I'm speechless. People have a choice over what they do to some extent, but that was not the point. The point was, people don't have a choice on what they ARE.
People being whatever they "are" doesn't mean society has to officially recognize or sanction it.
Quote:
#1 is irrelevant. To accept the fact that a person is black, gay, etc. doesn't give them cart blanch to act criminally.
My point was, even if somebody is born gay, they have a choice on whether they act on those feelings.
Quote:
#2 is downright ridiculous. How a gay person is going to tone down me being a female or you being a male (I assume)?
I'm talking about the inherent male and female roles in both marriage and child-bearing, which "pinko liberals, such as yourself, like to minimize and regard as "irrelevant" or "ridiculous."
Quote:
#3 is irrelevant again. I don't get it. Are you trying to say if gay people can not get married, then they would have to marry straight and then have children? Why then so many gay couples still have children through surrogates, adoption, and sperm banks? Why should a straight person get stuck with a gay partner that's not into them? Is that fair to them? Is it fair to anyone in that relationship?
And why a gay citizen who pays taxes should not benefit the marital status with his or her partner just like you do?
I'm saying child bearing is a fundamental part of marriage and to equate a homosexual relationship - which can't produce children - to that of a man and a woman is wrong. I know, I know, child bearing is also an outdated, irrelevant notion by your liberal, pinko thinking.
Quote:
And why a gay citizen who pays taxes should not benefit the marital status with his or her partner just like you do?
Though I don't agree with it on moral grounds, gay people having relationships is tolerable. But not them trying to be officially recognized by the government or receiving equal benefits on similar "marriage" grounds.
Mods should mind their own business and leave poster's profile signatures alone.
