Originally posted by ChurlantI don't think it matters whether it's a "choice" or not. It's a rather complex issue what a "choice" is in such matters. You can go to Spirituality and people debate whether we have free will at all. At any rate, the State can't discriminate against people for their "choices" without a compelling State purpose.
Neither is sexual orientation.
Of course, you believe it is a choice. However, if you were to decide homosexuality is not a choice, would your views on the legality of same-sex marriage change?
-JC
Originally posted by Churlantyou both are being too short sighted because of your social agenda. You don't take into account the un-intended consequences. First, there is no good reason to change the definition that has existed forever for marriage. Civil unions, fine, but there is no reason to change the definition of marriage. Because someone chooses to be a homosexual does not mean they have the right to be legally married. And if you believe in a democracy then it should be put to the people to vote on, but the people pushing same sex marriage do not want that because they know it would not pass. So they try to circumvent the will of the people thru activist judges. Is that what your idea of America is?
No argument from me on this. The whole concept of "what would the framer's do?" is invalid speculation as far as current-day law and constitutional interpretation is concerned. They understood this point then as much as most of us do today.
-JC
Originally posted by newdad27Our country is not based on an absolute democracy. If that were the intention, we would not have a Bill of Rights.
you both are being too short sighted because of your social agenda. You don't take into account the un-intended consequences. First, there is no good reason to change the definition that has existed forever for marriage. Civil unions, fine, but there is no reason to change the definition of marriage. Because someone chooses to be a homosexual does not m ...[text shortened]... circumvent the will of the people thru activist judges. Is that what your idea of America is?
Further, you did not answer my question above.
-JC
Originally posted by no1maraudercompelling state reason? how about changing a bed rock tradition in America for centuries. The main fabric of a stable society is the family which you hurt when you de-value marriage.
I don't think it matters whether it's a "choice" or not. It's a rather complex issue what a "choice" is in such matters. You can go to Spirituality and people debate whether we have free will at all. At any rate, the State can't discriminate against people for their "choices" without a compelling State purpose.
Originally posted by Churlantit's an absurd question. Look at your anatomy and tell me how it could not be a choice.
Our country is not based on an absolute democracy. If that were the intention, we would not have a Bill of Rights.
Further, you did not answer my question above.
-JC
Originally posted by newdad27I'm not asking you to change your mind, I'm simply asking you to take a hypothetical. If you did believe homosexuality is not a choice, would your view on same-sex marriage also change?
it's an absurd question. Look at your anatomy and tell me how it could not be a choice.
-JC
1 edit
Originally posted by newdad27I suggest that you stop listening to James Dobson and other such quacks, and instead pick up a book or two on the history of the American family. If the family has been a bedrock tradition in America, explain why the family (every family that is not middle class, white, and patriarchal, that is) has been under attack by our government and church groups for our entire history.
compelling state reason? how about changing a bed rock tradition in America for centuries. The main fabric of a stable society is the family which you hurt when you de-value marriage.
Originally posted by Churlantits a loaded hypothetical. it is a choice, if it wasn't there would not be male and females, we would all be one sex.
I'm not asking you to change your mind, I'm simply asking you to take a hypothetical. If you did believe homosexuality is not a choice, would your view on same-sex marriage also change?
-JC
Originally posted by newdad27Incorrect. Some babies are born with both sexes, what does your theory tell you about their sexual orientation?
its a loaded hypothetical. it is a choice, if it wasn't there would not be male and females, we would all be one sex.
At this point I will have to assume the answer to my original question is "yes, I would have to accept legalization of same-sex marriage".
-JC
Originally posted by Churlantlol, your point is one in a billion births there is a defect like that????? Even in that case it is evident which sex the child is. All you would have to do is look at the chromosomes.
Incorrect. Some babies are born with both sexes, what does your theory tell you about their sexual orientation?
At this point I will have to assume the answer to my original question is "yes, I would have to accept legalization of same-sex marriage".
-JC
Please refer to to evidence of this anyway and tell me the number of infants this has occurred in. I think you bring up absurd hypotheticals to try to support your argument.
Originally posted by UmbrageOfSnowI don't think many people disagree with recognizing same-sex relationships. That is my point. You can call that recognition a marriage or a civil union (I personnaly agree with you that it should be called a marriage) - but this just seems to be semantic quibbling. And I dont think many gays care either.
I disagree. Why should the term marriage be special and reserved for heterosexual couples only? If you make up a new term, it may be looked down on as inferior. Will it fell just as good for someone to tell their family and friends they are getting a civil union as to tell them they are getting married? I don't think it would. Having different wor ...[text shortened]... ng depending on whether they are homosexual or heterosexual is discrimination plain and simple.
Originally posted by newdad27XY and XX chromosomes are both present in these babies, which is why they produce both sets (though not complete) of sexual organs. The frequency is much higher than one in a billion, I'm sorry to say.
lol, your point is one in a billion births there is a defect like that????? Even in that case it is evident which sex the child is. All you would have to do is look at the chromosomes.
Please refer to to evidence of this anyway and tell me the number of infants this has occurred in. I think you bring up absurd hypotheticals to try to support your argument.
This link is all you ever wanted to know (and didn't want to know) about the topic:
http://ibis-birthdefects.org/start/hermaphr.htm
I am not bringing up absurd hypotheticals. Life isn't nearly as easy or clear-cut as you would prefer to believe - this is what I am trying to relate to you, and obviously I am failing miserably.
Human sexuality is not dependent on body organs. Gender identity is far more reliant on hormone levels and brain structure than chromosomes. Scientific evidence to date suggests that homosexuality is not a choice. What you see is not always what you get, especially with the human body.
-JC
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KAbout 1/3 or more in the polls oppose civil unions in the United States. And many gays do care whether their legal relationships are considered equal to those of heterosexuals, in name as well as law.
I don't think many people disagree with recognizing same-sex relationships. That is my point. You can call that recognition a marriage or a civil union (I personnaly agree with you that it should be called a marriage) - but this just seems to be semantic quibbling. And I dont think many gays care either.