Homosexuality, the natural choice? (Gay Animals are Common)

However, your point assumes that rape is fun.Problem is, I read this study a while back... it alleged that maybe 10% or so of rape victims actually don't like it. Sounded weird to me, but hey. Can't argue with science. [stupid internet catch-phrase in response]No... I am claiming that there are people who are unable to choose their sexuality. And that if this is the case, then trying to say that homosexuality is a choice is stupid.I'm pretty sure I've said that, like, fifteen or sixteen billion times at this point.

"I think you might be able to be forced into it. Or at least forced into it not being so bad, and then gradually learn to like it..."Little known fact... rape victims are constantly saying, "gee, it was bad at first, but after a while it was great!" If you say so.

We also can't say whether or not someone's really straight. But you have no problem with heterosexual marriage... just the gays.And, of course, your arguments are not based on bigotry, blah blah blah, same old shit, different month.Edited by Dan Carroll, : grammar costs nothingEdited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

Oh come on, now. You didn't even wait a full day before repeating this one.If you're gonna be all disingenuous, at least do it with a little style.

Don't worry, I've got time to do both. I'm sure the arranged marriages of the world are full of lesbian women who became straight after their husband forcibly dicked them enough times.All they really needed was a good hard fuckin' anyway, when you get down it. Am I right, boys? WOO! Oh, that's right. My original argument, apparently, was that human sexuality is completely immutable 100% of the time.I forgot about that. But in my defense, I never said it. So you can see how it might slip my mind. Hey, you two guys? You can get married.Wow, that was hard. You said that you want to prevent gay marriage, because we can't confirm the sexuality of those involved. The exact same thing is true of heterosexual marriage, but that... well, you don't have a problem with that.The only difference? Gays.Little hint... supporting an essentially bigoted idea, then getting called on it, doesn't mean you scored some message board point. But if it'll really make you happy, I can whip you up a photoshop image of a scoreboard with a "1" under your name.Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

That if homosexuality is a choice, he'll have no trouble choosing it. His existing desires will be no obstacle. Yeah, you already said it looked like that waaaay back in post 81. And I clarified waaaay back in post 85, just on the off chance it was too confusing.Why you're still on about it all this time later, I got no idea. It is easier to say I said something when you posit the existence of a parallel universe in which I may or may not have said it. It does mean not talking about the things I said in this reality, though. The only ones to which you've ever pointed are ones that already exist for heterosexual marriage.Again... only difference? Gays. Cool. Feel free to share the rest anytime. *shrug*It's the one to which I was responding when this line of argument started. I earn a small amount of money from my webcomic, but nothing to write home about. It spins the writing of a man much smarter than all of us put together... but doesn't change his ideas or words. Just shows them from another angle.*raises eyebrow* I'm not calling it bigoted because I don't agree with it. I'm calling it bigoted because it singles out a minority subset of the population for discrimination.

Don't see why. He doesn't want it now, but he can go ahead and choose to, apparently. You saw people choose homosexual arousal? Hot.Regardless... I've repeated my response to this so many times, and it's clearly not being read. This time, I think I'll post a passage from a review of a Beck album, and see if you notice the difference.Think back to your first memories of Beck. Remember what he was like back in 1994? A floppy haired bohemian playing a leaf blower on stage. Rapping on MTV about being a loser, minutes after getting your attention with a single called "MTV Makes Me Want to Smoke Crack". See Beck on MTV's 120 Minutes with guest host Thurston Moore, giving nonsensical answers to every question during the interview, and then jamming with Moore and Mike D., using a mini-tape player and making bizarre sounds. Hear Beck singing about Satan giving him a taco. Think of him doing an old-fashioned folk-blues song one minute, sloppily rhyming over fuzzy hip-hop beats the next. Remember him stumbling his way into stardom, seeming like his whole career consisted of stumbling from one whim to the next, rolling along like a free-wheeling prankster.That Beck is no more. Yeah. And you never gave any examples problems that didn't exist in heterosexual marriage.

Where did you purchase your thirteen year old child-bride? How much did you pay for her?Has she squeezed out enough puppies to work the family farm yet? You should probably beat her a few times if she hasn't. Oh, those uppity queers. What will they do next?

Why do you keep re-asking questions that have already been answered? Is there some sort of traumatic memory loss involved?You should see a doctor. You're in a dangerous age bracket; don't take risks with your health.Once that's finished, you should try reading up on Brown v. Board of Education. You see, it's been almost 53 years since the US Government caught up to the idea that separate is inherently unequal.One would think this would be enough time for everyone else to wrap their heads around it. But here we are.

Actually, the amendment in question wasn't written by the framers of the constitution. You don't seem to know too much about US law, either.But no... given that the framers owned slaves, I'm guessing they weren't too up on the idea of civil rights in general.

I occasionally wonder if people hung around Selma in the fifties, and said, "What? I think we should let them sit at the back of the bus! It has nothing to do with racism, it's not like I wanna make them walk or anything." Actually, we already have that law. It's called the first amendment. But that's okay, because we're not talking about the right to call yourself something.We're talking about recognition of a marriage, which the Supreme Court has already identified as a fundamental right of all Americans. You are recommending a course of action in which we continue to deny a minority that fundamental right.

It's interesting how, every time you get boxed into a corner on choice, you say, "No, no, I think it's probably genetic." Then, a few hours later, you pipe up again with choice. I am almost certain that, eventually, Hari Seldon's plan for the galaxy will ensure that we don't have to worry about any of this. But in the meantime, perhaps we could focus less on sci-fi futures, and discuss the here and now? That doesn't. Neither does what you ate for breakfast this morning. Your desire to maintain institutionalized discrimination does.

This exact same argument got shot down in Loving v. Virginia, when it was argued that everyone had the same right to get married, but that marriage was between two members of the same race. Try again.Everything about this argument is shit that got settled half a century ago. If existing laws (such as what the government will and will not recognize as marriage) violate the constitution, the laws have to be re-written. That's how the system works. So, in other words, give them a special, assigned seat elsewhere in the same bus.

I could have sworn that this was just a minor point, and not really your reasoning for prefering a different name for the agreement. But okay, let's head back to it.People can fake being straight. So according to this logic, heterosexuals shouldn't get married. But you're not against heterosexual marriage, you're just singling out homosexuals.

I guess we know which side Hoot Mon would have rooted for in Loving v. Virginia.I astounds me when people bring up (or in this case, cheer on) the exact same arguments that were used by the pro-segregation side in the civil rights movement, and then follow it up with, "how is that bigoted?"Edited by Dan Carroll, : for more snark