Yep. Another one of them polls.

[Beretta92FSLady]

Possibly, humans we well known for having chemical imbalances, and even faulty brain wiring, that induce abnormal, or even unhealthy behavior. Of course by the Federal constitution, that would be your own problem/choice and the matter should be completely outside its power.

Oh my goodness...so which is it a "problem" or a "choice?" You didn't give much thought to your post, did you. Consider that the brain is faulty, then how could a person have a choice in the matter; that is the same as claiming that an individual who is born or who suffered an injury to the brain that caused a neurological issue has a choice to not have the neurological issue.

Regarding the Federal Constitution, you are merely pontificating your ideological belief that such a thing is outside of its Power. A portion of the Federal Power is to assure that there is equal protection amongst all citizens of this Nation; unless you are proposing that we have no Law in effect that mandate individuals cannot be discriminated against based on sex, creed, religion, race, disability, etc.? Under what Constitutional Authority do you claim your right to deny to particular groups in our society equal affords under the Constitution?

I am not a huge fan of Structuralism but there is a practical utility if the means are that the ends afford each individual on the social stage has minimally an equal position under the enumerations of the Constitution; these notions are not a perfect science, they are theoretical but that ought not dissuade us from attempting to be a Better society.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

You don't have to be more specific, you just have to read my answers as they are not just as highly specific. If I truly wanted to have sex with a man then I could enjoy it. But then I would go from being heterosexual.

It is a matter of choice, at least for me. I have had, on plenty of occasions, not been PHYSICALLY attracted to certain females until something else happened to spark my interest in them. Or I have been physically attracted to some that completely turned me off after new information. So, it seems that I do choose who I am attracted to. I just choose to be attracted to females.

Eaxctly. You are attempting to navigate around the reality of your response, and it is not working. You are stating that your attraction, unlike your original statement, is not a choice rather, it reaches down into a place that is beyond choice.

Then you state that it is a matter of choice for you. I am genuinly attempting to understand what you are stating here; that it is a choice, and that it is not? Interestingly you hover around attraction toward females in your examples, and not males, which leads me to believe that you are only attracted to females. Your so-called "choice" is not a matter of choice. Even your attraction to particular types of females are not much of a choice.

For instance: There are individuals who are attracted to overweight women--do they choose their attraction to be toward overweight women?; NO!

There are many factors that play a role in the ends of who we are attracted to, and why; Traits are one of many variables.

 

[XD9mmFMJ]

A family has always been defined as one thing, same with a marriage. Why should the very definition of these things be changed to suit deviants? I see this as an attack on the moral fiber of this country, as well as the family unit, just like feminism was, and it's all coming from the same commies too. I don't support your deviance. Period.

 

[Daylen]

...
For instance: There are individuals who are attracted to overweight women--do they choose their attraction to be toward overweight women?; NO! ...

Its not the chubby chaser or his DNA that is making the choice however. Its a matter of someone liking what they can get.

 

[Stanley]

Anyone claiming its a matter of choice is clearly ignoring the piles of research out there showing otherwise.

This no different than the people that adamantly denied that cigarettes caused cancer. The same people that insist vaccines cause autism.

Denying science doesn't change reality however.


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.919758,-77.153646

 

[Stanley]

A family has always been defined as one thing, same with a marriage. Why should the very definition of these things be changed to suit deviants? I see this as an attack on the moral fiber of this country, as well as the family unit, just like feminism was, and it's all coming from the same commies too. I don't support your deviance. Period.

Commies being those that aren't members of your religion or share you worldview???

I personally see your view as deviant and don't support it. Now which one of us is "right?"


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.919696,-77.154020

 

[beebobby]

The definition of "family" and "marriage" have been changing since man made up the terms. Society should try and keep up unless you want a theocracy.

 

[Daylen]

Anyone claiming its a matter of choice is clearly ignoring the piles of research out there showing otherwise.

This no different than the people that adamantly denied that cigarettes caused cancer. The same people that insist vaccines cause autism.

Denying science doesn't change reality however.

Any endeavor that asks questions or does not eliminate even the remotest chance of the subject fooling or lying and not being detected is not real science. The data is not trustworthy and can not be used to draw more than a hypothesis, not a theory. Just because someone has a PhD and claims his profession science does not make it so. What's next calling Freud a scientist instead of a philosopher?

And Please stop with the scarecrow arguments, claiming that I insist vaccines cause autism has nothing to do with the topic and is not a position I have taken.

 

[Stanley]

Any endeavor that asks questions or does not eliminate even the remotest chance of the subject fooling or lying and not being detected is not real science. The data is not trustworthy and can not be used to draw more than a hypothesis, not a theory. Just because someone has a PhD and claims his profession science does not make it so. What's next calling Freud a scientist instead of a philosopher?

And Please stop with the scarecrow arguments, claiming that I insist vaccines cause autism has nothing to do with the topic and is not a position I have taken.

1) I wasn't responding to you...

2) One or a few hypotheses stating something would be suspect. Large amounts however points to a general fact.

3) The scientific method explicitly demands observation. In fact, experimentation is not explicitly required beyond observation. Note for your viewing pleasure the General Theory of Relativity. Not testable...

4) Your argument means Isaac Newton (among many others including Einstein, author of aforementioned theory) was not a scientist as much of his work was based on observation. Clearly false...

5) I wasn't responding to you... but the position that homosexuality is a choice is about as legitimate as the autism claims.


In any case, anyone that supposedly supports constitutional rights and then takes this view is clearly being hypocritical.

Plus, that "view" is just more of the same hate being redirected to new victims...

Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania.

... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy
—Congressional Record, 62d. Congr., 3d. Sess., December 11, 1912, pp. 502–503


Really? All I'm seeing is that it is "deviant" and "a destruction of morals." Replace white woman and black man with man and man...

Same hate, different victim... OR am I making scarecrow arguments???

 

[ncwabbit]

XD9...eh remember the religous deviants came up w/the concept of marriage per se (oh wait, i do remember reading during my PhD research about cave drawings depicting two cave dwellers standing in front of another cave person w/wearing a kippah reading from some religious tome - sarcasm notwithstanding)...

as for same sex encounters...well those have been documented for a gooooooood number of years (hummm before the bible was written, if again my PhD research bears out) before the recent 'deviants' here affected the world's moral religous fiber(s)

wabbit

 

[Daylen]

1) I wasn't responding to you...

2) One or a few hypotheses stating something would be suspect. Large amounts however points to a general fact.

3) The scientific method explicitly demands observation. In fact, experimentation is not explicitly required beyond observation. Note for your viewing pleasure the General Theory of Relativity. Not testable...

4) Your argument means Isaac Newton (among many others including Einstein, author of aforementioned theory) was not a scientist as much of his work was based on observation. Clearly false...

5) I wasn't responding to you... but the position that homosexuality is a choice is about as legitimate as the autism claims.


In any case, anyone that supposedly supports constitutional rights and then takes this view is clearly being hypocritical.

Plus, that "view" is just more of the same hate being redirected to new victims...

Intermarriage between whites and blacks is repulsive and averse to every sentiment of pure American spirit. It is abhorrent and repugnant to the very principles of Saxon government. It is subversive of social peace. It is destructive of moral supremacy, and ultimately this slavery of white women to black beasts will bring this nation a conflict as fatal as ever reddened the soil of Virginia or crimsoned the mountain paths of Pennsylvania.

... Let us uproot and exterminate now this debasing, ultra-demoralizing, un-American and inhuman leprosy
—Congressional Record, 62d. Congr., 3d. Sess., December 11, 1912, pp. 502–503


Really? All I'm seeing is that it is "deviant" and "a destruction of morals." Replace white woman and black man with man and man...

Same hate, different victim... OR am I making scarecrow arguments???

I don't really care if you were addressing me. If its a private conversation that should be done through a PM.
A plethora of similar or identical hypothesis is more like mass delusion. Evidence is the only thing that can move a hypothesis to a theory. Where did I say observation is invalid? I suspect you attempting more strawman arguments. Asking someone a question and recording the answer does not generate good data, as the person can be lying.

Everything is a choice, humans have free will. I'm always a bit shocked when someone advances the idea that there is a chemical or physiological problem with another person because of their choice. Why do you think there is something physically wrong with those who choose a sexual partner of the same sex?

 

[XD9mmFMJ]

Commies being those that aren't members of your religion or share you worldview???

I personally see your view as deviant and don't support it. Now which one of us is "right?"


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=38.919696,-77.154020

I note how you dodged the question. Why should the definition of marriage and families be changed to suit deviants? Homosexuals can't be families, because you can't naturally reproduce. I don't think homosexual couples should have a right to adopt and pollute children with their deviance either. This is why the homosexual agenda is being pushed so hard by the commie media and "acceptance" is being preached to impressionable young children in schools, is because homosexuals have to recruit children when they're young to expand their pool.

See, homosexuals don't want just to be accepted. They want the whole world to change to suit them. They want to force everyone else to put up with their deviance, and when it gets to the point that grown men are sucking each other off in the middle of the street at "gay pride" parades, and homosexuality is being pushed on children in grade school, it's gone too far. The entire homosexual agenda is an attack on the family unit, just like feminism was. It's also an attack on the moral fiber of the country, and the same people behind the push for homosexual "equality" are also behind things like the North American Man Boy Love Association. (yes, that is a REAL organization operating right here in America) First it's gay marriage, then it's pedophile marriages. Preaching "acceptance" is just a way to erode our moral character and fracture our society, as it has been in every case "acceptance" has been preached.

 

[Daylen]

^ ^ So what if two consenting adults want to share in some intimacy? It doesn't harm you and the constitution still protects them as it should. Of course the damage to the consititution and liberty we have seen over the last 100 years has been largely by the hand of such moral crusaders. I do find it funny when when someone fights to take away other's liberty then complain at the lack of their own.

 

[09jisaac]

FSLady: So because I chosen to have relationships with women mean that I am incapable of choosing and liking a relationship with guys? I don't know where you got that idea at. If I choose to drive chevy all my life means I can't buy and enjoy the ride of a ford?

Stanley: A hypothesis should mean very little in this debate. I hypothesis that if you were exposed to sun at least once a year you will turn green. <<< Does that mean anything to you? Me neither, because you have been in the sun and I doubt you are green. Hypotheses are just educated guesses, they don't have to be supported by anything. Used to be hypothesized a lot that heavier objects fell faster, or that the earth was the center of the universe.

Daylen: I agree, it doesn't hurt anything for two consenting adults to have relations. They should have every right to without government interference, like everyone else.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

FSLady: So because I chosen to have relationships with women mean that I am incapable of choosing and liking a relationship with guys? I don't know where you got that idea at. If I choose to drive chevy all my life means I can't buy and enjoy the ride of a ford?

Stanley: A hypothesis should mean very little in this debate. I hypothesis that if you were exposed to sun at least once a year you will turn green. <<< Does that mean anything to you? Me neither, because you have been in the sun and I doubt you are green. Hypotheses are just educated guesses, they don't have to be supported by anything. Used to be hypothesized a lot that heavier objects fell faster, or that the earth was the center of the universe.

Daylen: I agree, it doesn't hurt anything for two consenting adults to have relations. They should have every right to without government interference, like everyone else.

I am stating that if you are only attracted to females sexually, that you cannot wake up tomorrow and instead dig other dudes; that's all I am stating. There have been a number of so-called 'therapies' attempted over the years to 'cure' gays but they have for the most part failed; and what has come from them are individuals who end up hating themselves, and some of them end up committing suicide. Making a gay man straight is as likely as making a straight man gay...it just don't work.

Comparing vehicles tastes with sexually being with a female or taking the back forty with another man is not even close to the same relation. I could be wrong about this as I have only ridden in Ford's and Chevy's and never really given thought to how good each of them feel compared to the other, and which I am prone to liking more than the other--ok, this is just getting weird LOL

 

[Tawnos]

I note how you dodged the question. Why should the definition of marriage and families be changed to suit deviants? Homosexuals can't be families, because you can't naturally reproduce.

Do we prevent sterile couples from getting married? What about those who have expressed they don't want to have kids? What about those who are too old to have them, but have adult kids that have grown up and moved away (perhaps a spouse was divorced or died)?

Do any of those get denied the equal protection of marriage? No. Well, why not, they can't naturally reproduce any more?

Hell, while we're at it, what about couples that can only reproduce by artificial insemination. Do we disallow those to marry? How do you define "naturally" anyway?

And who the hell are you to define something as deviant?

I don't think homosexual couples should have a right to adopt and pollute children with their deviance either. This is why the homosexual agenda is being pushed so hard by the commie media and "acceptance" is being preached to impressionable young children in schools, is because homosexuals have to recruit children when they're young to expand their pool.

Here's where you went full retard. You never go full retard.

So you're saying that you could have been convinced to be homosexual by a teacher who was gay an married? Your own sexuality is so mutable that it exists only as a function of the inputs of the media and peers?

See, homosexuals don't want just to be accepted. They want the whole world to change to suit them. They want to force everyone else to put up with their deviance, and when it gets to the point that grown men are sucking each other off in the middle of the street at "gay pride" parades, and homosexuality is being pushed on children in grade school, it's gone too far. The entire homosexual agenda is an attack on the family unit, just like feminism was. It's also an attack on the moral fiber of the country, and the same people behind the push for homosexual "equality" are also behind things like the North American Man Boy Love Association. (yes, that is a REAL organization operating right here in America) First it's gay marriage, then it's pedophile marriages. Preaching "acceptance" is just a way to erode our moral character and fracture our society, as it has been in every case "acceptance" has been preached.

Do you have any evidence for your NAMBLA boogeyman, or do you just throw stuff out there and hope you can scare people into maintaining the status quo?

Also: could you define "moral" as in "moral fiber"? Why is it moral to legally recognize one type of relationship as superior to another?
Of course, the comments others have made about anti-miscegenation laws of the post do ring true: replace everything you said about gays and apply it to interracial marriages, and see how bad you sound then.

 

[Beretta92FSLady]

The interesting thing is my wife and me have raised our four children since birth and they all appear to be heterosexual; oddly, my wife and me came from heterosexual homes.

I should respond to the Gay Pride parade post that stated men are performing oral sex on one another in the streets during the parade--I have never witnessed something like that in Seattle. That being stated, considering that I do have children, I would prefer that the Gay Pride Parade be more family friendly; occasionally there will be a naked person streaking down the street but really, it's just a body, we all have one!

There are sociological explanation of why the Gay community tends to be a little over the top in their expression; much of it is due to the social perception that is imposed on Gays from birth that their interest in the same sex is deviant, and perverted, and socially unacceptable. In time the gay community will rise from some of these forms of expression that are displayed at the Gay Pride Parades, it will just take time.

 

[09jisaac]

I am stating that if you are only attracted to females sexually, that you cannot wake up tomorrow and instead dig other dudes; that's all I am stating. There have been a number of so-called 'therapies' attempted over the years to 'cure' gays but they have for the most part failed; and what has come from them are individuals who end up hating themselves, and some of them end up committing suicide. Making a gay man straight is as likely as making a straight man gay...it just don't work.

Could you be straight tomorrow? Maybe it is because you don't want to be straight. I have found things with women that I don't THINK I can have with another man. So I don't want to be gay. This is my argument. I think it is all in my head.

 

[09jisaac]

Do we prevent sterile couples from getting married? What about those who have expressed they don't want to have kids? What about those who are too old to have them, but have adult kids that have grown up and moved away (perhaps a spouse was divorced or died)?

Do any of those get denied the equal protection of marriage? No. Well, why not, they can't naturally reproduce any more?

Hell, while we're at it, what about couples that can only reproduce by artificial insemination. Do we disallow those to marry? How do you define "naturally" anyway?

And who the hell are you to define something as deviant?

Here's where you went full retard. You never go full retard.

You would think people would learn that by now. I don't think that gay marriage is "right" because they cannot reproduce. But like you said, everyone else have equal right to get married even though they cannot reproduce.

The interesting thing is my wife and me have raised our four children since birth and they all appear to be heterosexual; oddly, my wife and me came from heterosexual homes.

I should respond to the Gay Pride parade post that stated men are performing oral sex on one another in the streets during the parade--I have never witnessed something like that in Seattle. That being stated, considering that I do have children, I would prefer that the Gay Pride Parade be more family friendly; occasionally there will be a naked person streaking down the street but really, it's just a body, we all have one!

There are sociological explanation of why the Gay community tends to be a little over the top in their expression; much of it is due to the social perception that is imposed on Gays from birth that their interest in the same sex is deviant, and perverted, and socially unacceptable. In time the gay community will rise from some of these forms of expression that are displayed at the Gay Pride Parades, it will just take time.

That is the only problem I have with gays. Some are over the top. Others, like yourself, I have no problem with. I am not advocating being ashamed of your sexual orientation just don't shove it in my face every chance you get. Some seems to be consumed by their sexual preference (gays and straight) and that is what bothers me.

I don't think the way your kids turned out is too interesting. You raised them the best (hopefully) you could and didn't try to force your views on them. That is why I am not against gays raising a family, because the can only be as screwed up as the rest of us.

 

[Tawnos]

That is the only problem I have with gays. Some are over the top. Others, like yourself, I have no problem with. I am not advocating being ashamed of your sexual orientation just don't shove it in my face every chance you get. Some seems to be consumed by their sexual preference (gays and straight) and that is what bothers me.

Would you legislate there can be no heterosexual public displays of affection? No kissing in public, no holding hands, etc. Basically, no "shoving it in [the face of society] every chance [a heterosexual] gets"?

Of course, your very wording implies that just because some of them act like that mean all of them do. I don't think anybody is trying to shove anything in your face. That's like saying "I am not advocating being ashamed of the fact you bear arms, just don't shove it in my face every chance you get" about open carry.