I don't think there is a 'gay gene' i remember a show i saw where it had something to do with your development in the whom.. oww theres also the fact that gays undergo so much torment that it it was a choice not one of them would dare choose it..

As do straight people, yet their personal preference is protected in law. This is discriminatory. The law does not recognise the religious difference, and as a man and women couple decide they want to get married, there is no reason a man and man couple should not be given the same rights. A man and women are given these rights for the same reason a man and man would want them. As said before, these are similarly situated couples and it is discriminitory to give a man and women rights while not giving a man and man couple the same choice. Otherwise we are only giving those that decide they want to marry the opposite sex special rights.
Once again, your argument here equally applies to straight marriage.
And I'm arguing to change that definition because once it became encoded into law, it became discriminatory against similarly situated gay couples. If marriage was never encoded into law, this would not be an issue.
Certainly the question of why a man and woman couple are given rights when none of these other situations are given rights is relevant.
Hah, then I'll say the same thing about bestiality, incest, and the rest.

Two men, two women, there is no discrimination.
Perhaps not, but maybe you've never heard of an analogy.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

I don't think people are born gay! I think that it is illogical to believe that it is. I do think that this is a reactionary idea. Stupid and hateful religious people told gays they were evil, and so gays said "we cant help it we were born gay, so that is the way god wanted us!"

I don't blame gays for doing so, but I think the better strategy is to ignore morons like that! I think that it is a put down of gay people to say "oh we were born gay." So if you weren't you wouldn't be?

I know this may be complicated, but it is clearly not a choice either. A person can't help what makes their d*ck hard! I believe that it develops in a person beyond their control. So even though they aren't born gay, it is not exactly a choice either.

I think what every gay person should say is, "I don't care if I was born gay or not, it makes me happy and that is all that matters!"

__________________
R.I.P. Molly, I miss you every day!!

Im a Tarte, what! you want some of this?


To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead. Thomas Paine

Emphasis mine. Even in those cases, the government has to have a compelling interest to make something illegal.

No, you cant make something illegal just because you think it's gross. The government has a compelling interest for outlawing everything you listed above.



That argument works both ways.

If gay marriage is legalized, you will have the right to marry the same sex too. Gays gain, but you don't lose anything. Everybody wins.



There is the risk they could produce offspring. There are issues surrounding emotional manipulation (a father conditioning his daughter in preparation for her 18th birthday for example).

In some cases I would not have a problem with it.

Are you saying you would not have a problem with a father marrying his adopted daughter? Right now that is legal.


The only issues I have with Polygamy are legal ones. The current marriage laws are structured around couples. I don't have a moral problem with polygamy in and of itself.

And really, neither should Christians. After all, it was common in the old testament. If God doesn't have a problem with it, why do you?


Marriage is a contract. A child cannot be bound to a contract. Regardless of what her parents say.


Love is irrelevant.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

yes you can. we make laws as we see fit. thats why you get fined if you try to take a crap on the sidewalk and leave it there.

agreed. my question is why not let everyone marry however they want with no restrictions(as long as its not interfering with anyones safety)? why the double standard? it should be okay for same sex marriage but not for multiple spouse marriage? if you want to make the case of discrimination do it on basis of incest. two consenting adults that are of opposite sex cant get married because they are in the same family? thats discriminatory... not "gay marriage".



what youre naming is the exception to the rule.. what about a brother and sister that are both over 40? or cousins?


so you would discriminate against them but not gays? why the double standard?

i couldnt care either way..



sure they can. probation is a contract. many children are bound by that every day. the premise is that if they break their probation(contract) they go to JDC or prison. schools have contracts with children that attend there. again, double standards.

and no its not regardless of what their parents say. in many cases those contracts have to be co-signed by the parent, although there are exceptions such as with an orphan.


try telling a gay person that... "your feeling towards you significant other is insignificant".

Recent studies suggest that homosexuality in men can be caused by the mothers immune system.

It's a fact that the more older brothers you have, the greater you are at risk of ending up gay. The study takes into account nurture by following cases where some of the kids were adopted or split into multiple families of some kind. Hense, it's not in the parents/kids control.

What's happening in these cases is that the mother over time builds an immune against the foreign male embryo. The more males she has, the greater the risk. Not all mothers are the same so the first born can be gay, and another mother can have 10 males without one being gay

This study doesn't explain female homosexuality, but it does explain why males are more likely to be gay than females.



Sorry, what? Could you explain yourself a little better here. Are you saying that gay people choose to be gay cause they're gay? So people that are attracted to the same sex can be gay, but people (like you) who are attracted to the opposite sex can't be gay? Isn't that what we're saying?

so are gay peoples.. thats why its not illegal to be gay.
because giving gays special rights is discriminatory against non gays that dont have special rights.
three is nothing wrong with allowing eveyone to have the same rights. there are no restrictions. you can marry if you want to. you can have a ceremony, live together, get your name changed, etc. there is no restriction..
there is no such thing as straight marriage.. its marriage. gays can get married too.
why? why not call it something else? its not the same so why have the same definition? thats like saying apples and oranges should have the same definition because they are both fruit.

the definition is discriminatory,not the law. the law applies to everyone. the definition doesnt.

the couple doesnt have any rights.. its the individual that has the rights. if the couple were to be given rights, it would be discriminatory against non couple.

then ill answer the question. individuals should be given right not couples. since marriage is between man and woman, it was discriminatory since a black man is a man and a white woman is a woman if the definition didnt specify race. if it specified marriage as a contract between a man and a woman of the same color then it would apply to everyone equally therefore it would not be discriminatory.

now you answer my question please.. if you cant remember what it was, it was about incest, polygamy, bestiality, etc.. and the context was that no one would be harmed and everyone would have consent.
examples:

1. brother and sister
2. mother and son
uncle and niece 16 but consenting with parents consenting(see my comment on consent)
3. woman and dog
4. man and car

yes i have. see above for apples and oranges analogy..

That's a sanitary issue. In any event, I certainly am disturbed if you think anything that you consider "disgusting" thus qualifies to be made into a law.
I see not double standards but for those advocating only for marriage between a man and a woman. No argument I've heard against gay marriage does not apply equally as much to them. Why are you allowed to marry and nobody else? Certainly that question is important if we are going to ask why anyone else should also be allowed to marry. So please explain, why are man and woman couples given rights through legal marriage? I argue for the same reason a gay couple is. As you have told me, stay on topic. These other issues of incest, polygamy, etc. are irrelevant and if they are not irrelevant, than you should explain why only the man and woman couple is immune. Why does a man and woman couple have these special rights when nobody else does?
Stay on topic.
would you? please justify or stay on topic.
I'm curious why I can't bring a vegan up, but you can bring a child that has committed a crime up.

Probation is technically not a contract because a contract requires two free agents where neither has an overbearing power over the other. In this case, the government has a large overbearing power over the other (namely the fact that the other is being confined by the government and their only option for freedom is to sign the "contract"). So if you pick up a law book and read on contracts, these are not contracts. If I was forced to marry you, or if my father was pushing me to marry someone, this is not a contract because of the power the father has over me. Thus it can't be marriage.

Equivocation.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

What precedent are you citing for that?



Ok. Give me an example of something that was outlawed (and not overturned by the courts) even though the government had no compelling interest.


The government has a compelling interest in that case. Sidewalks are public property and have to be shared by everyone.



I explained why. I used incest as an example. The government has a compelling reason to deny those forms of marriage. Its not just because they are "gross".


Because some forms of marriage infringe on rights (underage marriage) or put people at risk (incest).

What is the compelling reason to deny gay marriage?


Current laws are structured around couples. Multiple spouse marriage would therefore be unfair to one or more of the spouses, since they could not all be treated equally under the existing laws.

Gay marriage would not require a restructuring of current laws.


How is it discriminatory?

Incest is technically legal. A father can marry his daughter, as long as they are not blood relatives.



How did you determine that it is the exception to the rule?



The exact same situation applies. The state has a compelling interest to minimize the possibility of an inbred child or long term psychological victimization.

I am not saying I necessarily agree with the reasoning when it comes to "compelling interest". I am just saying that legal precedent states that a compelling interest is required. Ultimately it is subjective. I am just using the above as an example.


Cousins are allowed to marry in some states.


Because in gay relationships no one is being victimized. Therefore the state has no compelling interest in denying them IMO.



So you dont have a problem with legalizing incestuous marriage?



Please cite your precedent where a child has been bound to the terms of a contract, with or without his parent's consent.



No, probation is a punishment.


The parents are liable for them...not the children. If the child does not fulfill the terms of the contract, what are the consequences for the child?

There are none. Please cite an example to the contrary. A child cannot bind himself to a contract. If the parents sign for him, it is the parents that are responsible, not the child.


If they believe otherwise, they are wrong. Love is insufficient reason to make a certain form of marriage legal.

__________________
My Political Blog (Updated Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

i simply pointed out that there are restrictions on may of the things we can do.
whos advocating that?
you dont think the word gay is a little misleading? how can straight people take part in gay marriage. you probably mean civil union.
everyone is allowed to marry.
its only important if a group is not allowed to mary but current laws allow everyone to marry.
couples arent given any rights.
actually, they are relevant. you said the marriage definition should be changed. why change it just for gays? like i said, everyone has the rights. the law doesnt protect couples. the law protects individuals.

but of course youre not going to answer my question because you know that it would destroy your argument. like you said, its a slippery slope.. i just thaught you actually had a little back bone to either say that they should all be legalized or non should be legalized.

no i wouldnt. i discriminate equally jk

why wont you debate the issue? im sure if i started a new thread with that topic you wouldnt be all over it defending their "rights to marry" like you are for gays. youre no different then those that want to ban gay marriage.. youre just on the other side of the isle.

i was giving an example of a contract a child enters. you made the point that children cant enter contracts. i proved you wrong with my example but you proved nothing with yours.

thats not true. they have a choice. if you have a choice between two things and you chose one with certain premises thats a contract.
yes they are..
thats why i said all parties involved must be consentful.


i wonder how youre going to not answer the questions again.. probably by disregarding them and asking more questions that ill be actually answering.