Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They are nor similar, and the laws in question are not bans, in fact they make no mention at all of gays.
Skin color is an inborn trait. Homosexuality is not.
Homosexuality is inborn, I did not choose to be gay, nor did two of my brothers, an uncle and a niece. Nor did any of my gay friends, none of us chose to be homosexual. Just because you do not accept that, does not mean being gay is not something one is born with. I cannot make myself straight anymore than I could make myself black. Any law that directly discourages same sex marriage is a ban, any law that directly associates marriage as exclusive to only a man and a woman is a ban. All will fall, all will fail in time, our constitution protects the freedoms of all of its citizens, not just straight ones.
Homosexuality is inborn, I did not choose to be gay, nor did two of my brothers, an uncle and a niece. Nor did any of my gay friends, none of us chose to be homosexual. Just because you do not accept that, does not mean being gay is not something one is born with. I cannot make myself straight anymore than I could make myself black. Any law that directly discourages same sex marriage is a ban, any law that directly associates marriage as exclusive to only a man and a woman is a ban. All will fall, all will fail in time, our constitution protects the freedoms of all of its citizens, not just straight ones.
Really? The gay army always shamelessly compares themselves to the black civil rights movement.
Are you saying that skin pigmentation is not genetic?
When are you going to get it through your head that the comparison is a legal one - the legal treatment of black people as compared to gay people - not a comparison between race and sexuality.
What makes you think it has to be controlled by a singular gene to be genetic? Lots of genes, epigenes, hormones, etc. are involved. Sexuality is too complex to be controlled by a single gene. It's still determined in fetal development.
When are you going to get it through your head that the comparison is a legal one - the legal treatment of black people as compared to gay people - not a comparison between race and sexuality.
There is absolutely zero comparison of the treatment of those groups.
To even suggest so is a slap in the face of the surviving people of the black civil rights movement, and pissing on the graves of those who gave their lives in support of that worthy cause.
What makes you think it has to be controlled by a singular gene to be genetic? Lots of genes, epigenes, hormones, etc. are involved. Sexuality is too complex to be controlled by a single gene. It's still determined in fetal development.
You are talking with someone who thinks evolution is a myth and believes in Young Earth Creationism.
Your post makes no sense I don't even know how to respond to your word salad.
It makes perfect sense.
No gay gene exists. Correct?
Dragonslayer suggested that inborn traits do not have to be genetic.
The gay army compares itself to the black civil rights movement - shamelessly, Harrier might add.
If the two are comparable, and homosexuality is not a genetic trait, does that mean that proponents of gay marriage who compare themselves to the black civil rights activists, think that skin pigmentation is also not genetic?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.