do however doubt you will respond in any way relevant to what I posted, You do seem to have a problem doing so.

 

[McGinn77]

If you don't agree with me, go ahead and bring some facts that will convince me I'm wrong.
Don't just keep playing that liberal shift game.

now. I have come up with what you asked, since there is no proof of anything but choice, choice must currently be the answer.

again, if your mind is able to comprehend what I am saying, PLEASE provide the proof that it is not a choice.

I do however doubt you will respond in any way relevant to what I posted, You do seem to have a problem doing so.

eScholarship: Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men

Evidence provided, next???

 

[McGinn77]

here's a little more if you're interested.

http://evolution.anthro.univie.ac.at/institutes/urbanethology/resources/pdf/NEL220601R01_Muscarella_.pdf

 

[thatguy]

Then its very much the same. I had a choice to study harder/different subjects but I chose to take a different route
They can marry, they just choose to marry in such a way that is not currently legal. If they would have chosen a different partner, they could have been married no problem. Prove its not a choice.

so it is EXACTLY like interracial marriage used to be.
you just proved it.

 

[bcp]

so it is EXACTLY like interracial marriage used to be.
you just proved it.

reason behind the law is different.
you cant compare restricting something based on race with something based on unnatural acts.

sorry, its nowhere near the same.

 

[SamSpade]

ok
there are no known reasons for someone to be gay, nothing medical,

I've seen plenty of medical evidence documenting the differences in the brains and glands of homosexual men to suggest there is certainly a biological reason. Whether or not there's anything to it genetically doesn't seem logical, as reproduction isn't that significant among homosexuals. I suspect it is some pathology of the brain such as a birth defect or genetic anomaly. Genes can produce all sorts of effects without appearing in either parent.

I guess I just don't understand the objection to gay marriage. If people want to live and let live - let gays live their lives - why not let them marry? They're not going to bring down society.

Gays already live with their partners as though they were married. I can't see any reason why it can't be made legal.

 

[bcp]

. I suspect it is some pathology of the brain such as a birth defect or genetic anomaly. Genes can produce all sorts of effects without appearing in either parent.

.

You know, I agree with you here, but when I suggest this and also suggest that they get medical care, that maybe research should be done to try and correct this, just like any other birth defect or genetic anomaly, I am met with resistance.

I wonder if I were to suggest that we just stop all research and let autistic children go untreated if I would be met with endearing responses... Somehow I doubt it.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wow, it's sad that you have to misrepresent my statements in order to make your point. You seem to do it a lot, must mean your argument is weak...glad you are willing to accept the facts finally. Look! I can do it too!

If you don't agree with me, go ahead and bring some facts that will convince me I'm wrong.
Don't just keep playing that liberal shift game.

now. I have come up with what you asked, since there is no proof of anything but choice, choice must currently be the answer.

again, if your mind is able to comprehend what I am saying, PLEASE provide the proof that it is not a choice.

I do however doubt you will respond in any way relevant to what I posted, You do seem to have a problem doing so.

A) see the evidence provided above by McGinn

B) where is the 'proof' that it's a choice again? I must have missed that...can you provide a link?

C) also interesting that you seem to resort to condescension and insults

 

[Merlin99]

I've seen plenty of medical evidence documenting the differences in the brains and glands of homosexual men to suggest there is certainly a biological reason. Whether or not there's anything to it genetically doesn't seem logical, as reproduction isn't that significant among homosexuals. I suspect it is some pathology of the brain such as a birth defect or genetic anomaly. Genes can produce all sorts of effects without appearing in either parent.

I guess I just don't understand the objection to gay marriage. If people want to live and let live - let gays live their lives - why not let them marry? They're not going to bring down society.

Gays already live with their partners as though they were married. I can't see any reason why it can't be made legal.

For the most part it seems that they don't really mind the idea of homosexual marriage as much as them using the term marriage. The closest metaphore I can come up with is the term gay, once the homosexuals started using the term no one wanted to be gay and carefree again.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

. I suspect it is some pathology of the brain such as a birth defect or genetic anomaly. Genes can produce all sorts of effects without appearing in either parent.

.

You know, I agree with you here, but when I suggest this and also suggest that they get medical care, that maybe research should be done to try and correct this, just like any other birth defect or genetic anomaly, I am met with resistance.

I wonder if I were to suggest that we just stop all research and let autistic children go untreated if I would be met with endearing responses... Somehow I doubt it.

You meet resistance here because not all genetic anomalies need to be fixed. This is one of them. Gays should also not be coerced into 'treatment'. Unlike autism, homosexuality doesn't hurt the individual unless they are shunned by friends/family/society. Gays can function on their own

You're really stretching for these comparisons here.

 

[bcp]

Wirelessly posted



A) see the evidence provided above by McGinn

B) where is the 'proof' that it's a choice again? I must have missed that...can you provide a link?

C) also interesting that you seem to resort to condescension and insults :noon:

The evidence is subjective at best. Certainly not proof.

My proof that it is a choice is directly linked to your inability to prove it is not. No different than your argument on the existence of God, or a God.

I am learning my condescending style by watching you and those like you.

 

[bcp]

Wirelessly posted



You meet resistance here because not all genetic anomalies need to be fixed. This is one of them. Gays should also not be coerced into 'treatment'. Unlike autism, homosexuality doesn't hurt the individual unless they are shunned by friends/family/society. Gays can function on their own

You're really stretching for these comparisons here.

No more than you stretch.
and if there is no harm to the person from being gay, why exactly is it that they want the world to cater to them as if it was an equal thing?

To let a segment of society go without treatment when they are obviously afflicted is nothing less than uncaring and cruel.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



A) see the evidence provided above by McGinn

B) where is the 'proof' that it's a choice again? I must have missed that...can you provide a link?

C) also interesting that you seem to resort to condescension and insults :noon:

The evidence is subjective at best. Certainly not proof.

My proof that it is a choice is directly linked to your inability to prove it is not. No different than your argument on the existence of God, or a God.

I am learning my condescending style by watching you and those like you.

That's not proof. You can't prove to me right now what your gender is (male I'm assuming)...I can't jump up and say "that's proof that you're a women"!

If you'd pay attention (I know you struggle with this) you'd notice that I've never claimed to have proof that god does/doesn't exists. Further, (it's that whole 'you not paying attention' thing again) I'm not an atheist...that means I believe in a higher power.

And BTW, as far as your childish retorts go...YOU STARTED IT!

 

[SamSpade]

You know, I agree with you here, but when I suggest this and also suggest that they get medical care, that maybe research should be done to try and correct this, just like any other birth defect or genetic anomaly, I am met with resistance.

From my perspective, it's like insisting that all children who survive into adulthood with muscular dystrophy ought to forgo marriage until it is cured.

Typically, people born with genetic defects aren't "cured". Sometimes, they are treated. But being born that way is too late to do anything. My son was born with problems in his brain, and his can *never* be corrected. It's permanent.

I don't see the wisdom in taking a position on gay marriage for a situation they almost certainly have no control over.

 

[UNA]

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



You meet resistance here because not all genetic anomalies need to be fixed. This is one of them. Gays should also not be coerced into 'treatment'. Unlike autism, homosexuality doesn't hurt the individual unless they are shunned by friends/family/society. Gays can function on their own

You're really stretching for these comparisons here.

No more than you stretch.
and if there is no harm to the person from being gay, why exactly is it that they want the world to cater to them as if it was an equal thing?

To let a segment of society go without treatment when they are obviously afflicted is nothing less than uncaring and cruel.

Because they ARE equal! They deserve equality! Why do you say they deserve less? Because YOU find it immoral?! A lot of things can be considered immoral, I bet YOU even do immoral things! but notice I'M not trying to cure you nor treat you unequally!

 

[thatguy]

reason behind the law is different.
you cant compare restricting something based on race with something based on unnatural acts.

sorry, its nowhere near the same.

interracial marriage was considered an unnatural act back then, its not anymore :shrug:
so again, you have proven it to be the same

 

[bcp]

interracial marriage was considered an unnatural act back then, its not anymore :shrug:
so again, you have proven it to be the same

no it was not the same.
Man woman, other than some skin color, really no difference between the two.
man man? well, that really is not biologically compatable so it is not natural. And never really will be.

You would do better if you tried to argue on the merits of gay marriage instead of trying to connect it to something that it is not like.

 

[Larry Gude]

no it was not the same.
Man woman, other than some skin color, really no difference between the two.
man man? well, that really is not biologically compatable so it is not natural. And never really will be.

You would do better if you tried to argue on the merits of gay marriage instead of trying to connect it to something that it is not like.

I give you credit for hanging in there and refusing, no matter what, to admit you get it.

Right there it is; miscegenation was against the law because people thought it was WRONG. A sin, a bad idea genetically (biologically), so on and so forth. And, to some extent, there are biological problems.

However, we've all moved on now so that miscegenation, specifically black and white mixing, doesn't bother us on RIGHT and WRONG grounds.

Just think; you see gay now like black and white was seen a generation ago! Ah, progress!