My State May Have just Passed A Very Restrictive Addition

[patrickvr6]

You are all ignoring another important issue in NC. You can't order a burger cooked medium, now that is an atrocity.

[cockerpunk]

Bigots do not see themselves as bigots.

the part that throws me for a loop is the grouping aspect of it. does he not realize that is the exact same as say interracial marriage? its the same logic as "if you can't make a white baby, then you can't get married"

like WTF?

the whole class system makes it even more bigoted then simply saying straight marriages that can't or don't including child rearing are pointless/dumb/government shouldn't recognize them.

[rsj0714]

You are all ignoring another important issue in NC. You can't order a burger cooked medium, now that is an atrocity.

That is bull if I've ever heard it. A couple of my favorite burger establishments can serve them however they want, as long as they grind their own beef.

[rsj0714]

like WTF?

the whole class system makes it even more bigoted then simply saying straight marriages that can't or don't including child rearing are pointless/dumb/government shouldn't recognize them.

One friendly reminder, don't use like or WTF in your argument.

[zukiphile]

Also, you didn't post twice regarding my question.

I didn't suggest I had. I noted that your question was redundant.

Why is:
A: this a rational goal?
B: banning gay marriage a rational way to achieve this goal?

Perhaps, I am mistaken. Aren't you an attorney?

Are you asking questions pertaining to a rational basis test, or just questions about why a society generally would want to support conventional families in its laws?

Did you mean to ask whether the goal reflects a legitimate governmental interest?

I am asking because it makes a difference in how I will answer you.

[cockerpunk]

One friendly reminder, don't use like or WTF in your argument.

because prison rape

[nm+]

So, you've never known a convict who went into prison a heterosexual and came out voluntarily engaging in homosexual acts? I've known more than one, and I barely do any criminal work.

But I guess you know more about it than they do, right?

A: You wrote that prison rape causes voluntary homosexual activities. Bull.****ing.****.
B: Many of these "voluntary" sexual relationships are involuntary or coerced.
C: Participating in homosexual activities doesn't make someone gay. Someone can be bisexual. Some people just do things to get off.
D: Participating in heterosexual behavior out in the world with societal pressure and a macho-culture doesn't make someone heterosexual.

You are confusing sexuality with sex. They are in fact, two different things.

If life experience changes a trait, it isn't immutable, right?

My dad almost converted to Judaism for a girlfriend. Yet, protected class.
Sexuality is a lot less fluid than that.

[rsj0714]

because prison rape

Because common grammatical sense.

[Air-over-water]

We were not discussing marriage, but sexuality. You asserted that homosexuality is not about sex.

It has as much to do with sex as heterosexuality...

[VadGTI]

I still do not undestand the whole prison rape comment.

How does prison rape cause voluntary homosexual acts?

Rape =/= voluntary.

[rsj0714]

It has as much to do with sex as heterosexuality...

Actually this discussion has very little to do with sex and more so to do with equal opportunities for marriage.

grow up people, lets address the actual issue please!!

[butterface]

Prove it isn't. If we're going to limit the rights of a group, the burden should be on the person who wants to limit that group's rights.

As for 'proving' anything, I'll err on the side of biology and psychology over the ambiguity of law and politics. There is zero biological and/or evolutionary basis for homosexuality. There have been attempts to theorize its inclusion, but it is based on rationalizing and/or conjecture. It simply doesn't make evolutionary sense.

However, it does make sense that homosexuality is psychologically developmental (re: behavioral) in nature, and there is ample research to support this. As such, it implies choice - whether conscious or no.

Now, what we are debating is whether society can regulate an individual's behavior. We do all of the time, and we do it based on our various versions of morality, ethics, and other reasons.

NC decided that it did not wish to collectively endorse homosexual marriage. It did not, however, vote to infringe on the individual liberties of homosexuals. Do you not see the difference?

[nm+]

Did you mean to ask whether the goal reflects a legitimate governmental interest?

I am asking because it makes a difference in how I will answer you.

This.

I still do not undestand the whole prison rape comment.

How does prison rape cause voluntary homosexual acts?

Rape =/= voluntary.

Seriously, I'm far far more confused about this than his homophobia.
But correcting it would admit being wrong.

[rsj0714]

I still do not undestand the whole prison rape comment.

How does prison rape cause voluntary homosexual acts?

Rape =/= voluntary.

You got it. Prison rape has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed, it is simply a temporary deterrent.

[cockerpunk]

As for 'proving' anything, I'll err on the side of biology and psychology over the ambiguity of law and politics. There is zero biological and/or evolutionary basis for homosexuality. There have been attempts to theorize its inclusion, but it is based on rationalizing and/or conjecture. It simply doesn't make evolutionary sense.

However, it does make sense that homosexuality is psychologically developmental (re: behavioral) in nature, and there is ample research to support this. As such, it implies choice - whether conscious or no.

Now, what we are debating is whether society can regulate an individual's behavior. We do all of the time, and we do it based on our various versions of morality, ethics, and other reasons.

NC decided that it did not wish to collectively endorse homosexual marriage. It did not, however, vote to infringe on the individual liberties of homosexuals. Do you really not see the difference?

actually, scientifically it has been established that sexuality is not a choice. it is a combination of genetics, and pre birth development of the brain. so, its not a choice.

[butterface]

actually, scientifically it has been established that sexuality is not a choice. it is a combination of genetics, and pre birth development of the brain.

No.

[nm+]

NC decided that it did not wish to collectively endorse homosexual marriage. It did not, however, vote to infringe on the individual liberties of homosexuals. Do you not see the difference?

It infringes on their right to marry the person they love and want to live the rest of their life with.

[cockerpunk]

No.

one doesn't even have to look as far as Wikipedia to find cited scientific studies that clearly point to this conclusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

pretty lame defense

[Rockerchick]

one doesn't even have to look as far as Wikipedia to find cited scientific studies that clearly point to this conclusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

pretty lame defense

Homosexuality is also seen in a number of other places in the animal kingdom. Its certainly not limited to humans.

[Air-over-water]

No.

Citation really needed for this...

[Rockerchick]

It infringes on their right to marry the person they love and want to live the rest of their life with.

And infringes on their ability to put their partner on their insurance policy by not recognizing domestic partnerships. Mecklenburg County is already working on this...

[Mk1Racer]

I really should have left almost 2 hours ago so I"m not looking it up right now, but you referenced it before in terms of incest and legalities there like brothers/sisters/cousins marrying. One of the times those incest threads popped up and it had a link to states where this was legal I could have sworn being barren was REQUIRED not a means to nullify it. Like basically sure a brother and sister can get married if there is no possibly way for them to reproduce.

do you have a link to where you saw it? not saying prove it to me I just hate when I think I may have the wrong info.

Here's the link I found it on. As I said, the law was about void, and voidable marriages, and what conditions need to be met. It wasn't a law specifically about incestuous marriages. link

doesn't really matter, as if marriage is really about child rearing, then they should be more concerned with straight marriages then gay ones, and demand constitutional amendments against them.

until they do, they are still just being bigoted, and trying to cover it up

Ok, present facts that shoot holes in your rant, and then you say it doesn't matter. If it doesn't matter, why bring it up in the first place? Your credibility = 0.

not to mention you can actually have a life, do the things you said you were going to do, see the world, drive fast cars, sleep around, stay up for 48 hour benders .... you know .... have your mid 20s?

Life is about choices. And glad you think sleeping around while in a committed relationship w/ someone is Your credibility is actually < 0 now.

It can go both ways. My parents met in HS dated through college, got married, and had kids right away. I was graduating HS when they were both about 40, my brother 2 years later, and my sister passed away but she would have been out of the house before they were even 45..

Kids are expensive, when you are 25 you aren't making much money. When I was 10 and my parents were in their early 30s a vacation was camping for a weekend and doing so as cheaply as possible. My friends a vacation was 2 weeks in hawaii and 1 week skiing and another at disney.. (I finally went to disney for the first time in feb I'm 32..)

Why? their parents were late 30s and into their 40s when they had kids. They made money got to a great spot in their careers and could afford more then getting by.

When did my parents finally get to where they wanted to be in their jobs? right about when i was moving out. This is a benefit for them now since they are young, making great money and can enjoy themselves but they lived extremely stressed lives for 20 years just for the sake of having children. HAd they put it off our childhood would have been a lot easier.. not saying better just easier.

I see nothing wrong with a couple approaching 40 then deciding it is the time to have kids, they will be in a much better position to provide in my experience.

I see starting a family when you're 40-ish as selfish. At that point in time, it's about getting your ticket punched. Are you in a better position at 40 to afford kids than you are at 25? More than likely. But I don't consider being able to throw money at kids as providing a good family experience.

What kind of a relationship does your family have? I know people that have come from essentially that same type of background. Parents sacrificed when they were young, to start a family. But now, as the parents are approaching their 60's, and the kids are married and starting their own families, they are sharing some wonderful times and making some wonderful memories.

Starting a family at 40 puts your kids in a difficult spot. When they're 25, and could possibly be thinking about starting families of their own, they may have to worry about taking care of their aging parents. If you've been together since your early/mid 20's, and decide at 40 that you now want kids, I just think that's being selfish, and you've decided that you're now missing something in your life. I worked with a couple of women that were like this. Career driven and all of a sudden 40 was right around the corner. They had to find husbands and pop out kids to feel 'complete'. One of them was hilarious. Her and her husband bought a nice, shiny, new McMansion, and hired a live-in nanny to raise their kid while they kept up their pre-kid lifestyle.

[cockerpunk]

Life is about choices. And glad you think sleeping around while in a committed relationship w/ someone is Your credibility is actually < 0 now.

when did i say that?

[pdoel]

No.

If you can give me exact date and time that you made the conscious decision to be attracted to people of the opposite sex, rather than those of the same, then I'll consider that homosexuality is a choice.

Otherwise, face the fact that you were born, grew up, and found yourself attracted to people of the opposite sex, period. It's the exact same way for us. I never made this choice. I grew up being attracted to members of the same sex just as naturally as you did for the opposite. No difference.

[pdoel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR9gy...layer_embedded

Heart wrenching.

[butterface]

one doesn't even have to look as far as Wikipedia to find cited scientific studies that clearly point to this conclusion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality

pretty lame defense

Scientific and medical understanding is that sexual orientation is not a choice, but rather a complex interplay of biological and environmental factors

This is the conjecture I was referring to. There is no scientific and medical consensus based on research to support this conclusion. They are hypothesizing this to be the case. If you can't see that 'a complex interplay' means 'we don't really know', then I don't know what to tell you.

[cockerpunk]

This is the conjecture I was referring to. There is no scientific and medical consensus based on research to support this conclusion. They are hypothesizing this to be the case. If you can't see that 'a complex interplay' means 'we don't really know', then I don't know what to tell you.

note it says exactly what i said it did - its not a choice, its based on genetics and pre-brith developmental conditions.

so no .... i dont really understand your point

[Air-over-water]

... 'we don't really know',

So why are you claiming it is a choice, if anything you should be saying you do not know...

[rsj0714]

So why are you claiming it is a choice, if anything you should be saying you do not know...

It should be understood that we are representing a minority in this country. I don't know how the rest of the votes were casted but it should be held during a general election, not during a primary,

[lonely superstar]

If you can give me exact date and time that you made the conscious decision to be attracted to people of the opposite sex, rather than those of the same, then I'll consider that homosexuality is a choice.

Otherwise, face the fact that you were born, grew up, and found yourself attracted to people of the opposite sex, period. It's the exact same way for us. I never made this choice. I grew up being attracted to members of the same sex just as naturally as you did for the opposite. No difference.

This. It boggles my mind how heterosexual's debate this when they have not lived it! Stop telling me how I chose it when you have no idea. I did not chose my hair color, skin color nor my eye color. I can do my best to hide it but at the end of the day I was born this way. And to piss some more people off, GOD made me this way. Him and I are good, it's the zealots who have the problem. Stop focusing on others and worry about you.

[22AudiQ]

You are all ignoring another important issue in NC. You can't order a burger cooked medium, now that is an atrocity.

What's the point of eating a burger then?

[butterface]

If you can give me exact date and time that you made the conscious decision to be attracted to people of the opposite sex, rather than those of the same, then I'll consider that homosexuality is a choice.

Otherwise, face the fact that you were born, grew up, and found yourself attracted to people of the opposite sex, period. It's the exact same way for us. I never made this choice. I grew up being attracted to members of the same sex just as naturally as you did for the opposite. No difference.

The fact is that I don't know the answer, but neither do other psychologists or scientists. I have zero issues with homosexuals being able to do what you all wish to do, nor do I think it is abhorrent behavior or anything of the sort. To me, whether it is developmental or biological makes no difference, but I do get ill when folks try to state theory and/or conjecture as fact.

But as for the law, I am fine with it. It does not infringe on one's individual rights.

[butterface]

so no .... i dont really understand your point

Of course you don't.

[cockerpunk]

the fact is that i don't know the answer, but neither do other psychologists or scientists. I have zero issues with homosexuals being able to do what you all wish to do, nor do i think it is abhorrent behavior or anything of the sort. To me, whether it is developmental or biological makes no difference, but i do get ill when folks try to state theory and/or conjecture as fact.

But as for the law, i am fine with it. It does not infringe on one's individual rights.

you even cited the link saying this is 100% wrong

[butterface]

So why are you claiming it is a choice, if anything you should be saying you do not know...

I'm not claiming it is choice. I'm saying it makes more scientific sense that it is.