The anti-gay marriage movement IS homophobic

Five pages later, and we have yet to get a good answer to the question:

In what ways, SPECIFICALLY, does Gay marriage harm pre-existing, or potential, straight marriages?

I suspect there IS no rational answer to this question.

Therefore; Anti-gay marriage is a symptom of the latent homophobia which is still heavily apparent in our society.

This should not be surprising; it's only been a few decades since open gayness was allowable by mainstream society. I believe that those of my generation (I'm 25) are much more open to the idea of homosexuality than previous generations, and as time goes on, you will see that reflected in people's attitudes....

Not that that has anything to do with the law. Which, I remind everyone, should be based upon LOGIC, and sound logic at that.

The consititution says that all men are free and equal.

If you consider homosexuals to be people, you have to give them exactly equal rights that other people have, even if the idea of it makes you uncomfortable.

If you wish to make an exception to this rule, you need to be able to provide logical reasons for doing so.

I eagerly await them.

Cycloptichorn

I'll tell you what; how about we let the science figure it out and then we can make up our minds. Prove that people are born gay or that they are not born gay. That should solve the issue.

I don't know why some will accept the science of human global warming and stem cell research but don't even want to do research on people being born gay? Could it be because we might learn something the gay agenda won't accept?

Baldimo wrote:

I'll tell you what; how about we let the science figure it out and then we can make up our minds. Prove that people are born gay or that they are not born gay. That should solve the issue.

I don't know why some will accept the science of human global warming and stem cell research but don't even want to do research on people being born gay? Could it be because we might learn something the gay agenda won't accept?

What difference would it make whether it was a choice or not?

FD...tip....experience suggests that discourse with the B gentleman above has all the joy and reward of owning a Lada

It would make a big difference on the difference in changing society. Society doesn't change for choice but it does for non-choice. Look at the civil rights movement, people don't choose to be black they are born that way. To continue laws based on how people are born is stupid and backwards. If it could be proven that homosexuality was a born trait then people would have to change their ways of thinking and laws would be changed through votes instead of through the courts. People are much more accepting of genetics then they are of choice.

I don't see how it makes any difference one way or another if gays are born that way or become that way. The fact is that we do not govern ourselves by the Bible. If we did then it would be against the law to have an affair or get a divorce except in the case of fornication.

Baldimo wrote:

It would make a big difference on the difference in changing society. Society doesn't change for choice but it does for non-choice. Look at the civil rights movement, people don't choose to be black they are born that way. To continue laws based on how people are born is stupid and backwards. If it could be proven that homosexuality was a born trait then people would have to change their ways of thinking and laws would be changed through votes instead of through the courts. People are much more accepting of genetics then they are of choice.

In the absence of scientiffic knowledge that it is a choice, shouldnt gay people get the benefit of the doubt?

After all the amount of testemony on hte matter would be more than sufficient to convict someone of murder.

Oh, and you need to keep the possibility open that homosexuality might neither be genetic or volountary.

Enough gay people have testified that they could not choose not to be gay that I would consider the burden of evidence transfered to the people who would contend this. Until research is provided showing homosexuality to be volountary, homosexuality should not be considered a choice.

Oh, and I also support Kyoto, although I don't see that as a rights issue.

Quote:

Enough murderers and pedophiles have said the same thing about their behavior, do we believe them as well.

I'd belive the pedofiles at least, doubt I'd belive the murderers. I se no problem however with legislating under the assumption that some people would , without having a choice in the matter, develop a desire to murder, or come to be sexually attracted to children.

Quote:

I'm not saying these things are on the same level but the being born that way is the same argument.

Would you support govt funding for such research?

Sure.

Baldimo, did you choose to be straight, assuming you really are straight and not a closet gay in denial?

He's been asked that many times before.

His answer is that straight is the default condition, and that becoming gay requires conscious effort.