Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

[top gun]

To the topic: Is homosexuality a choice or is it genetic?

From a LEGAL standpoint it shouldn't matter. I personally believe the evidence that says it can be either. But regardless it has no legal significance except for any personal bias that someone might wish to be place upon it.

My reasoning:

A) The act of being gay is legal & hurts no one.

B) One cannot force a straight person to be truly gay so that ends any needless worry that guys will turn gay in large numbers and there goes procreation.

C) Gay marriages place no burden on anyone more than a similar heterosexual marriage and no undo burden is placed on society or spouses or heirs.

Marriage is all about a personal commitment between two adults and the legal contract of marriage that grants certain rights and spells out certain responsibilities.

The only argument against gay marriage is from a religious perspective and as America is not a theocracy and any or no religious beliefs are set in stone to be protected equally there is no rational legal basis to refuse these unions.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Its a Behavoral problem. The reason why Men comit those faggot acts cause theyre so damn frustrated dealing with women. Women do it cause theyre to god damn lazy finding a good man instead of taking whats offered to them.

WHEW!!!!

Have you considered hiring a woman, by-the-hour?



(It's certainly help you get-thru those frustrating-moments.)​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Sounds like you got a woman problem...

.....and, now, a little male-problem, to boot!!

​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I don't think it matters whether it is genetic or a choice. It should be about freedom.

.....Despite what "moralists" insist......
​

"Moscow Mayor Yuri Luzhkov has drawn international criticism by describing homosexuality as "satanic"http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EU_RUSSIA_GAY_RIGHTS?SITE=SCCHA&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT and seeking to justify official discrimination against gay people in Russia by claiming they help spread the AIDS virus. Luzhkov has banned gay pride rallies in recent years, and attempted marches by gay activists have typically ended in detentions and attacks by nationalist groups."​

 

[Dr.Who]

Both of your comments make the assumption that ONLY male lineage is the reason for marriage, I didn't say that. It was started that way, but now it has come to mean many things in many cultures, it's a cultural icon, and marriage is connected intimately with the love lives of people, the care for partners as they age, Social Security, pensions, home ownership, and the care for children--more than a million of whom are being raised in gay households. All the laws on the books in the US dealing with marriage make it a civil rights issue because all consenting adults are allowed to legally marry EXCEPT THE FEW PERCENT who are gay, and this prohibition was put in place on the basis of religious dogma. That abrogates the Constitutional guarantee of equal protection under the law.

I have no objection to discussing how the laws should be under a matriarchal system.

Yes the meanings of marriage have changed. They are now based not on rational reasons but just on what it has evolved into. Governments now regulate the sex lives and love lives of its citizense for no good reason. And you want to give them the power to regulate the sex lives and love lives of gay people so that gay people can get the priveleges that go along with marriage. Nothing short of selling out liberty for security.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I have no objection to discussing how the laws should be under a matriarchal system.

Yes the meanings of marriage have changed. They are now based not on rational reasons but just on what it has evolved into. Governments now regulate the sex lives and love lives of its citizense for no good reason. And you want to give them the power to regulate the sex lives and love lives of gay people so that gay people can get the priveleges that go along with marriage. Nothing short of selling out liberty for security.

That's a real reach, Who, the laws already exist and DENY them all the rights and responsibilities, changing it so they get what everyone else already has does not sell their liberty any more than getting married sells anyone's liberty. It's always a Faustian bargain when one deals with the government, you could make the same argument for black people not seeking the civil rights that all other American's enjoy.

 

[dahermit]

...Governments now regulate the sex lives and love lives of its citizense for no good reason. And you want to give them the power to regulate the sex lives and love lives of gay people...

If you are referring to the U.S. Government, it is apparent that the Government has been withdrawing from regulating people's sex lives for some time now. For instance in recent history (my lifetime), consenting adults are no longer prosecuted for the the crime of sodomy. Also, at one time landlords could discriminate against couples who were not married. Therefore, the evidence is that the U.S. Governments are getting out of the "sex lives" business, not regulating it more.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

If you are referring to the U.S. Government, it is apparent that the Government has been withdrawing from regulating people's sex lives for some time now. For instance in recent history (my lifetime), consenting adults are no longer prosecuted for the the crime of sodomy. Also, at one time landlords could discriminate against couples who were not married. Therefore, the evidence is that the U.S. Governments are getting out of the "sex lives" business, not regulating it more.

Two more examples would be interfaith marriage and inter-racial marriages, both of which were illegal at one time.

 

[Dr.Who]

If you are referring to the U.S. Government, it is apparent that the Government has been withdrawing from regulating people's sex lives for some time now. For instance in recent history (my lifetime), consenting adults are no longer prosecuted for the the crime of sodomy. Also, at one time landlords could discriminate against couples who were not married. Therefore, the evidence is that the U.S. Governments are getting out of the "sex lives" business, not regulating it more.

But the fact that you need a license to get married is still a government regulation. If the gov stayed out of it then they would not offer licenses to gays or straights. At least with straights there is an excuse as to why they need to regulate it. With gays there is no good reason.

 

[Dr.Who]

That's a real reach, Who, the laws already exist and DENY them all the rights and responsibilities, changing it so they get what everyone else already has does not sell their liberty any more than getting married sells anyone's liberty. It's always a Faustian bargain when one deals with the government, you could make the same argument for black people not seeking the civil rights that all other American's enjoy.

You go ahead and list any one privilege (cause it is not a right) that comes with marriage and then let's see if that privilege makes sense to be applied to gays who get married. If you can make a good case for the need to license gay marriages I will jump on board.

Do not forget, all, rights do not come from the government. They exist first and are restricted by the government.

The right to have to get a license to do what you can do without the license is no right. The perks that come after one gets the license are also no right - they are a tradeoff.

 

[dahermit]

But the fact that you need a license to get married is still a government regulation. If the gov stayed out of it then they would not offer licenses to gays or straights. At least with straights there is an excuse as to why they need to regulate it. With gays there is no good reason.

Marriage has nothing to do with the Government regulating sex lives. You should perhaps choose your words more carefully.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

You go ahead and list any one privilege (cause it is not a right) that comes with marriage and then let's see if that privilege makes sense to be applied to gays who get married. If you can make a good case for the need to license gay marriages I will jump on board.

Do not forget, all, rights do not come from the government. They exist first and are restricted by the government.

The right to have to get a license to do what you can do without the license is no right. The perks that come after one gets the license are also no right - they are a tradeoff.

I can give you an example out of my own life. My spouse has a heart problem necessitating trips to the emergency room once in a while. We always have to take a big packet of legal papers with us to prove that we are legally married and that I am indeed her spouse. Without this paperwork I would not be allowed to make decisions about her care. If--God forbid--we are ever in a car accident or in another State and I don't have that whole packet of paperwork we'll have serious trouble participating in each other's care decisions or even getting into the critical care unit to visit the other person.

You, as a husband, will have none of those problems, you don't have to carry a copy of your marriage certificate with you at all times, you are given the benefit of the doubt.

We have all the paperwork for the State we live in, but if we were to move to another State we would have to get new paperwork--you don't have to do anything, because marriage rights are reciprocal in all States.

 

[numinus]

As interpreted by you. Even the UN says GA resolutions are not legally binding. At best you can make the case that it will become customary law, but how many countries ignore this? Tons.

The case is already made. The principles of the undhr ARE the basis of customary INTERNATIONAL LAW. Weren't you paying any attention?

Which begs the question, what part of customary international law don't you understand?

Uhm, China does, Saudi Arabia does, Iran does, Russia does. You do not seem to grasp how international politics actually works.

Saudi arabia and the soviet bloc abstained.

Anyone living in any country can seek redress from the un if their government violates any of their human rights.

You say they are obligated to follow it and I point out there is no enforcement mechanism and countless countries violate its principles daily. If you cannot enforce an obligation, then it is not a real obligation.

Do you need me to enumerate the people charged, tried, convicted and punished for crimes against humanity?

If you ask me there are very few universal natural laws, and a declaration of human rights that is roundly ignored does not fit into this category.

That is an absurd thing to say since the bill of rights contained in your constitution is there for no other reason that they are part of natural law.

 

[BigRob]

The case is already made. The principles of the undhr ARE the basis of customary INTERNATIONAL LAW. Weren't you paying any attention?

Which begs the question, what part of customary international law don't you understand?

Customary international law is unenforceable and basically a "please follow this." As I stated, and as you now seem to admit, it has no bearing.

Saudi arabia and the soviet bloc abstained.

Anyone living in any country can seek redress from the un if their government violates any of their human rights.

They can seek redress from the Security Council, which will act as they please, regardless of humanitarian concerns.

For example, abstaining from a vote on this issue would be a moot point if it was indeed universal. You can argue that it should be or that it is a universal norm all day long, I am simply saying that it lacks the enforcement to really matter.

Do you need me to enumerate the people charged, tried, convicted and punished for crimes against humanity?

Should I enumerate those who were not? Picking and choosing who to try only seems to vindicate my position that it is in fact enforced based on other concerns.

That is an absurd thing to say since the bill of rights contained in your constitution is there for no other reason that they are part of natural law.

To enforce natural law violations you would need to violate the principle of sovereignty, which is a cornerstone of the UN Charter. Only the Security Council possess the legal authority to enforce resolutions, and they are rarely going to enforce something based on an issue of human rights simply out of benevolence.

 

[PLC1]

Good grief. 123 pages on homosexuality, leading, predictably to homosexual marriage.

All of this has already been settled, right here on this forum.

For one thing, homosexuality is not a choice. It may be genetic, or it may be something else, but it is the way some people are born.

At one time, left handedness was considered somehow evil, and lefties were forced to attempt to copy the right handed majority. At least, we've become a little more enlightened now.

For another, homosexuals should have the same rights as heteros to form legal civil unions, call their ceremonies "weddings", and go on "honeymoons", and have all of the same rights as married couples.

But the word "marriage" is sacred, and therefore can't be changed, so their marriage license will have another word on it. That is the only difference that should exist between a gay couple and a straight one. It is a logical and a good compromise between the traditionalists and the gay marriage advocates.

It is akin to choosing a church: You can go to whatever church you want, but can't call yourself Catholic unless you are. That word is taken, so you have to use a different one.

There. No more need to waste bandwidth.