It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The American Hypocrisy In The Gay Marriage Debate

page: 4
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by awake_awoke
I can't simply fathom, nor do I believe, that homosexual behavior is in any way a choice

But that's just your opinion. The majority of people in , say California, believe otherwise. Until there's some science to back it up then it remains a far-stretched theory that it's a genetic trait. That's why I keep saying the homosexual community needs to spend their efforts on research instead of protests.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


What a ridiculous thing to say, can you prove to me that hetrosexuality is a genetic trait.

Some hetrosexual men only fancy blonde woman, some only like larger chested woman. Do they choose this or is it it programmed into them through either nature or nurture. You don't choose what you find sexually atractive, it chooses you.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
reply to post by MemoryShock
 


If this is the lifestyle you choose knowing that you will be unable to marry, then that's your decision. Yes, I said the choice word.


There have been homosexuals since the dawn of man, " THE MAN CHAIN" depiction in QI LUI China has been dated in the ten of thousands of years.

Not to mention that homosexuality has been noted across the animal kingdom in similar ratios to human occurrence. One could argue that ANIMALs operate on instinct, not conscious decision making.

CHOICE??? in a squirrel?

It is LOGICAl to assume, after applying OCCAM'S RAZOR, that Homosexuality in animals and humans have the same genesis/cause?

or do animals have the capacity to weigh options and chose?

Hardly...

By default, this would point beyond choice or cognition - towards the instinctual - like SURVIVING< EATING < DRINKING

One could also get into severely RETARDED humans who, often engage in homosexual contact in schools and institutions.

Yet many of these same RETARDED folks can not even decide/chose enough to CRAP into a toilet for CHRIST'S sake.

Choice

One thing is clear, you are making a CHOICE to deny the writing on the wall.

Homosexuality is as natural as laughing or loving... It will be here long after DEBAITS is dead and gone.

Its just a matter of time, mankind goes forward and you might as well fight with the TIDES.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
It's not the job of the government to ensure your happiness.


Then let's get rid of law enforcement. If murder makes people sad then screw the relatives of a murder victim. If having stuff stolen makes people sad...who cares? It's not the governments job...right.

Government's job is to govern. To what end? To make people miserable?

Quite the opposite.



I do not want the government to become thought police to ensure that an individual "thinks" that they are happy.


Don't worry, that's Big Pharma's job...




There is nothing keeping a homosexual from being happy but their own logical fallacy.


There is nothing about 'feeling' that is logical. Just because I use a term "fallacy" doesn't mean you can use it as well...incorrectly to boot.



If this is the lifestyle you choose knowing that you will be unable to marry, then that's your decision. Yes, I said the choice word. If it could be proven that homosexuality was not a choice,


I could probably prove it, or at the least the liklihood of it's occassional manifestation rhetorically.

Consider that the sperm carries a set of genetic instructions from one individual and the egg contains a set of genetic instructions from another.

It is obvious that one set is "male" instructions and the other is "female".

Remember, physical characteristics aren't the only aspect of a human being that are determined by a parents genetic material.

Now...science is clear that some genes are recessive and some genes are dominant. What happens when a portion of the 'male' instructions are dominant for say physical characteristics and the 'personality' instructions are more dominant from the female?

There is no way that science can predict how the genetic material will manifest in offsrping. The best we can do at this point is reverse engineer. And it is clear...by a priori logic...that no two people are identical.

Ergo...the level of dominant genes expressed in both physical traits and mental/pyschologically inclined traits will always be different; will always not be static. Within the spectrum of varability is that of a male recieving dominant male genes and dominant female genes...

Choice? Really? Someone else brought up this pertinent point...when did you choose how to feel?

Seriously, dbates, I don't mean to come across as harsh...I respect your thoughts and view this exchange as a valuable excercise. But I definitely disagree with you...
l



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:29 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Oh, come on. There are many of your opinions that you're using to prop up your argument.

- that the government's interest in marriage is so people can procreate.
- that having children in an overpopulated world is a benefit to society.
- that a gay marriage doesn't benefit the society in any way.
- that a couple's marriage must bring something to the table.
- that homosexuality is a choice

And people are working on the research. But would that justify gay marriage? Even if they proved it was 100% biological? They still can't have children with each other.

Gay Brain Shows Gender Atypical Traits

Disallowing gay people to marry is unconstitutional. It's discriminatory.

I also enjoy debating with you, dbates, because you keep a level head. It's pretty rare these days.


[edit on 5-2-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by intriguedUK
 


i made a similar comment earlier but he seemed to ignore it



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


Since there is a group of people in this country that seem to think that it is ok to not allow another group to enjoy certain rights and freedoms, maybe it should be up to that group to prove that being gay is a choice.

That argument is ridiculous from both sides.

This is about rights and freedoms. Just because someone is gay doesn't automatically disqualify them from having the same rights and freedoms that straight people have.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   
i guess dbates isnt gonna respond to my statement.. oh well i guess i just have to wait to see if anyone else will



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MemoryShock

Originally posted by dbates
It's not the job of the government to ensure your happiness.



GOOD point

I'll use it on you

Dbates, it's not the job of the government to ensure your happiness.



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 

As yes, back to the choice issue (if you can call it that). I am going to simply state what I have stated many times.

You can NOT choose your likes and dislikes.

You can, however, choose to act upon your feelings. Which is something entirely different. Personally, I think there is nothing wrong with how a homosexual lives (having sexual relations with a member or members of the same sex). It doesn't harm me in any way.




top topics



 
8
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join