disneydude
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2006
- Messages
- 25,528
- Reaction score
- 8,470
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
That always the cop out.....No evidence of that........
I am not sure if that is true. It is quite possible to identify young children who are more likely to become gay. CC I think it was linked to a study showing male children who where more effeminate where more likely to grow up to be gay.
Limp wrist & lisping are usually a good indicator, along with a penchant for 'girly things'....
I have a confession - last night when my wife watched "Glee" I peeked at it.
I have a confession - last night when my wife watched "Glee" I peeked at it.
If you would have followed the thread, when I commented, the argument was given that since a homosexual couple cannot reproduce, they shouldn't be allowed to marry. That is not a valid reason, especially since a lesbian couple actually CAN reproduce through artificial insemination.
Please do try and keep up.
(BTW....I love that show)
You still haven't provided a compelling reason for altering the definition of marriage.
Sure he has - if marriage is about nurturing children, gay families can have children. They can also have children from previous hetero marriages too, or adopt.
On the other hand, some hetero couples can't have children - should they be not allowed to marry?
In theory, they wouldn't know that until after marriage......
Which lesbian donates the semen?
You still haven't provided a compelling reason for altering the definition of marriage.
Really? So my widowed grandmother who remarried when she was 70 didn't know she had gone through menopause? :doh
Good point.....
Which lesbian donates the semen?
Clearly marriage isn't just about children.
And they lose that argument because gays can legally raise children.
Another good point - the state allows a single gay person to have a child, but not marry as a gay couple, then they claim they want to nurture children through marriage?
Really? So my widowed grandmother who remarried when she was 70 didn't know she had gone through menopause? :doh
Again, procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Therefore saying gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't procreate with each other is invalid.
The compelling reason is that rights are being denied to a group of people that:
#1 it is not illegal to be gay
#2 it is not illegal to be in a gay relationship between consenting adults (non family)
#3 It is not illegal for gays to raise children
Therefore it shouldn't be illegal for them to marry.
Now if you want to go down the slippery slope on polygamy, I have no problem with that either. Polygamy is more of an administrative problem than anything else.
You, however, have not presented a compelling reason to disallow gays to marry.
Again, procreation is not a requirement for marriage. Therefore saying gays shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't procreate with each other is invalid.
The compelling reason is that rights are being denied to a group of people that:
#1 it is not illegal to be gay
#2 it is not illegal to be in a gay relationship between consenting adults (non family)
#3 It is not illegal for gays to raise children
Therefore it shouldn't be illegal for them to marry.
Now if you want to go down the slippery slope on polygamy, I have no problem with that either. Polygamy is more of an administrative problem than anything else.
You, however, have not presented a compelling reason to disallow gays to marry.
Nor have you answered the question on how you would limit this new "right" to just one alternative lifestyle or how you would exclude other alternative lifestyles who want the same thing.
You have to understand Equal Protection analysis to understand this point.
Waaaay too many people on this site have no idea how the analysis works and refuse to educate themselves.
There are three different levels of equal protection analysis depending upon the right/privlege infringed upon and the classification of the people upon whom the infringement is placed.
Not every group and/or every right is treated the same under equal protection.
Thus the argument that polygamy would be analyzed the same as gay marriage is simply ignorant.
Or that incestous marriage would be treated the same.
You have to understand Equal Protection analysis to understand this point.
Waaaay too many people on this site have no idea how the analysis works and refuse to educate themselves.
There are three different levels of equal protection analysis depending upon the right/privlege infringed upon and the classification of the people upon whom the infringement is placed.
Not every group and/or every right is treated the same under equal protection.
Thus the argument that polygamy would be analyzed the same as gay marriage is simply ignorant.
Or that incestous marriage would be treated the same.
Or to put it more simply, slippery slope is a fallacy.
There is no evidence people are created gay. To beleive that is to believe a fallacy.
You are confused.
The claim was made that people are born gay,
Remember, I'm not the one who made the claim. I simply demanded evidence which no one could provide.
Yes there was a fruit fly theory which was exposed for the fraud that it is then a twin gay study in which not only was it never even 50% of the time accurate, it was even less when the twins did not grow up together.
You cannot prove a genetic link in even a low number like 60% so how can you claim that people are born gay?
Please, answer the original question.
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?