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

Chiroptera wrote:Well, yes, I would agree that sex, as in biological male versus biological female, is determined, almost exclusively by genetics. But sex, as in the behavior in which the individual actually acts in his or her life, has a very large cultural component.

Trying to determine which behaviors have a biological component and to what degree the behaviors are determined directly by genetics is extremely difficult because the facts demonstrate that even if any behaviors do have a genetic component, the actual behaviors exhibited by individuals are clearly influenced to a very high degree by factors other than genetics.

crashfrog wrote:if gays choose to be gay, then by the same token, straights choose to be straight. So why should straight people be allowed to marry if being straight is a choice?

crashfrog writes:If you didn't have any choice about it yourself, why should we believe that anybody else has a choice?

crashfrog replied:If you didn't have any choice about it yourself, why should we believe that anybody else has a choice? Particularly when gay people themselves are so certain that their sexual orientation was not voluntarily established?

TD writes:This going to be the third time I ask this question. Why is it that you people always say you support civil union for gay people yet always seem to try to pass legislations that not only ban gay marriage but also ALL forms of unions for gay people?

But Hoot, every freakin state that has a gay marriage ban also has a ban on all forms of gay union that even remotely resemble marriage. Personally, I think you're just lying about supporting the civil union thing knowing it ain't gonna go anywhere anytime soon.

crashfrog replied:No, actually, because our constitution says we should.

You've never been married, have you? Because clearly you don't seem to know much about marriage.

TD wrote:You know that you have a gift for avoiding the point?

DC wrote:But no... given that the framers owned slaves, I'm guessing they weren't too up on the idea of civil rights in general.

crashfrog writes:Why do you refuse to take these issues seriously?

TD wrote:The reason I said you have a gift for avoiding the point is because the point is you have no real reason why you don't want gays to be married. You even showed us early on that you thought homosexuality could be treated like a disease and that "curing" homosexuality would solve everything.
You never had any valid reason why you don't like gays. You never had any valid reason why you don't want them to get married. You then proceeded with your bigotry (yes, just don't argue, it is bigotry) and tried to come up with one reason after another to justify your bigotry. You admitted that we shot you down with your tradition argument. You, then, proceeded to use the so-called "original intentions of the framers of the constitution" which we've shot down also. If we continue in this vein, I'm pretty sure we're going to start seeing things like "gays can't reproduce... gays have gay-pride parades... gays don't like women..."If you simply say "I don't know why but I simply don't want them to get married..." I would have left you to your bigotry. My aunt used this same line and I haven't bothered her since.

CS writes:Gays do have the right to get married. Its just that marriage in the US is between a man and a women. The 14th amendment is not being violated.In order for two men to get married, marriage would have to be changed to be between a person and a person. The 14th amendment doesn't give gays the right to change what marriage is.Why not create a type of legal agreement that marriage would be a subset of and then let gays enjoy the benefits of the newly created type of legal agreement? This wouldn't be seperate from marriage as marriage would be a part of it (marriage would be one type of the agrement), and it also wouldn't change what marriage is.

TD writes:If I am prejudiced against, say, people with no wisdom teeth, I'm sure I can come up with some excuse like the one you came up with to prevent them from getting dental insurance.

Of course. The fact that he completely avoided the quote I provided regarding a judge's decision in interracial marriage should be telling enough

crashfrog wrote:So when you say "let them have civil unions but don't change the laws", I know you're not taking this at all seriously, because your position is self-contradicting.

crashfrog replied:Not directly (and my use of quotation marks aren't meant to imply that)...