I wouldn't be too hard on the homophobes. They were born that way.

majorspark;1078907 wrote:I wouldn't be too hard on the homophobes. They were born that way.

Nobody is born a bigot. This is the way they were taught.

bases_loaded;1078735 wrote:You quoted me and asked about marriage, my post said nothing about marriage.

That's what the last several posts in the topic were about. Sorry I misunderstood.

FairwoodKing;1078333 wrote: I would like to have one good reason why they shouldn't have all the rights association with marriage.

I'll give you about 4:
1) Single people don't get this right. What is so special about "living" with someone that you should get special tax treatment?

2) Should married people with no children (dinc's) get these benefits? No. Sure, gay people can adopt. How many do?

3) What's the purpose of these benefits? It goes back years - it was to provide incentive to get together and make babies, which is good for the republic. Sure, gay people can adopt and other alternatives. How many do?

4) 30 years ago, the women mostly stayed at home. So that was a real burden and legit deduction, i.e justification for the benefits. Today most married couples - gay or straight - are dual-income earners, often continuing so even after having kids (for most of the time, anyway).

gut;1078926 wrote:I'll give you about 4:
1) Single people don't get this right. What is so special about "living" with someone that you should get special tax treatment?

2) Should married people with no children (dinc's) get these benefits? No. Sure, gay people can adopt. How many do?

3) What's the purpose of these benefits? It goes back years - it was to provide incentive to get together and make babies, which is good for the republic. Sure, gay people can adopt and other alternatives. How many do?

4) 30 years ago, the women mostly stayed at home. So that was a real burden and legit deduction, i.e justification for the benefits. Today most married couples - gay or straight - are dual-income earners, often continuing so even after having kids (for most of the time, anyway).

This sounds like a good argument to do away with marriage altogether. Would you be for that?

FairwoodKing;1078915 wrote:Nobody is born a bigot. This is the way they were taught.

Interesting. I'd like to see this list of which human behaviors are taught and which ones are inherited at birth.

majorspark;1078937 wrote:Interesting. I'd like to see this list of which human behaviors are taught and which ones are inherited at birth.

Wouldn't you know it, there's an entire field of study about it. It's called Psychology.

FairwoodKing;1078915 wrote:Nobody is born a bigot. This is the way they were taught.

Intersting!..... I think the same about gay people.

sleeper;1078828 wrote:Define marriage.

two adults united in a consensual and contractual relationship sanctified by the state.

Mooney44Cards;1078940 wrote:Wouldn't you know it, there's an entire field of study about it. It's called Psychology.

Took a few courses in college on the topic. Thanks for the reminder.

Shane Falco;1078963 wrote:Intersting!..... I think the same about gay people.

I can't speak for the entire gay world, but I can speak for myself. I had what I now recognize as gay feelings when I was four years old. My earliest childhood memories were of getting an erection by looking a cowboys. I especially loved their boots. Throughout my childhood and into adulthood, my tastes never changed. I wasn't able to put a label on myself until I was 18, but my sexual feelings never varied.

P.S. I still get turned on by cowboys.

Mooney44Cards;1078933 wrote:This sounds like a good argument to do away with marriage altogether. Would you be for that?

You mean the marriage tax break? Yes, I think so. It's dated tax law, at this point. Certainly I think it has its place in the religious institution. As far as civil unions (i.e. performed by the state/justice of the peace) I'm not sure the purpose. But we are a society of symbols, rituals and public commitment. I do think family is an important part of a healthy society, and marriage certainly factors into that as it helps indoctrinate children that you grow-up, get married and have kids. Religion, itself, is as much about indoctrinating people into a framework of morality as anything.

FairwoodKing;1078094 wrote:That's not true. Homosexuality has existed in every civilization throughout recorded time. It even exists in the animal kingdom. As far as the need to make more babies, let me remind you that this planet is woefully overpopulated. The planet cannot continue to house this many people forever. The fact that I don't make babies is a good thing.

Yeah, but not because the world is overpopulated, it is a good thing because you are ignorant.

dwccrew;1079285 wrote:Yeah, but not because the world is overpopulated, it is a good thing because you are ignorant.

I have an IQ of 142 and I have five college degrees. Now who's the ignorant one?

majorspark;1078937 wrote:Interesting. I'd like to see this list of which human behaviors are taught and which ones are inherited at birth.

Is this a "Trading Places" thread? Great movie but doubtful social commentary. In all cases most likely a combination of both, but with respect to sexuality I'd lean towards inheritance, even if Randolph Duke believes it is environment. My wife's dad is outwardly gay, and certainly more so than his three brothers, even though two of them have had gay affairs, and the fourth has had so many health problems I don't think he has a sexual urge of any type past the age of 40. I think it is mostly inherited, but it didn't help that their mother (i.e. my wife's grandmother) was not the most kindly and motherly person. From an environment perspective I can see how all of them would have an aversion towards women given her demeanor, but I don't think a guy goes so far to engage in gay sex without some sort of biological urge, thus I'm not sure environment means everything. I do know that a Karate man feels pain from the inside, as Billy Ray Valentine taught us from Trading Places.

FairwoodKing;1079064 wrote:P.S. I still get turned on by cowboys.

P.S.....TMI!

Mooney44Cards;1078933 wrote:This sounds like a good argument to do away with marriage altogether. Would you be for that?

I would absolutely do away with the requirement to have the State grant permission to marry. People can still marry if they choose.

Shane Falco;1078963 wrote:Intersting!..... I think the same about gay people.

A close friend grew up in a family of four kids, three straight, one gay. Do you really think the parents raised that one child that dramatically differently?

FairwoodKing;1079351 wrote:I have an IQ of 142 and I have five college degrees. Now who's the ignorant one?

I have a nine inch penis and am worth over a hundred million dollars.

I love the internet.

FairwoodKing;1079064 wrote:P.S. I still get turned on by cowboys.

John Wayne turns you on?

FairwoodKing;1079062 wrote:I can't speak for the entire gay world, but I can speak for myself. I had what I now recognize as gay feelings when I was four years old. My earliest childhood memories were of getting an erection by looking a cowboys. I especially loved their boots. Throughout my childhood and into adulthood, my tastes never changed. I wasn't able to put a label on myself until I was 18, but my sexual feelings never varied.

Gross.

FairwoodKing;1079064 wrote:P.S. I still get turned on by cowboys.

Still gross.

FairwoodKing;1079351 wrote:I have an IQ of 142 and I have five college degrees. Now who's the ignorant one?

So does the rest of the OC, but we all run 4.3 40's.

FairwoodKing;1079351 wrote:I have an IQ of 142 and I have five college degrees. Now who's the ignorant one?

Five degrees? Unless you're making high 6 figures, you are ignorant