there's only ONE chromosome, ONE b/w a man and a woman.. keep that in mind next time your ogling an ass
just how close you are
just how close you are
Is homosexuality a choice?
- Thread starter Rearden Metal
- Start date
This part is very easy to explain: Let's say you have an unfortunate LoZZZer who can only attain sexual satisfaction by molesting children. <b>No matter what laws are enacted, someone's going to have to suffer.</b>
Either the pedophile suffers a lifetime of sexual frustration... or dozens- even hundreds of children suffer sexual abuse and a lifetime of trauma for the sake of one man's temporary gratification.
That's why it's a crime- Imprisoning people for acting on (victimizing) urges they never chose to have is clearly the lesser of two evils.
On the other hand, imprisoning people for a victimless 'illegal disease' like drug addiction is complete bullshit.
I remember playing tennis on a court at 12 years old. I was just starting to really like girls.
A friends said the girl on the next court had nice legs.
I did not give a shit about girls legs until that moment. She was the first imprint of girls legs. I then compared girls legs over time until I came realize what I liked best.
Over time all that looking and comparing started to sexually charge the viewing of certain size and shaped legs.
That is how sexual attraction works. Perhaps not all the time but at least some of the time.
You can charge the attraction by association and contemplation. I do not think I was born to like a certain type of female leg. I think I learned that. I esentially made a choice to allow myself to potentially be aroused by women's legs.
A friends said the girl on the next court had nice legs.
I did not give a shit about girls legs until that moment. She was the first imprint of girls legs. I then compared girls legs over time until I came realize what I liked best.
Over time all that looking and comparing started to sexually charge the viewing of certain size and shaped legs.
That is how sexual attraction works. Perhaps not all the time but at least some of the time.
You can charge the attraction by association and contemplation. I do not think I was born to like a certain type of female leg. I think I learned that. I esentially made a choice to allow myself to potentially be aroused by women's legs.
well, to steer this back towards the important questions raised on this topic, what if those legs had been owned by a little 12 year old queen dressed in a skirt?
Would you have been imprinted on the legs of 12 year old boys dressed in skirts playing tennis? Or would you have conditioned yourself not to be aroused by them?
Fact is, fcking a guy in the ass is a choice ... a choice that is not the equalivvent of fcking pussy ... No Matter What Obama's Supreme Court Says
EDIT: Remember, there was a court that ruled abortion CONSTITUTIONAL...
dark days indeed
I believe it was gays who spread AIDS around amongst themselves first. And then they gave it to the ladies.
The Catholic bit was supposed to be about the fact that their priests like to molest little boys.
Why is it there are so few Christians who choose to be chaste?
Why sin by using birth control or leave it up to chance with the unreliable rhythm method?
Choose to NOT have sex with a woman.
Choose to NOT masturbate.
Choose to do that for the rest of your life.
Hey let's make it very easy, if you're already over 25 choose abstinence for a year. It's just a choice after all right? Piece of cake?
Any takers?
There's an interesting side note to consider. The people who likely have it most in their self-interest in society today to think that homosexuality is a choice are those with insecurities and bi-tendencies.
If it was a choice for them to be straight, it's logical for them to also think it must therefore also be a choice for others to be gay. For them it MUST be a choice. It's much more convenient. If not, they might have to go in front of the mirror and start asking themselves if maybe they are actually bi.
It's unfortunate society has to torture such people with ultimately meaningless self-doubt instead of simply recognizing such differences without condemnation.
Why sin by using birth control or leave it up to chance with the unreliable rhythm method?
Choose to NOT have sex with a woman.
Choose to NOT masturbate.
Choose to do that for the rest of your life.
Hey let's make it very easy, if you're already over 25 choose abstinence for a year. It's just a choice after all right? Piece of cake?
Any takers?
There's an interesting side note to consider. The people who likely have it most in their self-interest in society today to think that homosexuality is a choice are those with insecurities and bi-tendencies.
If it was a choice for them to be straight, it's logical for them to also think it must therefore also be a choice for others to be gay. For them it MUST be a choice. It's much more convenient. If not, they might have to go in front of the mirror and start asking themselves if maybe they are actually bi.
It's unfortunate society has to torture such people with ultimately meaningless self-doubt instead of simply recognizing such differences without condemnation.
1. at this point in time no one knows the answer for sure.
2. Therefore only dickweeds would say that those who argue it is a choice are really closest gays fighting homosexual tendencies.
Why can't people argue against gay marriage without a bunch of losers crying out that the person against gay marriage is a gay bashing closet fag.
Such tactics are spineless.
2. Therefore only dickweeds would say that those who argue it is a choice are really closest gays fighting homosexual tendencies.
Why can't people argue against gay marriage without a bunch of losers crying out that the person against gay marriage is a gay bashing closet fag.
Such tactics are spineless.
is an ass fetish a choice.. or a mandate?
"Why can't people argue against gay marriage without a bunch of losers crying out that the person against gay marriage is a gay bashing closet fag."
Written just like a gay bashing closet "fag."
Actually, everything is a choice if there is free will, and if there is no free will then there is no choice.
Here is the bottom line:
You can't make a reasonable or Constitutional argument against gay sex or gay marriage.
Your arguments are all derived from the conclusion of your personal religious faith...
What is wrong with that?
If you don't understand what is wrong with using your own personal religion as a weapon against the rights of others, and their privacy, you really don't understand the essential concepts of the framers...
Written just like a gay bashing closet "fag."
Actually, everything is a choice if there is free will, and if there is no free will then there is no choice.
Here is the bottom line:
You can't make a reasonable or Constitutional argument against gay sex or gay marriage.
Your arguments are all derived from the conclusion of your personal religious faith...
What is wrong with that?
If you don't understand what is wrong with using your own personal religion as a weapon against the rights of others, and their privacy, you really don't understand the essential concepts of the framers...
zzz you fricken lowlife supporter of child molestation... this has nothing to do with my religion. As an american you have every right to be gay and I support your right to get naked with men. Go for it. As an american I support your right to have gay sex with your fellow adult trolls.
However, when a state has a law reads that a marriage is between a man and a women. You would have to argue the law is unconstitutional.
The key to the outcome will be whether the U.S. Supreme court chooses a strict scrutiny standard of review or a rational basis standard of review.
The U.S. supreme court has never said that those who have gay sex are a protected class (the way blacks are a protected class).
Therefore the court will be expected to deploy the rational basis standard of review. Laws subjected to the rational basis are always found constitutional.
Therefore laws defining marriage as being between a man or a women are constitutional.
zzz it took me five minutes to write this. It will take you a very long time to understand what I wrote is the gravaman of the matter.
However, when a state has a law reads that a marriage is between a man and a women. You would have to argue the law is unconstitutional.
The key to the outcome will be whether the U.S. Supreme court chooses a strict scrutiny standard of review or a rational basis standard of review.
The U.S. supreme court has never said that those who have gay sex are a protected class (the way blacks are a protected class).
Therefore the court will be expected to deploy the rational basis standard of review. Laws subjected to the rational basis are always found constitutional.
Therefore laws defining marriage as being between a man or a women are constitutional.
zzz it took me five minutes to write this. It will take you a very long time to understand what I wrote is the gravaman of the matter.