You left out the law part.

I Wear Pants;1077974 wrote:What is that difference?

The difference is its physically impossible change your race. Its physically possible to change your sexual preference. Many have done so.

I Wear Pants;1077974 wrote:You and I didn't choose to be straight anymore than we chose to be white or black.

Wrong. As pointed out above. One is possible the other impossible. Is one born monogamous? You like the babes. You want to bang alot of them, so do I. At some point like me you will choose one and contract with her for life. You like me will still want to bang the babes but will choose not to.

So how is that different than someone wanting to bang the dudes and choosing one to contract with life while still wanting to bang other ones but choosing not to.

When did you choose to be straight, when did you weigh the choice in your mind? Never is the answer, you never once thought "do I like guys or girls" and then tried to figure it out. Neither did I, we just noticed we got a funny feeling in our trousers related to girls. If being gay is a choice then as an experiment and just momentarily why don't you choose to be attracted to men. Go watch some videos of dudes and be aroused. I imagine you won't be able to do it.

Edit: Just so you know I'm actually enjoying this discussion and appreciate you bothering to respond with more thoughtful answers than most do when this topic is brought up.

I Wear Pants;1078007 wrote:...
When did you choose to be straight, when did you weigh the choice in your mind...If being gay is a choice then as an experiment and just momentarily why don't you choose to be attracted to men. ...

The issue has never been about what you are or are not. The issue isn't about when you chose or didn't choose.

The issue is what a person's actions are. The sexually act is the issue not the feelings or decisions made.

isadore;1077827 wrote:You continue your efforts to undermine the effort to provides gay people with the fundamental right to state sanctioned marriage.

That's because it's State sanctioned marriage isn't a fundamental right.

I Wear Pants;1077860 wrote:Ok, I've asked several times in this thread already. Give me the reasons that are not religiously based as to why gay people can't get married.

It silly really. It's because of the law that's written. We are a nation of laws.

Some State provide the law to allow it. Some do not.

I contend that the State shouldn't determine who does and who doesn't enter into a relationship contract.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1077731 wrote:The best way to learn would be to take the course.. but here's some help

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_awareness

http://www.gentleparents.com/mccarthy.html

Use of a barrier or other backup method is required on fertile days; otherwise the couple must abstain. To reduce pregnancy risk to below 1% per year, there are an average of 13 days where abstinence or backup must be used during each cycle

.

Ok, so you are saying that people a REALLY going to give up having sex 1/2 the time during the month?

No wonder you see Catholic families with 8 or 10 kids using GOVERNMDENT food stamps and GOVERNMENT programs like welfare. Makes a lot of sense.

WE DON'T WANT GOVERMMENT BIRTH CONTROL BUT BRING ON THE GOVERNMENT MONEY.

Con_Alma;1078020 wrote:The issue has never been about what you are or are not. The issue isn't about when you chose or didn't choose.

The issue is what a person's actions are. The sexually act is the issue not the feelings or decisions made.

The "We don't have a problem with gay people except when they act like gay people" argument is pathetic.

I Wear Pants;1078030 wrote:The "We don't have a problem with gay people except when they act like gay people" argument is pathetic.

The fact that you inject having a problem with gay people in your sentence is very telling. There isn't a problem with gay people anymore than there is with straight people.

Con_Alma;1078034 wrote:The fact that you inject having a problem with gay people in your sentence is very telling. There isn't a problem with gay people anymore than there is with straight people.

Except you're making a distinction that being gay isn't an issue but acting on it is.

I Wear Pants;1078037 wrote:Except you're making a distinction that being gay isn't an issue but acting on it is.

Nope. Gay or heterosexual, there are certain actions that are not permitted. It's interesting to me that people speak as if the act of sex is involuntary and we have no control over it.

majorspark;1077972 wrote:The court only ruled that states can't use race when defining their marriage laws. Their is a difference between skin color and sexual preference.

The Supreme Court defined marriage as a basic right. And in both cases the states to were/are denying a basic right to adult couples who wish to exercise it. The term sexual preference is a duplicitous term used to justify denying gay couples their inherent rights. Preference falsely gives the impression they have a choice in their sexual indentity.

"The term sexual preference is a duplicitous term used to justify denying gay couples their inherent rights"

I find this thread mostly amusing, but wasn't "sexual preference" coined by gay people in the 80's/early 90's?

Con_Alma;1078021 wrote:That's because it's State sanctioned marriage isn't a fundamental right.

in your opinion which is not the opinion of the highest court in the land which has the responsibilty of interpreting our Constitution, our highest laws.

Manhattan Buckeye;1078046 wrote:"The term sexual preference is a duplicitous term used to justify denying gay couples their inherent rights"

I find this thread mostly amusing, but wasn't "sexual preference" coined by gay people in the 80's/early 90's?

sexual preference denotes a choice in being gay, sexual orientation does not carry that negative connotation.

Con_Alma;1078040 wrote:Nope. Gay or heterosexual, there are certain actions that are not permitted. It's interesting to me that people speak as if the act of sex is involuntary and we have no control over it.

Gosh I really appreciate you ending that false pose of impartiality toward gays. State sanctioned marriage is a basic right to all.

Con_Alma wrote:The issue has never been about what you are or are not. The issue isn't about when you chose or didn't choose.

The issue is what a person's actions are. The sexually act is the issue not the feelings or decisions made.

The issue is about who you are, they deny marriage to consenting adult couple both of whom happen to be of the same sex. Who knows they may not even have sex.

isadore;1078048 wrote:sexual preference denotes a choice in being gay, sexual orientation does not carry that negative connotation.

That didn't address my comment, although I think the difference between the two are minor at best. I tend to enjoy dark-haired women, with full figured bodies. Whether I call that a preference or an orientation is irrelevant to me, but then again I don't think everything in the world is about me.

Devils Advocate;1078029 wrote:.

Ok, so you are saying that people a REALLY going to give up having sex 1/2 the time during the month?

No wonder you see Catholic families with 8 or 10 kids using GOVERNMDENT food stamps and GOVERNMENT programs like welfare. Makes a lot of sense.

WE DON'T WANT GOVERMMENT BIRTH CONTROL BUT BRING ON THE GOVERNMENT MONEY.

13 isn't an average. It all depends on the woman's cycle. The average is 8-12 and that's the time you can even POSSIBLY get pregnant. Most abstain 5-8 days. The health benefits of not taking BC far outweigh the inconvienence.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1078095 wrote:13 isn't an average. It all depends on the woman's cycle. The average is 8-12 and that's the time you can even POSSIBLY get pregnant. Most abstain 5-8 days. The health benefits of not taking BC far outweigh the inconvienence.

Link?

Manhattan Buckeye;1078065 wrote:That didn't address my comment, although I think the difference between the two are minor at best. I tend to enjoy dark-haired women, with full figured bodies. Whether I call that a preference or an orientation is irrelevant to me, but then again I don't think everything in the world is about me.

majorsparks wrote:The court only ruled that states can't use race when defining their marriage laws. Their is a difference between skin color and sexual preference.

For those looking for an excuse to oppose gay marriage, gay is not an orientation but a preference- “the power or opportunity of choosing “ And by accepting that definition create a false difference between biracial and gay marriage.

sleeper;1078178 wrote:Link?

There's no side effects from not taking drugs. There are side effects from taking drugs. You're pretty slow for a guy who claims to be smart.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1078243 wrote:There's no side effects from not taking drugs. There are side effects from taking drugs. You're pretty slow for a guy who claims to be smart.

You said far outweigh. There are benefits to birth control that go beyond just preventing pregnancy. I think that statement is false, and I asked you to prove it.

sleeper;1078249 wrote:You said far outweigh. There are benefits to birth control that go beyond just preventing pregnancy. I think that statement is false, and I asked you to prove it.

I said health benefits. Try to keep up.

ZWICK 4 PREZ;1078256 wrote:I said health benefits. Try to keep up.

Peace of mind is a mental health benefit. Lighter periods. Reduced menstrual cramps, clearer skin, less mood swings etc.

Obviously there are some downsides to taken BC, but you there are also plenty of benefits to BC as well. You said far outweigh, I'm interested if you still feel this way and if so, can you provide some backup?

isadore;1078049 wrote:Gosh I really appreciate you ending that false pose of impartiality toward gays. State sanctioned marriage is a basic right to all.

The issue is about who you are, they deny marriage to consenting adult couple both of whom happen to be of the same sex. Who knows they may not even have sex.

There is no court ruling indicating that State Santioning of any marriage is a right. It should be ended.

It doesn't matter if they have sex or not. Sex isn't the issue. The State shouldn't decide who gets to enter a contractual relationship.

I just hope sleeper takes advantage of the free BC when it's available. That is all I can really ask for in this thread.