Homosexual rights

There is a reason that it is my opinion, and I didn't state it as a fact.

 

If one holds an opinion about a matter which has a factual answer, then that opinion can be flat-out wrong. This situation applies here.

 

Why is it?
Where is it defined that all humans have the right to marriage?

Then make it a requirement that at least one of the persons/things must be human. Certainly no one would disagree with that, since if they aren't human, they wouldn't understand they're "rights" are being infringed.

Wrong. If you want it, that doesn't mean it must have the legal ties. People merely want it, but it could do without.

You are a citizen, even if not natural. I'm mainly referring to animals, who aren't a part of society. But if legal ties are removed (which I think they should), that would not matter.

 

It isn't defined anywhere. I feel that if there's no valid reason to forbid someone from doing something, then they should be allowed to do it.

Well, I'd make it a requirement that all the participants be human.

I was raised in a certain way by my parents and family. We used certain phrases to mean certain things on the assumption that others would be able to grasp the gist of what we were talking about. So, when I say "If you want the tax benefits, then it must have legal ties", I really mean "If you want to get the tax benefits, then, in order to receive them, you need to have legal ties". Was that clear enough, or shall I break it down further?

I'm technically a permanent resident. I still have another year to go.

If legal ties are removed, then I agree: It wouldn't matter. You just could not reasonably expect any sort of benefits, recognition from the government, etc. Maybe if you found a church/group willing to marry humans and animals, then you could receive a certificate, and perhaps that would be worth something to you.

 

No it doesn't. Does bumming a man mean I automatically get an insight on what a human's natural orientation is? No. Does being straight give me that insight? No. Then it's the realm of opinion. Hell, if they are born like it, as you likely believe, then they would have just as biased a viewpoint as mine, and therefore are just as believable.

 

It actually does. Say I toss a coin up, catch it, and hide the result from you. You can have an opinion as to whether it was heads or tails, but that opinion can be completely wrong. The same thing applies to your opinion of whether or not they are bisexual to begin with. They either are, or aren't. You're either right, or wrong.

 

Your analogy doesn't work. If you tossed a coin, and neither of us knew whether it was heads or tails, but one of us had slipped a coin up their anus beforehand, then it would be accurate. You can't come in and say "It is not possible that homosexuality is a choice". It's ridiculous to assume that you know so much about the brain and genetic sequence that you can make this sort of a statement as a fact, when there is plenty to contest it. I think the existence of "curious" people alone would go a long way to making a balanced argument for and against homosexuality, which is currently seemingly forbidden in Western culture. I don't agree with being politically correct, ever. Why should you get special treatment against the truth because you're different to me? That's, shock horror, discrimination, but in a very PC way. Heaven forbid a straight white male, with no disabilities ever ask that someone not comment on his fallacies, God no, but there're people asking for people to just accept that homosexuality isn't a choice? Really? There are people in the world who don't believe that every opinion needs a chance to be disproved before they can discount it? Yes. Fucking ridiculous situation, if I challenge you on this, you just say "Well, I've talked to some gays and they said it didn't feel like a choice." Wow, I sure am glad people who are actively saying that they have a glitch, a deficiency, because that's what it is if not a choice, hold the opinion that I am wrong and not allowed to ever see if I am right. What strength their opinion must hold, that they can say they're glitched at the most fundamental, important level (To us as a species), and still be believed.

 

Do you know any homosexual people? You see, I do, and I find it hard to believe that all of them made a choice to be homosexual.

My analogy does work. Either it's a choice, or it isn't. If your opinion is that it isn't a choice, then that opinion can be either correct, or incorrect.

 

ok but here is my question, why would someone choose to be gay when they are just going to be made fun of?

 

But since we do not know, then both sides are an opinion. I'll repeat that, since you seem to feel you can only win the argument by ignoring that. We do not know. And yes, actually, I do know some homosexuals. That's completely irrelevant. If I knew some cancer sufferers or some people with a cold it wouldn't make me an authority on, or any more knowledgeable about, cancers or the common cold.

I would assume because they would like to fuck/have relationships with their own gender, but, hey, you can give them any motivation you like.

 

Hold on, we do know. When the testimony of millions of homosexuals is that they did not choose, then you can safely assume that there isn't a massive conspiracy, and that they did not. Did you choose to be straight? Do I "know" that?

 

The testimony of millions of homosexuals? So wait, millions of people said that they would rather not be forced to have sex with a gender they didn't want to, and set back the movement for equal rights for them by hundreds of years? It seems logical that whether it's a choice or not, no homosexual is stupid enough to say "Yeah, I choose to be gay, why don't you take away all the rights I've worked for over the past however many years." Homosexuality not being a choice is not a fact. Personally, if someone had compelling evidence that homosexuality is not a choice (And no, I don't mean asking homosexuals if they would like to have all their rights revoked and if they'd like to accuse the people who fought for their rights of being liars), I think environment likely plays more of a part than genetics does in choice of sexual orientation, as it plays more of a part than genetics in pretty much every factor of our lives, and so legalising gay marriages would increase the number of homosexuals.

And as for heterosexuality, unlike homosexuality it is hardcoded into every facet of our life that we must reproduce, we must take over the world with our own seed, and we must never let our DNA die out, so yes, I would say that I didn't "choose" to be straight.

 

A very, very wise man once said
"FUCK THE FUCKING GAYS THATS MY OPINION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

His name was iamaminer.

 

The thing is, not all homosexuals aren't concerned with the battle for rights, etc. There isn't a huge conspiracy of homosexuals that meet and decide "never admit that it was a choice!" If it was, people would admit it.

Funny thing is, sexuality is partly genetic, and mostly environmental. It can swing between heterosexuality, and homosexuality.

Why do you say that homosexuality isn't hardcoded in?

 

Whether I agree with homosexuality or not, I think we can both admit that they aren't fucking retards.

And I say homosexuality isn't hardcoded in because DUHHHH DNA IS NOT DESIGNED TO WIPE OUT OUR SPECIES DUHHHH

You're also providing no sources for your facts. Sexuality is partly genetic? Oh, they've decoded that far? At least I can admit that most of what I say is opinions, you're just attempting to use society's common acceptance of homosexuality's immutable state to disguise poor debating and a lack of understanding of the subject/a lack of understanding of how little we know about sexuality in advanced primates like ourselves.

 

Right, but there's fucking millions of them. You think they all actively try to put up a smokescreen to disguise the truth?

Look up gene Xq23. It's a gene that, in women, seems to cause the women to desire lots of sex, and hence, lots of children result. In men, it can make them gay. However, the overall benefit from Xq23 is more positive than negative.

Oh, do the research. You know the studies involving seperated twins? Notice that if one twin is homosexual, the other tends to have a much higher chance of being homosexual? What does that tell you?

Lack of understanding? My biology thesis last semester was on the causes of homosexuality.

 

Your standing on homosexual rights doesn't have anything to do with the fact that you once considered yourself bisexual, does it?

 

It doesn't. I despise stupidity and ignorance in all its forms. They frustrate me a massive amount.

 

im gay, and i can tell you that i did not choose it. i was gay when i was born. so if you call me gay idc, but if you say i chose it then why not say that to my personality? why would i choose to be something where people make fun of me on a daily basis because i am gay and have a different choice in sexuality from the straight population.

 

Gay Rights? Massive joke.
Don't what religion you turn to gay people are hated there.
Not natural to be gay/lesbian at all.
I hate them.
Two guys kissing. Sick As a dog second worst thing in my books.