the rational world has already accepted that some people are born gay or transgender. they have no more choice about it than the rest of us had a choice to be born heterosexuals.
What rationale is there that prevents a gay union from being just as legitimate a marriage as a straight one? His opinion is baseless.
Forgive me if I don't buy the logic of "I support gay marriage but I don't personally believe marriage is for gays." The ****?
the rational world has already accepted that some people are born gay or transgender. they have no more choice about it than the rest of us had a choice to be born heterosexuals.
I agree, but note that being born with a tendency doesn't automatically grant acceptance. The behavior itself must be accepted. I have no choice on whether I am turned on by a 3 year old.
save strawman arguments for someone who cares about your opinion.
I agree, but note that being born with a tendency doesn't automatically grant acceptance. The behavior itself must be accepted. I have no choice on whether I am turned on by a 3 year old.
Why do you think that hampers gay marriage? Do you believe the Constitution gives us our rights or that we're born with rights and the Constitution limits government?It is true that I used a rather harsh example, however this is to show that "born with it" isn't a justification, even for heterosexual behavior. I'm actually on your side here - I'm simply pointing out the flaw in your logic.
It's ok to say that homosexual behavior is ok, we don't need "born with it" as further justification. Logically, this hampers the argument for gay marriage.
My thoughts on marriage (legal marriage that grants a set of contractual benefits) are far more liberal than most here.
True, but the huge difference here is the actions between consenting adults and those of a predator adult preying on children and/or animals.
Correct - hence the social acceptance aspect, not the 'born with it' aspect.
Why do you think that hampers gay marriage? Do you believe the Constitution gives us our rights or that we're born with rights and the Constitution limits government?
It hampers the argument for it, easily dismissed with a counterexample of how people who have no control over their urges does not then make those urges socially acceptable.
The Constitution limits government, of course.
So you don't think being born straight and having "urges" for the opposite sex negates the law on marriage? WTF?
BTW, it wasn't that long ago that sodomy laws including Male-Female oral sex. Ergo, not "socially acceptable" even though many couples found pleasure with it.
the rational world has already accepted that some people are born gay or transgender. they have no more choice about it than the rest of us had a choice to be born heterosexuals.
It is true that I used a rather harsh example, however this is to show that "born with it" isn't a justification, even for heterosexual behavior. I'm actually on your side here - I'm simply pointing out the flaw in your logic.
It's ok to say that homosexual behavior is ok, we don't need "born with it" as further justification. Logically, this hampers the argument for gay marriage.
My thoughts on marriage (legal marriage that grants a set of contractual benefits) are far more liberal than most here.
It's a wrong view of the world and it doesn't matter what people think. It stinks.
So you don't think being born straight and having "urges" for the opposite sex negates the law on marriage? WTF?
BTW, it wasn't that long ago that sodomy laws including Male-Female oral sex. Ergo, not "socially acceptable" even though many couples found pleasure with it.
i disagree with this statement because it is not correct.
And I disagree with this statement because it is the most correct statement you can make.
some people are born something other than heterosexual. it isn't a behavior.
It's the difference between legal marriage and social or religious marriage. You can support the legal institution while still believing that gays can't be married under the social or religious institution.What rationale is there that prevents a gay union from being just as legitimate a marriage as a straight one? His opinion is baseless.
Forgive me if I don't buy the logic of "I support gay marriage but I don't personally believe marriage is for gays." The ****?
It is an opinion and therefore it is also not incorrect. I don't agree with it, bit it is still opinion nonetheless.i disagree with this statement because it is not correct.
One problem with this is that the urge might not be the driving force of the behavior. A hetero man might engage in homosexual behavior if the reward is satisfactory to him. Likewise a homosexual man might also engage in heterosexual behavior for a sufficient to payoff. This also applies to women of course. A pedo can engage in either behavior with an adult, without displaying the pedo urges within them. Likewise, even if they have no sexual urges towards children, an adult seeking to harm a child or an adult through the child might engage in a sexual a t with the child. An urge and a behavior might hold a common correlation, but they are not dependant upon each other .I agree with you, however hetero/homo/pedo only become significant when those innate traits are manifested and expressed through behavior.
Take 3 men. One is hetero, one is gay, one is a pedo. All 3 have innate urges that they can't control and have no choice over. However, none of them behave in any way to express their urges. Society would never be able to tell the difference between the 3 men.
Only when they express their urges through behavior do we then determine (wrongly) whether or not the choice of that urge makes the urge more or less acceptable.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?