Male Sexual Orientation Influenced by Genes?

Hey, all right, Tex! You actually came up with some new points to discuss which I haven't already made a counterargument to which you just ignored! Bravo!

Oh, of course, the DOMA ruling is completely irrelevant to this issue . But tell me, how does same-sex marriage force anyone to do anything against their religious beliefs?

Actually, it doesn't. It states, "No state shall... deny to any person [being born or naturalized in the United States] within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws." Animal are not persons, so bestial marriage is out. Age of consent is not mentioned, which has always allowed for states to set their own, so along long as a state keep them relatively high, pedophilial marriage is also out. Let the pedophiles take it to the Supreme Court if they wish. I doubt the court would even listen.

So, remind me Tex (since you seem to know more about myself than I do), which other kinds of marriage am I against?

 

Anyone interested in a cure for this obvious defect?

I didn't think so.

 

I wonder how they would explain being bi-sexual? Just look at some in the entertainment industry....Madonna, Ann Heicht, and Cyrus, for example.....who seem to "play around" with the gay lifestyle at times. That appears to be a choice. Of course, they are women, so maybe that's not a gene. Who knows?

I've always believed that people are born gay....and for the most part it's not a choice.

 

What is it that you're suffering from? Maybe I can help

 

There are obviously biological forces at work here. I want to know what they are and if they can be altered. Do you have a problem with that?

If a woman wanted to know if her child was to be homosexual, and she could change it; who are you to decide what she can or cannot do with her own body?

 

Please do not lie about my posts. I never ignored anything.

You go ahead and keep thinking that.

Mod edit,,flounder,,,3 Not a problem. When a bakery or photographer who has a religious objection to gay marriage is forced to provide services that is going against their religious beliefs.

Come on Joker, this is basic stuff.

Once again Joker I wish you could understand the point being made. Its not about what you are personally against or for. Its about what your argument opens the door to which you lack the courage to address. Your personal morality is inserted when you dishonestly inject age to keep out marriages you don't like while trying to use general wording in the Constitution that never mentions age or marriage, period.

So for the 2344th time you ignore the fact your argument can be used for any human marriage of any kind since you aren't honest enough to admit I've never made a bestiality argument. Come back when you can be honest enough to address that fact that age is nowhere in that quote in the Constitution you are bastardizing

Can you ever have the courage to address why you should not be pursuing an amendment as slavery and women's voting have done in the past Joker?

 

Who am I? I don't recall taking a position on that. I don't think that anyone else has either. Seems like it would be more of an ethical question. Isn't it the conservatives who want to control women's bodies?

 

Of course, of course. Haha.

That's the plan.

I asked about same-sex marriage, and you bring up photography and bakeries. Bakers and photographers don't officiate marriages.

Whose posts are you reading before you reply to mine? I just said in my last post that the constitution doesn't mention age of consent. Please read more carefully. That's a states issue, and I'm willing to bet the Supreme Court wouldn't even hear a case filed by pedophiles claiming age of consent laws are unconstitutional.

Come again?

 

See? You couldn't even point to what you claim I ignored. Typical.

And you will loose.

Please try and think this through. If a marriage is legal then the state can force businesses as some far left states already have to recognize those marriages and be forced to provide services for them.

Mod edit,,flounder,,,2 Your personal morality is inserted when you dishonestly inject age to keep out marriages you don't like while trying to use general wording in the Constitution that never mentions age or marriage, period.

You can't pretend the very general law you quote for gay marriage can be limited by age when age is never mentioned. That is your continued fallacy.

Answer the question Joker. Can you ever have the courage to address why you should not be pursuing a Constitutional amendment as slavery and women's voting have done in the past?

Do I need to name the Amendments I'm referring to as well before you begin to understand the question?

 

I don't care enough to bother. I don't mind that you think I'm a liar.

I'd think the Hobby Lobby ruling would protect such businesses. The marriages themselves are not forcing anyone to do anything against their religion.

It's not dishonest. Are you trying to tell me Age of Consent Laws don't exist?

We can limit it however we want. For example, the Supreme Court can simply reject any case filed by pedophiles trying to overturn age of consent laws.

I don't understand the question.

Possibly.

 

Thats what I would say if I couldn't back up my claim.

No, just someone who makes false accusations then when challenged to support them, can't.

Wrong again. The Hobby Lobby decesion dealt with government mandated healthcare not forcing people to accept gay marriage. That is still in force in the most left wing looney states.

Of course it is.

Are you trying to tell me laws against Gay Marriage don't exist in a majority of states? Did you forget that? You can't pick and choose what laws to ban when you inject a general quote from the Constitution and laughably pretend it only applies to certain marriages. Once again you fall into the same predictable trap.

Wrong again. If they allow the wording you used for marriage justification they could not limit it by age of consent:

"No state shall... deny to any person [being born or naturalized in the United States] within its jurisdiction the equal protections of the laws."

Nothing in that statement is age defined. You can't even understand the basic consequences of using this lazy general statement for marriage. That would require them to make a moral judgement on marriage and if they do that who is to say the majority of states against gay marriage cannot have their moral judgement against it? Like taking candy from a baby.

Of course you do but its no surprise you are ducking it.

Slavery was overturned by a Constitutional Amendment. The banning of women and blacks to vote was overturned by a Constitutional amendment.

So for the 3rd time Joker, what makes your crusade for gay marriage so special that you can't be honest enough to pursue the only Constitutional method for gay marriage to be approved aka seeking a Constitutional amendment?

It can't be more simplified. Try answering the question this time.

 

That ruling does not simply deal with mandated healthcare. The ruling allows closely held for-profit corporations to be exempt from a law its owners religiously object to if there is a less restrictive means of furthering the law's interests. The scope of the ruling goes far beyond mandated healthcare.


Of course it is.

The federal government has already made a moral judgment against pedophilia. That's why child sexual abuse is a federal crime. Homosexuality is not a federal crime. Therefore, yes, it can be limited.

Thank you for rephrasing. Because the constitution already provides for equal protection. If the constitution had already had a ban on slavery and a right for women to vote, there wouldn't have been a need to add more amendments for those, either.

 

......

 

No, conservatives don't want control over women's bodies. That's a stupid bumper sticker and a political strategy put forward by Democrats who think you're an idiot.

Why would a mother want to alter it? Really? Maybe she wants biological grandchildren. Maybe she wants her child to be normal.

 

Do you think that the only requisite for marriage should be 2 people love each other?

 

She can still have biological grand kids. Ever hear od surrogacy and artificial insemination? Maybe biology isn't everything. Normal? Who are you to decide what is normal? The only valid reason that I can think of for someone to not want their child to be gay is the fact that there are still moronic narrow minded bigots in the world who will make that child's life harder than it has to be.

 

I think that two people of the same gender wanting to get married should be treated exactly equally with 2 people of the opposite gender- other than gender, all of the same laws, rules and regulations should apply.

 

I think it's moronic and narrow minded of you to cast judgment on people with a moral opposition to homosexual sex. You're making life harder than it has to be for perfectly civil people who don't intend to harm anyone by calling them names for taking a moral position.

 

So they can cast judgment on gays but I can't judge them? THAT is moronic. These "perfectly civil' people seek to deny basic human rights to those who they disapprove of. Yes they have a right to disapprove but they, and you, do not have a right to discriminate. Yes I will make their life hard if I can, but the fact is that they are making their own life hard. It all comes back to you in then end.

 

Why should a brother and sister be denied being married then? They are just two people who love each other and want to be married?

 

The issue is marriage equality. Gay couples having equality with heterosexual couples. This is just a red herring and a separate issue. Start a separate thread on incest, polygamy or what ever else is on your mind but do not obfuscate the issue of marriage equality

 

Well for one thing it is illegal for them to have sex together.

But if you want to advocate for sibling marriage, you and your sister or brother can file a lawsuit arguing just that- and I would support your right to file that lawsuit.

- - - Updated - - -

Wow you are reading this completely differently than I am.

From the posts I have seen- there are a lot of conservatives who want the right to marry their siblings.

 

Homosexual sex was illegal too at one time. Why should them getting married be illegal? If you believe that two people in love should be allowed to be married, then you have to support Incestuous Marriage too. If not, why not?

 

But homosexual sex is not illegal now. And you and your sibling having sex is still illegal.

I support your right to advocate for incestuous marriage- as I pointed out before- you and your sibling can file a lawsuit to overturn what you consider to be unconstitutional and make your case.

 

It is the same thing so answer the question. Marriage equality stops at Gay Marriage?