Prop 8?

Diest TKO wrote:

choice?

If it was a choice, it would be the choice to follow their own nature.
If it was a choice, it would be a very dangerous one considering all the idiots in this world that are willing to physically harm someone because they are gay.

If it was a choice, it's a brave one to make. The only choice is which side of the closet door they want to be on. People like you don't understand homosexuality so you reduce it's existence into something you can understand and judge. I'm not convinced you have a real understanding of this issue to really speak.

You don't owe an argument to Debra, Cyclo or myself. You owe a rationale to a gay couple face to face. You deserve the shame of seeing how it hurts them. You deserve the discomfort that comes with explaining how it's so goddamn important to you that they don't marry. You owe it to them to get a ******* clue.

T
K
O

I was given a link to this article by a gay friend.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1815538,00.html?cnn=yes

I'd like to point out though that they have not discovered the causal flow in these studies. We can all agree that while physiological characteristics may influence our behavior or capabilities, the reverse is also true. Our behaviors and actions can affect our physiological characteristics. If one does not exercise his left bicep, it can atrophy. However, if someone exercises that same muscle regularly, it grows stronger and more dense. Homosexual behavior may very likely be responsible for the changes that take place in the brain. Certain sections of the brain may "atrophy" or grow stronger.

the nature/nurture argument as to cause of homosexual desire has been going on for a long time, and probably will go on for a long time still. I see no reason to get into that can of worms.

We know that homosexuality has been around for all of history.

The question is should society encourage, discourage or be neutral towards it. There are reasonable arguments for all three approaches, which is why it is offensive when the gay rights people morally castigate those who argue that it should continue to be discouraged.

There is also the possibility that the society majority may be willing to tolerate homosexual activity so long as it remains culturally disapproved and is conducted behind closed doors, which is about where we were fifty years ago. This is a perfectly reasonable balance between the right to be homosexual and the societies right to discourage the practice.

Your premise that homosexual expression is a individual right it wrong.

It is according to the Bible a sin, and the founders chose not to explicitly grant homosexuals rights in the constitution.

Gays claim that they have the right to said expression, you and clearly agree, based upon what I ask you?

Article 16
1. Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
2. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
3. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Why should the majority be forced to put up with this Biblical sin, this behaviour that the founders did not think should be protected, if homosexuality should be against the will of the majority?

I would be fine with homosexuals trying to convince the majority, but I am very not fine with being told that homosexuals must be given rights and privileges irregardless of what the majority thinks is best.

We are not going to back over old debates (the gay marriage rights). I've covered this subject with you before. I know your side and you know mine. There is no point to rehash out old points if you have no new information.

Okay Diest TKO and Debra proove to me that it isn't a choice. Show me some scientific evidence that they were born with ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE but to be gay. Show me the scientific proof. Saying that you always felt that way is unverifiable. Therefore, not enough evidence to pursuade me that I'm wrong in my assumption. On my side, look at how men and women are created. We were created to be together. Nature argues against you. The fact that such a small portion of society is homosexual argues against you as well. That's where I'll start on my side that it has to be a choice. Your turn.

Let us outlaw your pending marriage to your fiancee and forbid you from having any kind of intimate relationship with her or any other person whom you may be attracted to under the penalty of our criminal law. If we make it impossible for you to pursue happiness, then our society will be better.

Since you can not prove any discrimination (except tax filing status), what is the point of your above post?

The State does have an interest and precedents have been established under the Morrill Act.

http://nboman.people.wm.edu/MormonsEUSC.pdf

The State does and continues to legislate social norms and homosexual marriage is a social interest the State does have an interest in.

http://www.onlineutah.com/polygamyhistoryembry.shtml

Disagree all you want, but social activity is something the State can and does legislate.

Wingnut- “Homosexuals are filthy sodomites who should not have access to marriage.”

Evil gay person- “Nonsense. I demand the same rights as you and will fight for them.”

Wingnut- “Why won’t you respect my right to free speech?”

And there you have the wingnut understanding of the Constitution.

Please identify the alleged compelling state interest at stake and state why excluding gay couples from the right to marry is necessary to serve that alleged interest.

The strength of social fabric is not challenged by gay marriage. Nor is marriage devalued.

Quote:

The strength of social fabric is not challenged by gay marriage. Nor is marriage devalued.

there are a multitude of opinions on this, where the majority will end up be is not clear to me. I have seen studies that claim that the current majority is on the side of not allowing gay marriage, so it may be that we have decided that gay marriage does weaken the society.