Laughable paradox of conservatives preaching their value from an escort review board

You created the bad analogy; not vice versa.



Every year thousands of Japanese, Indians, Englishmen and Aussies visit and immigrate to the U.S., and they rent or buy automobiles. They are inclined to drive on the left side of the roadway because that's what they find behaviorally familiar. However, U.S. laws require them to drive on the right side of the road. By your analogy, this subset of people are being discriminated against for a behavioral action. By your analogy, they should be allowed to drive on the left if they are behaviorally inclined to do so lest, as you insist, they be discriminated against.

? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

They are not citizens of this country, they are our guests. We do not bestow citizenship rights on visitors.

Sexual orientation is a human behavioral characteristic: it's the LBGT community's choice. It's a behavioral choice the LBGT community makes, and nothing prevents them from entering into a traditional man-woman relationship. So where is the discrimination? Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Back to reality, We should treat our own sons and daughters as equals. Not regulate second class citizenship to the ones that choose to be gay. And when I say choose, IMHO there will be a scientific breakthrough to determine gayness in our lifetime. That choice crap is rather iffy. Until then, I will not argue the point. It matters not to me in terms of discrimination.

Back to reality, We should treat our own sons and daughters as equals. Not regulate second class citizenship to the ones that choose to be gay. And when I say choose, IMHO there will be a scientific breakthrough to determine gayness in our lifetime. That choice crap is rather iffy. Until then, I will not argue the point. It matters not to me in terms of discrimination. Originally Posted by WTF

WTF, you are missing the whole point: the Enlightened Ones who preach individual freedom from too many legal rules want to use the legal process to tell everyone who they can live with and have sex with. Unless it's heretosexual sex and then they want no such intrusion. They hipoctitically want to say the government should stay out of the bedroom--but not if it's two guys in the bed. The next logical step will be to tell us it is unnatural for me to like dogs over cat, or blue ties over red ones.

The left side/right side driving analogy is complete BS--the driving rule of right or left is not good vs evil, but it is a safety issue that we have a convention we all abide by. No such safety argument can be made for heterosexual marriage vs homosexul marriage--it is only in the mind of the homophobic folks thatthere is a "threat" posed by gay marriage.

The "unnatural" argument is the same exact illogic that made interracial marriage illegal. And if carried to it's logical conclusion eyeglasses would be illegal because if people were intended to wear glasses they would be born with them. Face it, the ONLY argument they have is "it's against god's law"; the same people who are so loudly anti-Islamic law have no issues with biblical law--assuming it's the "right" translation of the bible of course. The bible thumpers and quran thumpers are both using their personal religeous text to justify their closed mindedness and hate.

I would like to see a single cogent non-religeon based argument against gay marriage.

Personally I think civil unions should get all the legal benefits of marriage, but that will be unacceptable to both sets of extremists. The liberal extremists will hold out for the word "marriage" to rub it in the conservative extremists face. The conservative extremists will be against giving those godless fags anything resembling a fair treatment. And so together they will insure hate is alive and well.

They are not citizens of this country, they are our guests. We do not bestow citizenship rights on visitors. Immigrants who choose to become citizens of this country ARE citizens.

Back to reality, We should treat our own sons and daughters as equals. Today's 'sons and daughters' choose to mark their bodies with highly visible tattoos and body piercings. Other 'sons and daughters' chose to pursue criminal avocations. By their choice, they relegate themselves to second class treatment. They were not born into that position: they choose it. Same is true of the LBGT community. Not regulate second class citizenship to the ones that choose to be gay. And when I say choose, IMHO there will be a scientific breakthrough to determine gayness in our lifetime. That choice crap is rather iffy. Until then, I will not argue the point. Originally Posted by WTF

No 'gay gene' has ever been found. Such a gene, were it to exist, cannot/could not be sexually passed to the next generation through the natural procreative process in a homosexual relationship.

Environmental factors -- not nature -- are the major impulse in fostering homosexuality, as science attests (Frisch & Hviid, 2006). It's a behavioral choice. If the LBGT community chooses to be different, then they should expect to be treated differently. This, and other studies, also predict that if society concedes to the demands of the LBGT community and redefines marriage, the instances of homosexuality will increase by virtue of a nurturing environment (Santilla, Sandnabba, Harlaar, Varjonen, Alanko, von der Pahlen, 2008). Studies have also found that children raised in a homosexual environment are less emotionally stable than those raised in a heterosexual environment because homosexuals encourage transgender and other gender-disordered behavior by modeling and asserting every sort of such behavior in the public domain (Langstrom, Rahman, Carlstrom, & Lichtenstein, 2008; Lauman, Gagnon, & Michael, 1994).

Furthermore, Gender Identity Disorder (GID) is the formal diagnosis used by psychologists and physicians to describe persons who experience significant gender dysphoria (discontent with their biological sex and/or the gender they were assigned at birth). It is recognized recognized as a formal psychiatric disorder -- not natural -- which has a prescribed psychological treatment.

Fundamentally, more and more scientific studies are 'coming-out' against homosexuality being 'innate' and/or 'normal'.

No 'gay gene' has ever been found. Such a gene, were it to exist, cannot/could not be sexually passed to the next generation through the natural procreative process. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

No, even you are not dumb enough to have said that, are you?

I came back just now from spending the evening with a lovely young lady--a single mom. She is single because her ex-husband--and father of her daughter--came out of the closet and devorced her to go away with his male lover.

Being gay does little to prevent a man from becoming a father, or a woman from becoming a mother.

WTF, you are missing the whole point: the Enlightened Ones who preach individual freedom from too many legal rules want to use the legal process to tell everyone who they can live with and have sex with. Unless it's heretosexual sex and then they want no such intrusion. They hipoctitically want to say the government should stay out of the bedroom--but not if it's two guys in the bed You pulled that out of your ass, Old-goaT, because you didn't see it in black & white. The next logical step will be to tell us it is unnatural for me to like dogs over cat, or blue ties over red ones. Only you, Old-goaT, because you are too insufferably ignorant to know better.

The left side/right side driving analogy is complete BS--the driving rule of right or left is not good vs evil, but it is a safety issue that we have a convention we all abide by. No such safety argument can be made for heterosexual marriage vs homosexul marriage You are a liar: http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid:17039403 & http://factsaboutyouth.com/posts/wha...hool-official/ --it is only in the mind of the homophobic folks thatthere is a "threat" posed by gay marriage.

The "unnatural" argument is the same exact illogic that made interracial marriage illegal. And if carried to it's logical conclusion eyeglasses would be illegal because if people were intended to wear glasses they would be born with them. Once again, Old-goaT, only you, because you are too insufferably ignorant to know better.
Face it, the ONLY argument they have is "it's against god's law"; the same people who are so loudly anti-Islamic law have no issues with biblical law--assuming it's the "right" translation of the bible of course. The bible thumpers and quran thumpers are both using their personal religeous text to justify their closed mindedness and hate. You are a liar, Old-goaT.

I would like to see a single cogent non-religeon based argument against gay marriage. You have it, Old-goaT, you are just too fucking dumb to recognize it.

Personally I think civil unions should get all the legal benefits of marriage, Agreed! but that will be unacceptable to both sets of extremists. The liberal extremists will hold out for the word "marriage" to rub it in the conservative extremists face. The conservative extremists will be against giving those godless fags anything resembling a fair treatment. And so together they will insure hate is alive and well. Originally Posted by Old-T

.

No, even you are not dumb enough to have said that, are you?

I came back just now from spending the evening with a lovely young lady--a single mom. She is single because her ex-husband--and father of her daughter--came out of the closet and devorced her to go away with his male lover.

Being gay does little to prevent a man from becoming a father, or a woman from becoming a mother. Originally Posted by Old-T

No 'gay gene' has ever been found. Such a gene, were it to exist, cannot/could not be sexually passed to the next generation through the natural procreative process in a homosexual relationship.

I still don't know why, other than it's "unnatural" or "sinful", anyone cares about who another person chooses to love? Gay marriage is not necessarily about gay sex, it's about two people loving and committing to each other. If marriage was about sex, most of us wouldn't even be on this board.

Leave people alone. Let them love who they want to, how they want to, as long as the relationship is consensual.

I still don't know why, other than it's "unnatural" or "sinful", anyone cares about who another person chooses to love? Gay marriage is not necessarily about gay sex, it's about two people loving and committing to each other. If marriage was about sex, most of us wouldn't even be on this board.

Leave people alone. Let them love who they want to, how they want to, as long as the relationship is consensual. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

If the GLBT community successfully redefines marriage in law, what will stop same sex partners from demanding a Roman Catholic marriage under penalty of such a Federal law?

In the long run it matters naught, for if the liberals have their way, and marriage is redefined, they will eventually realize that Sharia Law calls for the punishment of both partners in a homosexual relationship. Once again, the hypocrisy of their accommodating and appeasing both the LBGT community and the Muslim community is astounding.

No 'gay gene' has ever been found. Such a gene, were it to exist, cannot/could not be sexually passed to the next generation through the natural procreative process in a homosexual relationship. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You act as if homosexuality is a bad thing. You cares who marries whom , or he marries he or she marries she. You are on the wrong side of history on this issue. In 50 years people will wonder wdhat all the ruckus was about!

Churches won't be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. They never have. Allowing gays to marry isn't going to change that.

You act as if homosexuality is a bad thing. You cares who marries whom , or he marries he or she marries she. You are on the wrong side of history on this issue. In 50 years people will wonder wdhat all the ruckus was about! Originally Posted by WTF

Once the Federal benefits are worked out, a Civil Union will suffice. The LBGT community's demand to redefine marriage is nothing more than effrontery. Odumbo himself said it was a matter for the states to deal with (equivocation on his part, of course). And thirty or so states have already legislatively defined marriage as a legal covenant between a man and a woman. In 50 years, it'll be an S.E.P. ('somebody else's problem').

What about the people who think they're holier than both sides? Originally Posted by Doove

You're not talking about me now are you Governor???????????

Churches won't be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. They never have. Allowing gays to marry isn't going to change that. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

As a lawyer, you know there are militant LBGT activists and lawyers who will keep trying to push the envelope. e.g., the current contraception issue prompted by Odumbocare.

So will the evangelicals. They all do. They all have. This is nothing new. Forcing churches to do something against their faith is an entirely different issue.

Churches have the liberty to set requirements for couples if they wish to get married there (such as documenting a strong previous relationship or taking religious or non religious couples therapy).

When I was in dc I saw many churches that welcomed gay members as a part of the family, so it really varies by church not masking a whole sect of Christianity because of broad views. If Catholic churches won't accept gays to marry in their church they have every right. But there are so many more options for having secular or religious marriage ceremonies outside if church as long as the person ordaining the marriage is licensed to do so by the state.

So what's your next argument?