Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va [W: 86,235]

[AGENT J]

Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va.’s ban on same-sex marriage - The Washington Post

[h=1]Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va.’s ban on same-sex marriage[/h]A national gay rights organization sued the state of West Virginia over its ban on same-sex marriages Tuesday, declaring its Defense of Marriage Act a violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

New York-based Lambda Legal filed the complaint in U.S. District Court in Huntington on behalf of three same-sex couples and the child of one couple. It filed a similar lawsuit last month challenging Virginia’s ban on gay marriages.

In the West Virginia case, Lambda Legal argues the state’s ban unfairly discriminates against same-sex couples and their children. The organization says its clients are denied the legal sanction, societal respect, financial protections and other support that marriage gives to heterosexual couples.
The group also contends the law violates constitutionally guaranteed rights to equal protection under the law and sends a message that gay men, lesbians and their children are second-class citizens “without any compelling, important or even legitimate justification.”

back up link: National gay rights group to file W.Va. lawsuit* - News - The Charleston Gazette - West Virginia News and Sports -

the battle for equality is afoot, cant go a couple days without equality fights popping up.

so lets reflect, as far as i know

PA, NJ, HI, Va(just today also link below), NM and now WV are some of the states in line with lawsuits pending, soon to be filed. or legislation/rulings in the works.

Prop. 8 legal team joins fight against Virginia's gay marriage ban - latimes.com
Lawsuit gets boost to fight gay marriage ban in Virginia - Washington Times

The fall of DOMA started the ball rolling faster than expected and once again its the BANS that are going to HELP equality win. Sweet irony

 

[tererun]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

I figured it would be the case. Now the pro-gay rights people need to recognize a few of these are going to fail before biased partisan judges. Eventually the supreme court will have tio make a true decision on this, and they have already showed that equality is more important than allowing people to vote other's rights away. I would have to say the courts were goiong to be the only place that would have done it for the whole US anyway considering how backwards the majority is in some states.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

I figured it would be the case. Now the pro-gay rights people need to recognize a few of these are going to fail before biased partisan judges. Eventually the supreme court will have tio make a true decision on this, and they have already showed that equality is more important than allowing people to vote other's rights away. I would have to say the courts were going to be the only place that would have done it for the whole US anyway considering how backwards the majority is in some states.

well of course some of them are going to fail, i actually expect maybe even a 50/50 in district courts to fail but when it comes to SSCs and SCOTUS it will be different.

Yep its going to be case after case after case reaching SSCs until its directly handled by SCOTUS and with the fall of DOMA, other SSCs already ruling on this and all the laws, state constitutions and ordinances out there about equality and discrimination the notch is already cut in the tree of discrimination. Equality is going to push down and we all will hear it fall.

It blows my mind that in 2013 so many just want to piss all over the rights of others, discriminate against them and deny them equality.

 

[digsbe]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

I figured it would be the case. Now the pro-gay rights people need to recognize a few of these are going to fail before biased partisan judges. Eventually the supreme court will have tio make a true decision on this, and they have already showed that equality is more important than allowing people to vote other's rights away. I would have to say the courts were goiong to be the only place that would have done it for the whole US anyway considering how backwards the majority is in some states.

There may also be some cases that do pass because of pro-gay activist judges as well that are so deranged in their hateful stance on "equality" that they would reverse the legal will of the people and impose their own inappropriate view of marriage upon a state using their status as a judge to unfairly impose their will upon the people.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

There may also be some cases that do pass because of pro-gay activist judges as well that are so deranged in their hateful stance on "equality" that they would reverse the legal will of the people and impose their own inappropriate view of marriage upon a state.

always funny to read deranged, hateful and equality in the same sentence, VERY telling.
its not a legal will if its found to be discriminatory and violate equality, sorry. SO the only factual thing being imposed in THAT case would be equality. Makes me proud discrimination is losing and that equality and human rights is winning.

You will still be free to think, feel, preach what ever you like, just like people think, feel, preach that minorities are a lesser, women are a lesser, interracial marriage is real marriage etc etc. All those inequalities lost just like this one will. Its only a matter of time, id say 5 years max, after that those that dont like equality can move to russia.

 

[digsbe]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

always funny to read deranged, hateful and equality in the same sentence, VERY telling.
its not a legal will if its found to be discriminatory and violate equality, sorry. SO the only factual thing being imposed in THAT case would be equality. Makes me proud discrimination is losing and that equality and human rights is winning.

You will still be free to think, feel, preach what ever you like, just like people think, feel, preach that minorities are a lesser, women are a lesser, interracial marriage is real marriage etc etc. All those inequalities lost just like this one will. Its only a matter of time, id say 5 years max, after that those that dont like equality can move to russia.

Just saying, there are some on the pro-SSM side that are literally deranged in their thinking, toss out grand judgments about their opposition and would violate the rights of states and voters to push their view of "equality" upon everyone. What I think is telling is when people think those who disagree shouldn't be allowed to have a vote or legal voice, especially considering that traditional marriage is the legal default and has been for hundreds of years with the issue of SSM being a change in policy instead of some new epiphany on "equality" that needs legal action with laws as written today.

SSM is not like interacial marriage, that's a very very weak straw-man and slander tactic that is constantly tossed aorund in these threads. Let me know when sexuality is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as protected like race is (and don't try and use the fallacy that it's illegal gender discrimination to ban SSM). It's special interests that largely push these bans and violate the established law and default law of traditional marriage. I would say what Russia is doing is far more similar to what many on the pro-SSM side wants with using the government to chip away the rights and laws of dissenting individuals when they essentially argue that people have no right to vote on their views regarding marriage and that now, given some kind of social epiphany, SSM must be a default rule of law without a Constitutional amendment when traditional marriage has been default and legal for hundreds of years.

 

[tererun]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

There may also be some cases that do pass because of pro-gay activist judges as well that are so deranged in their hateful stance on "equality" that they would reverse the legal will of the people and impose their own inappropriate view of marriage upon a state using their status as a judge to unfairly impose their will upon the people.

If you think equality is the work of a deranged activist judge then you probably think discrimination and prejudice are rights that come with no consequences. It is odd that you would expect things like fairness and equality in a system that promotes prejudice and inequality, but maybe the problem in your case is not within other people, but rather within yourself?

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

1.)Just saying, there are some on the pro-SSM side that are literally deranged in their thinking
2.) toss out grand judgments about their opposition and would violate the rights of states and voters to push their view of "equality" upon everyone.
3.) What I think is telling is when people think those who disagree shouldn't be allowed to have a vote or legal voice
4.) especially considering that traditional marriage is the legal default and has been for hundreds of years with the issue of SSM being a change in policy
5.) instead of some new epiphany on "equality" that needs legal action with laws as written today.
6.)SSM is not like interracial marriage, that's a very very weak straw-man and slander tactic that is constantly tossed around in these threads.
7.)Let me know when sexuality is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as protected like race is (and don't try and use the fallacy that it's illegal gender discrimination to ban SSM).
8.) It's special interests
9.)that largely push these bans and violate the established law and default law of traditional marriage.

1.) well this i agree with there are some on EVERY side that are deranged in their thinking.
2.) well good thing this isnt happening. No rights of states are being violated.
3.) well i dont see anybody doing that in general so again thats a nice story. You can vote on anything you want but you cant vote agaisnt rights and if you do and thats found to be the case of course its overturned. Thats how it works. ALso you can "speak" on anythign you like
4.) this is just silly what was the default of slavery and womens rights and minorities rights, this will ALWAYS be a huge failure and there will never be and unbiased logic to support such an inane discriminatory any human rights and equality stance. Its meaningless.
5.) nothing NEW about it, its always been discriminatory and not equality, it was just more accepted before
6.) no matter how many times you say its not to feel better about your stance it is. FACTS, court cases, precedence, laws and ordinances already prove this and labeling it a straw man is just a desperate deflection. Its actually so solid in so many ways you are forced to claim it different because of how thoroughly it exposes the opposition.
7.) doesnt have to be to be discrimination, was BLACK listed in the constitution before hand? how about handicapped? stop with the silliness thats the only factual straw man around here. Sorry reality is unappealing to you but thats just the way it is.
8.) nothign special about wanting equal rights protected
9.) no law is being "violated", none, zero by establishing equal rights. Im sure some individual might violate law but granting equal rights violates ZERO laws.

you paint such a good picture but it cant be backed up in reality. I see how people that are in favor of discrimination could ALMOST believe it to feel better about their stance but reality wont change for you or them.

all your arguments (its not equality, it not civil rights, violates states rigghts, violates the will of the people etc etc) were used against minority/womens rights and interracial marriage before. Those arguments were asinine, dishonest and stupid then. They held no logic and were just masks for supporting discrimination, the same is true of them today.

sorry digs equality is coming, after its established you can still be in favor of discrimination if you like

 

[tererun]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Just saying, there are some on the pro-SSM side that are literally deranged in their thinking, toss out grand judgments about their opposition and would violate the rights of states and voters to push their view of "equality" upon everyone.

Push equality on everyone including those who want prejudice. I am actually OK with that when it comes to public things we all have to use and get along with. If it does not actually hurt you to do your own thing and stop caring about directing everyone else's life then I am pretty good with us saying no to the nannies even if they happen to be the majority.

What I think is telling is when people think those who disagree shouldn't be allowed to have a vote or legal voice, especially considering that traditional marriage is the legal default and has been for hundreds of years with the issue of SSM being a change in policy instead of some new epiphany on "equality" that needs legal action with laws as written today.

I don't see anyone telling the antis they cannot vote, just that we are not going to consider screwing up someone else because they want to. We could have a vote that says everyone should be able to kick you in the crotch, and even though many people might actually want to kick you in the crotch I would be against it. I certainly would hope the courts would be also even if 99 percent of the people voted to be able to kick you in the crotch. If we wanted to outlaw people thinking about kicking you in the crotch, or talking about how much fun it would be to actually kick you in the crotch and fantasizing about it, or even making a doll of you and kicking it in the crotch for fun I would not outlaw that. As long as they are not doing it in front of you in places you have to be like work I am pretty Ok with them doing all of that as long as they do not hurt you. if they do it in certain places where they need to get along with you I can see even that idea being disturbing enough to damage you personally and that they should take their hate to a more private location.

SSM is not like interacial marriage, that's a very very weak straw-man and slander tactic that is constantly tossed aorund in these threads. Let me know when sexuality is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as protected like race is (and don't try and use the fallacy that it's illegal gender discrimination to ban SSM). It's special interests that largely push these bans and violate the established law and default law of traditional marriage. I would say what Russia is doing is far more similar to what many on the pro-SSM side wants with using the government to chip away the rights and laws of dissenting individuals when they essentially argue that people have no right to vote on their views regarding marriage and that now, given some kind of social epiphany, SSM must be a default rule of law without a Constitutional amendment when traditional marriage has been default and legal for hundreds of years.

the constitution was not all perfect or all inclusive and was made to adapt because even it's founders realized things may have to be added as society changed. So that argument that it should remain the same is wrong on all levels.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

If you think equality is the work of a deranged activist judge then you probably think discrimination and prejudice are rights that come with no consequences. It is odd that you would expect things like fairness and equality in a system that promotes prejudice and inequality, but maybe the problem in your case is not within other people, but rather within yourself?

you have to understand, for some people, its only EQUAL RIGHTS if they say so or they like it, otherwise its not. Just like minority rights, womens rights and interracial marriage. All the same failed arguments.

 

[tererun]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

you have to understand, for some people, its only EQUAL RIGHTS if they say so or they like it, otherwise its not. Just like minority rights, womens rights and interracial marriage. All the same failed arguments.

I do understand, but the thing that amazes me is the glaring obvious hole in the logic. If you promote inequality even for your own gain at some point those systems that are more powerful than you will use that same weakness against you. By promoting their unfairness you promote the weakness that will allow them to be unfair to you. It is sort of like how the patriot act came back around to bite republicans in the ass with spying. Yes, it is all great while you are in control, but when your opponents get a hold of it it will be used by them to bite you in the ass. Which is why fairness even though it may not allow you to be prejudiced against others is important because it will not allow others to be unfair against you. I just do not get why they cannot see that point despite a world full of instances where it is proven to happen 100 percent of the time. I would never dream of endorsing a ban on christianity, and I even want christianity to have it's own voice in the world for it's opwn promotion and not the denegration of others. I want it to be protected no matter how often it causes others harm. I want the actions that hurt others to be punished, but not the ideas because I know when you start judging those ideas and eliminating them it will eventually be used on ideas I agree with. Ther WBC is a bunch of assholes and I would not mind if they got run over by a truck by accident. however, i would never seek to ban their words or their ideas from the public's eye.

Even on this issue, i think marriage is a huge sham. i do not believe in obne person forever, though i could see one person for a period of time. I thibnk marriage laws suck. I do not want to spend money on all the divorce drama. I hate that we have funded an area where lawyers swim freely in a pond of depraivity and immorality. But I have seen it help people and make them happy. I have seen the joy tghat comes from it even if it ends tragically later. I do not want to ban it even though it clearly destroys lives sometimes. I do not know why gays want it, and i think as more of them get married it will destroy more of their lives, but I am not going to stop them from getting married. I am actually glad they have those days of happiness even if it makes the fall harder. I hate church, but I am glad it is there for those people who live for it every week. How much of a scumbag would I be if I said no you cannot have church because that is my word. It does not mean I won't rant about it as that serves another purpose, but I do not expect those people to like me for ranting about it and i certainly would never vote to ban it from happening on church property every single sunday. I do not even mind the idea that some white supremists want to set up a white only town in the middle of nowhere where no one else lives. I do not think they should kick anyone else out, but if you want to live in white only land and syhut the door then do it, just when you come out be pleasant because the rest of the world is not that way. As long as most areas and no needed areas are public for everyone i am fine with private areas having private rules.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

I do understand, but the thing that amazes me is the glaring obvious hole in the logic. If you promote inequality even for your own gain at some point those systems that are more powerful than you will use that same weakness against you. By promoting their unfairness you promote the weakness that will allow them to be unfair to you. It is sort of like how the patriot act came back around to bite republicans in the ass with spying. Yes, it is all great while you are in control, but when your opponents get a hold of it it will be used by them to bite you in the ass. Which is why fairness even though it may not allow you to be prejudiced against others is important because it will not allow others to be unfair against you. I just do not get why they cannot see that point despite a world full of instances where it is proven to happen 100 percent of the time. I would never dream of endorsing a ban on christianity, and I even want christianity to have it's own voice in the world for it's opwn promotion and not the denegration of others. I want it to be protected no matter how often it causes others harm. I want the actions that hurt others to be punished, but not the ideas because I know when you start judging those ideas and eliminating them it will eventually be used on ideas I agree with. Ther WBC is a bunch of assholes and I would not mind if they got run over by a truck by accident. however, i would never seek to ban their words or their ideas from the public's eye.

Even on this issue, i think marriage is a huge sham. i do not believe in obne person forever, though i could see one person for a period of time. I thibnk marriage laws suck. I do not want to spend money on all the divorce drama. I hate that we have funded an area where lawyers swim freely in a pond of depraivity and immorality. But I have seen it help people and make them happy. I have seen the joy tghat comes from it even if it ends tragically later. I do not want to ban it even though it clearly destroys lives sometimes. I do not know why gays want it, and i think as more of them get married it will destroy more of their lives, but I am not going to stop them from getting married. I am actually glad they have those days of happiness even if it makes the fall harder. I hate church, but I am glad it is there for those people who live for it every week. How much of a scumbag would I be if I said no you cannot have church because that is my word. It does not mean I won't rant about it as that serves another purpose, but I do not expect those people to like me for ranting about it and i certainly would never vote to ban it from happening on church property every single sunday. I do not even mind the idea that some white supremists want to set up a white only town in the middle of nowhere where no one else lives. I do not think they should kick anyone else out, but if you want to live in white only land and syhut the door then do it, just when you come out be pleasant because the rest of the world is not that way. As long as most areas and no needed areas are public for everyone i am fine with private areas having private rules.

and there you have it, this is what some will never get . . . .
but your words wil go ignored and be twisted and said but but but that different blah blah blah

yet tomorrow just like yesterday reality agrees with you and not them

 

[tererun]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

and there you have it, this is what some will never get . . . .
but your words wil go ignored and be twisted and said but but but that different blah blah blah

yet tomorrow just like yesterday reality agrees with you and not them

However, if we never fought against that stupidity we would never know how important that point of view is. Perhaps it is in understanding why our opponents are so opposed to it we discover the reasons why we fight so hard for it and how necessary it is to fight for it. Sorry, I found my shipment of enlightenment last sunday and I am probably going to be talking a bit wacky until i lose it again. It was totally hanging out on the back of my head and i had to see it for myself.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

However, if we never fought against that stupidity we would never know how important that point of view is. Perhaps it is in understanding why our opponents are so opposed to it we discover the reasons why we fight so hard for it and how necessary it is to fight for it. Sorry, I found my shipment of enlightenment last sunday and I am probably going to be talking a bit wacky until i lose it again. It was totally hanging out on the back of my head and i had to see it for myself.

well this is true, when presented with the pure stupidity of the stances against equality it is easy to get motivated and fight for equality. When i read some of the vile, horrific, hateful, bigoted, visceral and mentally void rantings against gays its hurt not to get motivated for equality.

Here i am enjoying my equality and some are being denied what Im enjoying myself, not only is that not right but to hear people celebrate this discrimination and to push for it makes me realize how nutty some people are and i have to fight for equality that same i have. I could never deny it to others.

 

[Grendel]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

There may also be some cases that do pass because of pro-gay activist judges as well that are so deranged in their hateful stance on "equality" that they would reverse the legal will of the people and impose their own inappropriate view of marriage upon a state using their status as a judge to unfairly impose their will upon the people.

You don't have the right to create sub-classes of Americans who don't have the same rights as everyone else. You can't say, "____________ don't have the right to ___________." Whether it's "blacks" and "read" or "women" and "vote" or "jews" and "own property" or "gays" and "get married". In a civilization where all citizens have equal protection of the law, then the only thing that is allowed in that first blank is "everyone". So if you want to ban marriage, it can't be, "____gays___ don't have the right to ___get married___," it has to be, "____ All Americans___ don't have the right to ___get married."

You can't make a law that only restricts one special class. That's the basic elitism that is always the driving force behind right-wing politics. "We're more special than them and so we should ahve special rights." You guys thing that your right to get married is more special than anyone else's right to get married, when it's not. You can't have special rights that you deny to others. Either all of us ahve the right or none of us have the right. Anything else is the road to fascism that right-wing politics always take, sooner or later.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Just saying, there are some on the pro-SSM side that are literally deranged in their thinking, toss out grand judgments about their opposition and would violate the rights of states and voters to push their view of "equality" upon everyone. What I think is telling is when people think those who disagree shouldn't be allowed to have a vote or legal voice, especially considering that traditional marriage is the legal default and has been for hundreds of years with the issue of SSM being a change in policy instead of some new epiphany on "equality" that needs legal action with laws as written today.

SSM is not like interacial marriage, that's a very very weak straw-man and slander tactic that is constantly tossed aorund in these threads. Let me know when sexuality is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as protected like race is (and don't try and use the fallacy that it's illegal gender discrimination to ban SSM). It's special interests that largely push these bans and violate the established law and default law of traditional marriage. I would say what Russia is doing is far more similar to what many on the pro-SSM side wants with using the government to chip away the rights and laws of dissenting individuals when they essentially argue that people have no right to vote on their views regarding marriage and that now, given some kind of social epiphany, SSM must be a default rule of law without a Constitutional amendment when traditional marriage has been default and legal for hundreds of years.

There is no right of any state to discriminate against its citizens, gay or straight, unless they can show a legitimate state interest being furthered in doing so, no matter what laws it is that are discriminatory.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

There is no right of any state to discriminate against its citizens, gay or straight, unless they can show a legitimate state interest being furthered in doing so, no matter what laws it is that are discriminatory.

exactly, if this wasnt the case all the discrimination in the past would still be around.

 

[Bronson]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Just saying, there are some on the pro-SSM side that are literally deranged in their thinking

Understatement of the century

There is no right of any state to discriminate against its citizens, gay or straight, unless they can show a legitimate state interest being furthered in doing so, no matter what laws it is that are discriminatory.

So the state shouldn't discriminate against any sexual fetishes right?

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Understatement of the century



So the state shouldn't discriminate against any sexual fetishes right?

since when did homosexuality become a "sexual fetish"

your post fails as usual

 

[Hatuey]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

SSM is not like interacial marriage, that's a very very weak straw-man and slander tactic that is constantly tossed aorund in these threads. Let me know when sexuality is specifically mentioned in the Constitution as protected like race is (and don't try and use the fallacy that it's illegal gender discrimination to ban SSM). It's special interests that largely push these bans and violate the established law and default law of traditional marriage. I would say what Russia is doing is far more similar to what many on the pro-SSM side wants with using the government to chip away the rights and laws of dissenting individuals when they essentially argue that people have no right to vote on their views regarding marriage and that now, given some kind of social epiphany, SSM must be a default rule of law without a Constitutional amendment when traditional marriage has been default and legal for hundreds of years.

Lol, you need to stop being so dishonest with yourself. Russia is BANNING people from openly practicing their sexuality. It's banning the mere mention of sexuality. So to compare it to people who want their sexuality to be LEGALLY accepted, not RELIGIOUSLY accepted is utter ****ing nonsense. Nobody has asked for churches to recognize gay marriage. Nobody has asked Christians to stop believing homosexuality is a sin. What has been asked is that marriages between gays be LEGALLY recognized. Again, entirely different from that nonsensical straw-man you came up with.

I gotta say though, you have outdone yourself. This is definitely worse then the time you tried to tell the forum you're not a fundamentalist Christian hiding behind a weak understanding of the UN charter of rights to defend an anti-abortion stance that is actually religious in nature. Seriously. Comparing the government oppressing homosexuality itself to wanting the government to simply recognize gay unions? Talk about a ****ing leap of faith.

 

[Bronson]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

since when did homosexuality become a "sexual fetish"

your post fails as usual

It's always been a fetish

It certainly isn't genetic

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

1.)It's always been a fetish

It certainly isn't genetic

1.) interesting so sexual orientation is now a fetish according to you. Link and facts to back that up please, we'd love to read it
2.) well you cant say certainly" because that would make you wrong. Theres no evidence that shows orientation is or is not genetic. again if you have some facts that say orientation is in fact not gentic (not that it matters) we like to read that too.

I love when you prove how vastly uneducated on this topic you are.

 

[Bronson]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

1.) interesting so sexual orientation is now a fetish according to you. Link and facts to back that up please, we'd love to read it
2.) well you cant say certainly" because that would make you wrong. Theres no evidence that shows orientation is or is not genetic. again if you have some facts that say orientation is in fact not gentic (not that it matters) we like to read that too.

I love when you prove how vastly uneducated on this topic you are.

Homosexuality is a fetish

There is no gay gene

That's the science. Not my problem you are anti science.

Carry on with your Gay Thumper thread

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

It's always been a fetish

It certainly isn't genetic

It is good to see that you are still uneducated on this topic and that you still don't know what the definitions of words are. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. A sexual fetish is the focusing on an object or a specific sexual situation that ENHANCES a romantic/sexual situation. I have now corrected you. Again.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Re: Gay rights organization files federal lawsuit challenging W.Va

Homosexuality is a fetish

Proven incorrect by the definition of sexual fetish.

There is no gay gene

... discovered yet. I will continue to correct your lack of education and logic on this matter each time I see it, and both so members of the forum understand how little you know on this topic and so they do not believe misinformation that you present.

That's the science. Not my problem you are anti science.

Your comment proves that you are anti-science. You do not understand the scientific method.

Carry on with your Gay Thumper thread

And the more you post in it, the more many of us will enjoy demonstrating how ignorant you are on this topic... as I have already done in two short posts.