Most gay couples probably aren't getting married even now that it's legal

You're correct. Human sexuality isn't chosen... it's what a person 'naturally' is.

 

Most hetero people are not getting married either. Some do, some do not....most just BE.

 

It's an immutable truth.

There's not a single debatable point anywhere in the argument, as your failure and the previous failures of your comrades, to so much as to attempt to debate a single of those points, demonstrates.

That you disagree is fine with me... as your disagreement(s) has no basis in reason or fact; it merely serves to sustain the subjective needs of those who choose to disagree. And it is in that subjectivism, that we can know that the force which compels you to disagree, is malevolence... meaning you desire to injure that truth, to impugn those who recognize, respect, defend and adhere to that truth... which is to say: Evil.

 

How do you account for multiple personality types that have one identity that is heterosexual and another is homosexual?

That gets rid of the "I was born this way" argument.

 

No. There is more variability in human physiology than that. Remember that we have humans whose external organs don't match their brains. We even hermaphrodites - those with organs of each of the two main genders.

And, no to nature defining marriage. Marriage is a political construct created by the state.

This is WORSE than just wrong - it is just plain dangerous. There are all sorts of STDs. They are absolutely NOT limited to same sex behavior. Prevention from STDs comes from constant and careful protection and from monogamy.

And, this last section is you continuing to be not just wrong, but outrageously and dangerously wrong.

 

In YOUR mind, it is. You are talking nonsense and apparently your views are stuck in the past. We aren't in any courtroom so, I'll just tell you as one person to another... I think you're talking BS.

Even so, if you were relating something more than your specious platitudes... you'd be honest enough to admit that everyone doesn't agree with what you're relating.

 

Multiple personalities? Are we talking about schizophrenia or sexual-orientation? (Certainly not both.)

Bottom line is, a person generally does not consciously choose their sexual attraction. Otherwise, we'd hear scores of stories from straight men and women, about the point in their life WHEN they made that choice; and it would have been a subject in more movie plots than we could count by now. And so it is with gay people; they don't sit around thinking through choices about their sexual orientation (not any more/less than straight people do). Now, all of that may seem more 'dramatic' for a homosexual person, because they have the added factor of traditionally being rejected or marginalized within this and other societies.

People are gay, straight or somewhere in between; that is reality.

 

Yes, you are correct. (And it's 2015, with an awesome tool called Google... more people should have a clue by now.)

Absolutely.

Correct.

True.

Indeed.

 

The technical term is dissociative identity disorder. It's about people with multiple personalities, and these personalities differ in everything from handwriting to gender preferences.

https://www.questia.com/library/jou...nder-identity-states-in-dissociative-identity

sorry for the paywall, but you can read the abstract.

 

And in your mind as well... again the evidence of that being in your inability to contest so much as a single of the standing points.

Here's a couple of clues: "You are talking nonsense and apparently your views are stuck in the past."

That's a rancid demonstration of the fatally flawed construct OKA: Argumentum ad populum, or 'the appeal to popularity'.

It's invalid reasoning, which is axiomatically disqualified from consideration by soundly reasoned people. And that's because it fails engage the argument, serving only as a deflection from such, thus not only failing, but failing hysterically.


You're entitled to disagree, scamp... its just that your disagreement rests upon no discernible basis.

And THAT reader, is how THAT ... is done.

Remember Reader...

The key to defeating Leftist in debate, rests upon two fundamental elements:

1- Find a Leftist.

2- Get them to SPEAK!

 

So... anyway... I think that in more time, more and more homosexual people WILL marry. With marriage for gays becoming legal only recently, that isn't as common a practice as it will be, once more of society has adjusted to it.

 

Your approach to this is simply hostile. I'll leave you for now.

Best regards.

 

And those who are, have only a 50% success rate.

What's up with that?

 

That's three times you have deflected and didn't attempt to even prove me wrong.

 

Funny yet ironic at the same time!

 

Well, in fairness, YOU proved yourself wrong. And in so doing, ya established yourself as being insufficient for consideration.

As I said, if this site had more traffic, you'd have long ago been formally ignored.

 

The 50% divorce rate is a popularly repeated myth... it's actually no where near that. But the Left loves to make the claim, nonetheless... it's the "global warming" of their cultural oriented responses.

 

Nope...

This is very much akin to the idea that a person who is uncomfortable with their gender, would be happier configured in the alternative gender.

It turns out that very few if any trannies are happy being the opposite of their birth gender.

Ya see... the problem is that they're incapable of being happy about their gender; meaning that THE PROBLEM is NOT a "Gender Disorder"... it's a mental disorder.

The same is true for homosexuals and every other facet of sexual deviancy. The Deviancy is a presentation of a disorder of the mind.

 

[video=youtube;Jitocz4kB3k]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jitocz4kB3k[/video]

 

I would agree with this. The issue of "love" is irrelevant while the merging of financial income, expedenditures, assets and liabilities is very relevant to the state's interest in the couple. It is the "financial contract" between the consenting adults that matters when we address the institution of marriage.

Like "love" whether the couple engages in "sex" and the "gender" of those involved is irrelevant to the institution of marriage which is only relevant to the "financial contract" where there's a merging of income, expenditures, assets and liabilities between the consenting adults.

From a legal and government perspective the "marriage" is all about the money, including taxes and benefits, and nothing else is relevant. Even children are treated as "property" by the courts where ownership (custody) and financial obligations (child support) are ordered by a divorce court during dissolution.