Did you choose your sexual orientation?

[rivrrat]

****** I suggest those doubting the idea that Hard Core Gay Rights individuals someday intend to go after the Church's insist upon a straight answer to the question of " In other words it's okay if certain Church's continue to keep their standards & rules" "even if the states permit Same Sex Marriage" ??? Really insist on an answer. Most will not give a satisfactory one. They'll laugh it off or say something offensive - but they will not state that the Church's can continue like they do now.

***** Unitarians. some Episcvopals & some Reformed Jews will cave first on this. Their folding will begin the legal precedent for the rerst to be eventually litigated against.

**** The activists will do this .

And hard core activists can do whatever the hell they want. That is their right as individuals in this country. Just like ****ing vegans try to ban meat and ****ing health addicts try to ban twinkies. You'll get your idiots, for sure. Not sure why it matters that some fools on the fringe do stupid ****.

 

[Zinc Route]

***** OKAY - You answer the question: Do the Church's maintin the Right to Not marry Same Sex couples even after Civil Marriage for Sae Sex couples becomes acceptable to many????? When it becomes routine ???

 

[rivrrat]

***** OKAY - You answer the question: Do the Church's maintin the Right to Not marry Same Sex couples even after Civil Marriage for Sae Sex couples becomes acceptable to many????? When it becomes routine ???

Of course they do. Who a particular church marries and who they do not is their business. They can refuse to marry a couple for any reason they want. The only thing that matters is that equality is achieved under the law since marriage is a legal contract. Churches are entirely unnecessary for marriage, what they do is irrelevant.

 

[Goshin]

***** OKAY - You answer the question: Do the Church's maintin the Right to Not marry Same Sex couples even after Civil Marriage for Sae Sex couples becomes acceptable to many????? When it becomes routine ???

This is one of my concerns.

 

[Zinc Route]

**** Not quite a full answer Let's specify further - You'll leave them alone and LAMDA or any ACLU type group has no standing in going after them based on what is then in fashion for equality ???

 

[cpwill]

Yeah, I know, the whole 'separate but equal' bull****. That isn't equality and there has never been a proposal that gives a "civil union" the exact same rights as marriage. Not a one.

:shrug: no one said anything about "equality" as though this was a lesser version of something you had the right to. it's merely a different contract. complaining that it's not marriage is like complaining that neither is an LLC.

assuming, of course, that your intent is the attainment of legal rights and protections. as opposed to, you know, something more like social acceptance.

So really, y'alls pettiness about a ****ing word is pretty pointless. It's a word, get over it.

funny usually that's the argument used by my side towards yours.

but no, it's not "just a word". words are important, and this one in particular is a central social concept.

And, there is no demand of acceptance. I don't give a flying **** what anyone 'accepts' and no one can make anyone 'accept' anything. All I care about is that equal rights are given, and 'separate but equal' is NOT equal.

interesting. so for example you are against male and female only restrooms?

All of the numerous churches and what they think are irrelevant when it comes to the law and a legal contractual agreement like marriage.

the churches certainly; but so long as we live in a representative society what their members think is relevant indeed.

 

[rivrrat]

**** Not quite a full answer Let's specify further - You'll leave them alone and LAMDA or any ACLU type group has no standing in going after them based on what is then in fashion for equality ???

I don't understand what you're asking. I'm not going after anyone, but I can't prevent anyone else from "going after" someone. It seems like you're asking me to somehow make some promise that when same sex marriage is legal, I'll personally make sure that no fringe activists try to prevent churches from discriminating? I can't do that. No one can. It would be a violation of free speech and illegal.

 

[rivrrat]

:shrug: no one said anything about "equality" as though this was a lesser version of something you had the right to. it's merely a different contract. complaining that it's not marriage is like complaining that neither is an LLC.

What are you talking about? The whole issue is about equality.

assuming, of course, that your intent is the attainment of legal rights and protections. as opposed to, you know, something more like social acceptance.

The intent is equal rights under the law. If a man can marry a woman, then why the **** am I not allowed to? It's sexual discrimination.

but no, it's not "just a word". words are important, and this one in particular is a central social concept.

It's a legal contract.

interesting. so for example you are against male and female only restrooms?

I have no issue at all with unisex restrooms.

Do you have an issue with white and black segregated restrooms? What about whites can only marry whites and blacks can only marry blacks?

 

[cpwill]

Of course they do. Who a particular church marries and who they do not is their business. They can refuse to marry a couple for any reason they want. The only thing that matters is that equality is achieved under the law since marriage is a legal contract. Churches are entirely unnecessary for marriage, what they do is irrelevant.

and when they want to hire whom they want to hire, for what reasons they want to hire? how about when they want to allow or ban people from active membership? how about when a christian summer camp does it? a school?

 

[cpwill]

What are you talking about? The whole issue is about equality.

no, the emotion driving the issue is, for one side, desire for equality. the issue itself is the definition of marriage; and in particular who has the right to determine in.

The intent is equal rights under the law. If a man can marry a woman, then why the **** am I not allowed to? It's sexual discrimination.

you are free to do whatever you wish. have a ceremony, tell people you are married, live happily for the rest of your life until you finally can't stand the fact that she squeezes the toothpaste from the middle of the tube and leave her for a 19 year old cabana boy named "pablo". the only actions being hampered here are that of the states; in particular with regards to the issuance of licenses.

It's a legal contract.

exactly. not a public service (like, for example, public education).

I have no issue at all with unisex restrooms.

that wasn't the question. the question was, if you believe that separate but equal cannot by definition apply to questions of sexuality, then are you inherently against male-only or female-only bathrooms.

What about whites can only marry whites and blacks can only marry blacks?

my only issue with that is that the case that decided that issue nationally was an unConstitutional assumption of State perrogative.

 

[cpwill]

I don't understand what you're asking. I'm not going after anyone, but I can't prevent anyone else from "going after" someone. It seems like you're asking me to somehow make some promise that when same sex marriage is legal, I'll personally make sure that no fringe activists try to prevent churches from discriminating? I can't do that. No one can. It would be a violation of free speech and illegal.

:rofl: since when has that mattered to the PC crowd?

 

[rivrrat]

and when they want to hire whom they want to hire, for what reasons they want to hire? how about when they want to allow or ban people from active membership? how about when a christian summer camp does it? a school?

I don't care who churches hire or fire or why. For that matter, I don't care who any private business hires or fires or why. I have no issue at all with them allowing or disallowing members. Frankly, I don't care *what* any church does.

no, the emotion driving the issue is, for one side, desire for equality. the issue itself is the definition of marriage; and in particular who has the right to determine in.

Definitions change. As they did when we started allowing blacks to marry whites. Equality is what's important.

you are free to do whatever you wish. have a ceremony, tell people you are married, live happily for the rest of your life until you finally can't stand the fact that she squeezes the toothpaste from the middle of the tube and leave her for a 19 year old cabana boy named "pablo". the only actions being hampered here are that of the states; in particular with regards to the issuance of licenses.

We're speaking of the legal contract that is marriage currently. I'm all for getting the government out of personal relationships altogether though. People who signed a piece of paper shouldn't get any more rights and privileges than those of us who don't want the government involved in our relationships.

exactly. not a public service (like, for example, public education).

??

that wasn't the question. the question was, if you believe that separate but equal cannot by definition apply to questions of sexuality, then are you inherently against male-only or female-only bathrooms.

LMFAO whatever makes you feel better, hon. I have no ****ing clue why bathrooms are segregated, makes no damn sense. However, they aren't 'separate but equal'. They're just separate.

 

[rivrrat]

:rofl: since when has that mattered to the PC crowd?

The PC crowd can kiss my white ass.

 

[Reality Land]

They still shoot horses don't they?

 

[Zinc Route]

I don't understand what you're asking. I'm not going after anyone, but I can't prevent anyone else from "going after" someone. It seems like you're asking me to somehow make some promise that when same sex marriage is legal, I'll personally make sure that no fringe activists try to prevent churches from discriminating? I can't do that. No one can. It would be a violation of free speech and illegal.

***** Let me narrow it down for YOU.

***** If one even entertains the thought that a given Church discriminates on this topic THEN you must consider it at least possible - hence you then move onto the view that some will discriminate against same sex couples then YOU accept the idea that some can try to legally do something about it.

**** There is no easy middle ground here. Either you do not approve of those who will try this in the Courts someday or you think they might have some point. Also it is not the equivilent of past Civil Rights struggles. This view is the usual ploy of Gay activists and it should not justifibly apply here.

 

[Plato]

We seem to have moved onto a different topic. I ask again, invain it would seem, oif there is anyone who has chosen their sexual orientation who could give us insight into how this has happened.

1. Were they attracted to both sexes and chose only one?
2. Were they attracted to one and changed themselves to be attracted to another?
3. Were they attracted to none and made a choice to be attracted to one?

That is what this thread is about. Most people on here think that they had no choice. That they were gay or straight at the beginning and could do nothing about it. I am interested in those who said that they actually did make a choice into exactly how this could happen.

Because quite frankly I don't believe you. Which is why you are evading the question. What other people do is by the by. How did you choose?

 

[Antagony]

We seem to have moved onto a different topic. I ask again, invain it would seem, oif there is anyone who has chosen their sexual orientation who could give us insight into how this has happened.

1. Were they attracted to both sexes and chose only one?
2. Were they attracted to one and changed themselves to be attracted to another?
3. Were they attracted to none and made a choice to be attracted to one?

That is what this thread is about. Most people on here think that they had no choice. That they were gay or straight at the beginning and could do nothing about it. I am interested in those who said that they actually did make a choice into exactly how this could happen.

Because quite frankly I don't believe you. Which is why you are evading the question. What other people do is by the by. How did you choose?

I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a rational explanation. The only one I can think of--if they're being honest about it being a choice--is that they're actually bisexual and thus have decided to forgo one of their natural inclinations. Either that or they're kidding themselves about their true natures. But it would sure be interesting to get an insight into the decision making process, as I've never met anyone in the real world who claimed to have chosen their sexual orientation.

 

[rivrrat]

***** Let me narrow it down for YOU.

***** If one even entertains the thought that a given Church discriminates on this topic THEN you must consider it at least possible - hence you then move onto the view that some will discriminate against same sex couples then YOU accept the idea that some can try to legally do something about it.

Of course people can legally try to stop churches from discriminating. I never said they couldn't. Just like idiots can and do try to outlaw twinkies, or meat, or whatever.

**** There is no easy middle ground here. Either you do not approve of those who will try this in the Courts someday or you think they might have some point. Also it is not the equivilent of past Civil Rights struggles. This view is the usual ploy of Gay activists and it should not justifibly apply here.

I've stated numerous times on this forum and others that I think any private organization or business should be perfectly free to discriminate against whoever the hell they want to. They should be allowed to hire or fire who they want for whatever reason they want. And churches should certainly be allowed to hire/fire whomever they want, allow/disallow anyone they want to their services and ceremonies.

 

[Zinc Route]

Of course people can legally try to stop churches from discriminating. I never said they couldn't. Just like idiots can and do try to outlaw twinkies, or meat, or whatever.


I've stated numerous times on this forum and others that I think any private organization or business should be perfectly free to discriminate against whoever the hell they want to. They should be allowed to hire or fire who they want for whatever reason they want. And churches should certainly be allowed to hire/fire whomever they want, allow/disallow anyone they want to their services and ceremonies.

***** You've still left a little crack in the door. Now either the Gay Activists who WILL attempt this someday have legal standing or they don't. As I presume you know winning in Court is one thing . Being broken by constant litigation is another. I maintain that Unitatrians, some Episcopals and Reformed Judiasm will cave on this fully within 5 years of Same Sex Marriage getting approval in most states. Then the precedent of some respecting Rights & others denying them begins.

******* Then throw in certain Politicians in certain areas taking a position in favor of Church's being forced to comply. It is not far fetched.

 

[sazerac]

God doesn't make mistakes. Everything is just the way he wants it to be.

 

[rivrrat]

***** You've still left a little crack in the door. Now either the Gay Activists who WILL attempt this someday have legal standing or they don't. As I presume you know winning in Court is one thing . Being broken by constant litigation is another. I maintain that Unitatrians, some Episcopals and Reformed Judiasm will cave on this fully within 5 years of Same Sex Marriage getting approval in most states. Then the precedent of some respecting Rights & others denying them begins.

What "crack in the door"? The first amendment?

******* Then throw in certain Politicians in certain areas taking a position in favor of Church's being forced to comply. It is not far fetched.

Well, those politicians are ****ing retards. Folks should probably make sure they don't get re-elected

 

[Zinc Route]

What "crack in the door"? The first amendment?



Well, those politicians are ****ing retards. Folks should probably make sure they don't get re-elected

***** In the SF Bay area they will be reelected, Vermont is not far off.

 

[MsCommonSensiality]

:lol: you know, your side would probably be alot more popular (and who knows? perhaps succeed in convincing more people) if you actually bothered to understand why people believed the way they did, instead seeking to assure your self of your own moral superiority by blindly accusing everyone who doesn't agree with you of bigotry.

I've tried to understand why people are against gay rights. I believe that the Christians are mainly against it because of fear. Everyone else has no excuse except for intolerance and bigotry.

 

[MsCommonSensiality]

**** After it becomes legal in All States - Do YOU think that LAMDA and others should go after certain Religous denominations to make them adhere to the new realities (???)

Okay...I'm entirely unsure as to why you responded to that particular post of mine with this =\

 

[MsCommonSensiality]

**** Not quite a full answer Let's specify further - You'll leave them alone and LAMDA or any ACLU type group has no standing in going after them based on what is then in fashion for equality ???

You can't force a church to marry anyone. If it goes against their religious beliefs, then they can refuse whoever the hell they want. Though, they need to keep their religion to themselves and not try to force it on anyone but themselves.
Churches really aren't needed. People can manage without them.