question about homosexuality

in your opinion are the gay people born that way or do they make a choice to be gay?


  • Total voters
    0
  • Poll closed .
Since the beginning of time, marriage was defined solely as a union between a man and a woman? Not one man and multiple women?

Nope, they were separate marriages. The man had multiple wives through different ceremonies. As he got older (and richer) he took additional wives.

You really thought you had me there, didn't you?

lmao

Marriage is a thing which is completely artificial. In fact, marriage does not exist outside of society; it is a construct of society and, therefore, it merely reflects the values of a specific society. .

So invent your own gay thingey. But 'marriage', according to the construct of our society, is a union of a man and a woman.

As for whether or not the term "homosexual" is explicitly stated in any law, that is absolute non-sense. .

So, you admit that is based on gender, not on sexual orientation.

Thank you, we're making progress.
 
and why was it defined in that way? Are you claiming it had nothing to do with sex?

It was never 'defined' by the state. The state simply recognized a religious institution which pre-dated the beginning of the state.

It was defined by jews, thousands of years ago, if you really must know.

my point was not that they could but that they are not trying so your point is ridiculous

No, the point is that the law is not based on homosexuality. It is based on gender, among other things...

There are other restrictions, as well.....a man who is already married, two cousins where one of the cousin's parents also were cousins, a man and his daughter or granddaughter, etc.

There are many restrictions on marriage. None of them are based on your sexual orientation, although one of them IS based on gender.
 
Last edited:
It was never 'defined' by the state. The state simply recognized a religious institution which pre-dated the beginning of the state.

It was defined by jews, thousands of years ago, if you really must know.

again, why was it defined that way? Also, when did religious customs become law in the US?

No, the point is that the law is not based on homosexuality. It is based on gender, among other things...

There are other restrictions, as well.....a man who is already married, two cousins where one of the cousin's parents also were cousins, a man and his daughter or granddaughter, etc.

There are many restrictions on marriage. None of them are based on your sexual orientation, although one of them IS based on gender.

so as I said earlier, certain hetero couples have special rights. Why is that ok with you?
 
Nope, they were separate marriages. The man had multiple wives through different ceremonies. As he got older (and richer) he took additional wives.

You really thought you had me there, didn't you?

lmao

Keep laughing, you ignorant rube:
group marriage, the marriage of several men with several women. As an institutionalized social practice, group marriage is extremely rare; nowhere does it appear to have existed as the prevailing form of marital arrangement. Of the 250 societies reported by the American anthropologist George P. Murdock (1949), only the Caingang of Brazil had chosen group marriage as an alternative form of union; even there the frequency was but 8 percent.

At the turn of the century, many anthropologists believed that in an early stage of human development group marriage was common. Much of the literature of that time attempted to demonstrate that marital unions had undergone several evolutionary stages, beginning with complete sexual license, through group marriage, polygyny, and polyandry, and culminating in monogamy. Group marriage was erroneously ascribed to peoples in Australia, Siberia, and Africa, when in actuality the particular tribes contained groups of men who had privileged sexual access to women but did not bear the domestic and economic responsibilities that constitute a true marriage.

Such evolutionary theories were for the most part discarded by later anthropologists, and a more representative opinion regarded group marriage as a sporadic and rare phenomenon always appearing in conjunction with polyandry. It is possible that group marriage can only occur when polyandrous marriage is common and then combines with polygyny. One motive for group marriage seems to be enhanced economic security through mate recruitment. In the West, group marriage has been the object of occasional theoretical treatises and practical experiments by utopian movements.

group marriage -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia

So invent your own gay thingey. But 'marriage', according to the construct of our society, is a union of a man and a woman.

Nope, I would rather work to change the societal norm so that individuals like you have to deal with homosexuals being treating equally under the law (and, "separate but equal" never really worked out that well).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
again, why was it defined that way?

You'll have to travel back in time and ask Moses, I guess. I would assume that it was considered a blessed union because it helped assure the continuation of the society. Unions of two men did not. They couldn't pro-create.

Plus add to the that the fact that they probably had the good sense to keep their unusual proclivities to themselves....it probably wasn't openly discussed in polite society.

so as I said earlier, certain hetero couples have special rights. Why is that ok with you?

No 'couples' have rights. Rights are held by the individual. Therefore, that question is nonsensical.

If your question is 'why do heteros have special rights', then my answer is that they do not.

Two straight men cannot get married, while a gay man and a gay woman CAN get married.

The restriction has nothing to do with homosexuality, but on the definition of marriage.
 
It was defined by jews, thousands of years ago, if you really must know.

Are you implying that it was first defined by the Jews? Interesting since Abraham was married before he was a Jew, right?

I would be willing to wager that marriage was first defined on either the Indian Sub-Continent or in the Fertile Crescent.
 
Keep laughing, you ignorant rube:

Western society's 'marriage' is based on the Judeo-Christian concept, not on something that the Caingang of Brazil were doing. And that concept was not group marriages. The patriarchs has multiple marriages, one wife per wedding.

Mmmkay?

You ignorant Obama voter.

I would be willing to wager that marriage was first defined on either the Indian Sub-Continent or in the Fertile Crescent.

So why are you babbling about Brazil? Btw, Abraham and the forerunners of Israelite society were in the .....drum roll....Fertile Crescent.

Nope, I would rather work to change the societal norm so that individuals like you have to deal with homosexuals being treating equally under the law .

No, you want special treatment. They are already treated equally under the law.

two straight men cannot marry, therefore two gay men cannot.

A gay man and a gay woman may get married, therefore a straight man and a straight woman may get married.

Equality UNDER THE LAW.
 
Last edited:
Are you implying that it was first defined by the Jews? Interesting since Abraham was married before he was a Jew, right?

Abraham wasn't even a jew, you got me there. 'Jews' weren't invented until the inhabitants of Judah went into captivity. Before that they were all basically Israelites.

And Abraham was the first Israelite, or at least the father of all Israelites.

But it gives me joy to see you digressing to such a minor point. It tells me that this discussion is over, and that you have admitted that you have no actual argument to present.

Have a nice day, Obama voter. And thanks for getting nasty about it, that also tells me that you lack any logical argument, just manby panby emotion.

:hi:
 
So why are you babbling about Brazil? Btw, Abraham and the forerunners of Israelite society were in the .....drum roll....Fertile Crescent.

Yes, but you said Abraham was not a Jew; I would claim that he was not a Jew until he moved to Canaa and almost sacrificed Isaac (there are many Jews who claim Abraham as a Jew). Canaa is not in the Fertile Crescent. Either way, the story of Abraham being married goes a long way in refuting your claim that the Jews first defined marriage.

No, you want special treatment. They are already treated equally under the law.

two straight men cannot marry, therefore two gay men cannot.

A gay man and a gay woman may get married, therefore a straight man and a straight woman may get married.

Equality UNDER THE LAW.

A heterosexual may legally marry a person to whom they are sexually attracted.

A homosexual may not legally marry a person to whom they are sexually attracted.

That is not equality. Further, once state benefits and protections are attached to marriage, then it just makes the inequality more pronounced (dependent pay, taxes, PNOK rights, etc.)

Calling you an ignorant rube is not admitting that I have lost any argument; it is admitting that you are an ignorant rube.
 
sexual orientation is no more a choice than hand dominance, eye color, height, or any other attributes governed by our genetic code.
 
No 'couples' have rights. Rights are held by the individual. Therefore, that question is nonsensical.

If your question is 'why do heteros have special rights', then my answer is that they do not.

Two straight men cannot get married, while a gay man and a gay woman CAN get married.

The restriction has nothing to do with homosexuality, but on the definition of marriage.

individuals that choose to be part of a married couple are granted rights. They may be individual but they are not given based on that.

many agree the definition of 'marriage' is outdated. I'm guessing you know the reason it was originally defined as a man/woman but realize it won't help your argument today. Throw out strawmen all you want but it doesn't change the fact you're dead wrong on this issue. I'm not convinced you even realize it though
 
No, you want special treatment. They are already treated equally under the law.

two straight men cannot marry, therefore two gay men cannot.

A gay man and a gay woman may get married, therefore a straight man and a straight woman may get married.

Equality UNDER THE LAW.

While some of these statements are factual, they are generally irrelevant to the primary issue. Whether we agree with it or not, the federal government has attached roughly 1,100 rights/benefits to married couples. Same sex couples do not have access to these same rights/benefits, thus no equality. You can certainly make the argument that same sex straight couples also lack that access, but do you seriously believe there are folks like this living in long-term committed relationships? Just seems non-applicable to me, realistically speaking.

Imagine if the setup was reversed and only same-sex couples were able to marry, and everything else remained the same - would you feel you were being treated 'equally' under the law?
 
Simple question for Negateer: you really think the law is designed to simply block a hetero same sex couple from being married as much as a homosexual couple?

Are you really that ******ned stupid?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Damn, reading through that nonsense gave me a headache. Why would two straight men want to marry each other? I'm sure if they legalized same sex marriage thousands of straight men would be lining up to marry each other.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Damn, reading through that nonsense gave me a headache. Why would two straight men want to marry each other? I'm sure if they legalized same sex marriage thousands of straight men would be lining up to marry each other.

As I stated earlier: It's not gay if you're both straight.
 
A heterosexual may legally marry a person to whom they are sexually attracted.

Nope. There is no "right to marry the person to whom you are sexually attracted". A father may not marry his daughter. A grandfather may not marry his grandaughter. A man may not marry his cousin, if his parents were also cousins. A man may not marry a woman if he is still married to another woman.

There are many restrictions on marriage, none of them based on sexual orientation.

EQUALITY under the law. Mmmkay?

you are an ignorant rube.

You are one who thought that the old Israelis had 'group marriages', you ignorant deviant.

:hi:
 
Last edited:
Nope. There is no "right to marry the person to whom you are sexually attracted".

There is certainly a natural right to do whatsoever you please as long as it does not directly, and physically, harm another individual. Further, there is a legal right to be treated equally under the law. Privileging and providing incentives to one choice based solely on preference is not providing equal treatment under the law to those with other preferences. The only valid justification for such privileging one over the other would be that the other choices are directly, and physically, harmful to others. When two men ****, does your ass hurt?

A father may not marry his daughter. A grandfather may not marry his grandaughter. A man may not marry his cousin, if his parents were also cousins. A man may not marry a woman if he is still married to another woman.

There are many restrictions on marriage, none of them based on sexual orientation.

EQUALITY under the law. Mmmkay?

And, those restrictions should not exist. Any adult should be allowed to marry any other consenting adult.

As of right now, the law provides benefits to heterosexual, non-incestuous couples in the form of "marriage". The law is simply privileging one group of individuals above all others, mostly due to some BS book that was written thousands of years ago.

You are one who thought that the old Israelis had 'group marriages', you ignorant sexual deviant.

Where did I say that Israelites engaged in group marriages?
 
Last edited:
There is certainly a natural right to do whatsoever you please as long as it does not directly, and physically, harm another individual.

Nope. A man may not take multiple wives, a woman may not take multiple husbands.

Mmmkay, you ignorant rube?

when two men ****, does your ass hurt?

No, but your's does.

:dance2:
 

VN Store



Back
Top