Is being gay a choice?

[Svartalf]

Let me rephrase so your victimisation gland doesn't go off:

Is one still heterosexual if one hasn't had sex for 5 years?

Yep, definitely, I'd jump on a female the moment she said yes.

[pErvinalia]

Exactly.

[Cunt]

Let me rephrase so your victimisation gland doesn't go off:

Is one still heterosexual if one hasn't had sex for 5 years?

Yep, definitely, I'd jump on a female the moment she said yes.

Yes, but presuming you are a 'straight man', would you suck a dick for 100,000 Euros?

How about a million?

Ten million?

It wouldn't make you gay (in your desires), but it would certainly make you gay by your actions.

It's like the old joke...

Hammering one nail doesn't make you a carpenter. Fixing one flat doesn't make you a mechanic. Making one peanut butter sandwich doesn't make you a chef, but suck ONE cock...

[pErvinalia]

The point is, just because one isnt having gay sex (or living life as gay) doesn't mean that they are not gay.

[NineBerry]

In some cases it is a choice / cultural. In most cases it's a birth defect probably caused by hormonal issues during pregnancy. Probably even detectable / curable in the future, and may one day even be a standard prenatal test.

I hope they find the cure for being a racist earlier.

[NineBerry]

Choice is an illusion anyway. It only exists if you look at an abstract layer of reality as seen by human consciousness. But if you go down to the level of the molecules making up your body, it is all simple physical laws.

The idea that what someone chooses is based on what some imaginary ego decides is as ludicrous as the idea that Steve Jobs developed the iPhone.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

..."Marriage" is an inherently spiritual/religious rite, ...

What ludicrous rubbish. Over the whole of the human world, not just the christian west, it has always been a type of societally recognised contract, often regulated by government, sometimes accompanied by religious rites (religions love to parasitise existing social constructs...)

[Svartalf]

Seth wrote:

..."Marriage" is an inherently spiritual/religious rite, ...

What ludicrous rubbish. Over the whole of the human world, not just the christian west, it has always been a type of societally recognised contract, often regulated by government, sometimes accompanied by religious rites (religions love to parasitise existing social constructs...)

the religious aspect is just an add-on to the secular and patrimonial as^pects of the marriage contract.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

..."Marriage" is an inherently spiritual/religious rite, ...

What ludicrous rubbish. Over the whole of the human world, not just the christian west, it has always been a type of societally recognised contract, often regulated by government, sometimes accompanied by religious rites (religions love to parasitise existing social constructs...)

This is not true. It's a mixing of church and state, don't you see. Marriage only became a matter of government interest when governments decided to make it so. In the US, as in other places, the civil aspects of marriage began as a way for government to engage in racism by forbidding race mixing and mostly to regulate the ownership of property and aristocratic title. Marriage was regulated by kings to prevent the nobility from diluting the noble bloodlines by marrying commoners and to prevent commoners from becoming nobility, and to control inheritance of land and title.

But this is an appropriation of "marriage," which is primarily an emotional, spiritual and physical joining of two individuals who love one another and wish to bond themselves together exclusively. Religions have typically controlled marriage within the religion involved as a matter of religious, and therefore spiritual practice.

As I said, marriage is inherently spiritual and religious, and it only became a matter of government interest when the bonding affected the larger societal interests government controlled, or wanted to control.

Therefore there is no compelling reason not to divorce marriage from law entirely and let the spiritualists deal with the spiritual aspects of intimate partnerships and let the government deal with the civil aspects of such relationships. In this way government gets entirely out of the "marriage' business and the whole issue becomes entirely moot and therefore noncontroversial.

Isn't that what you want?

Or is it, as is obviously the case with the gay political agenda, that gays don't really care about marriage, they are trying to shove their personal sexual preferences down everybody else's throats by demanding "equality" when what they actually crave is attention and forcible acceptance of their lifestyle choices?

You see, my plan removes the motives for gays or anyone else to bitch about being treated "unfairly" or being discriminated against, so it entirely eliminates the self-righteous ability to claim victim status and thereby demand protected status, using which allows them to flaunt their lifestyle and force those who disagree with and don't want to participate in to serve the gay agenda of shoving the new-found liberties of gays in the faces of people who happen not to approve of that lifestyle.

And I think resistance to resolving this conflict by getting the government out of the marriage business entirely would frustrate the desire of gays to be able to force others to acknowledge and serve their lifestyle, which pisses them off because they want to lord it over "homophobes" just because they now can. It's a childish form of retribution for the past oppression of gays in my opinion. There is no other reason for gays to go to a wedding cake maker who does not wish to serve them for religious reasons than to be dog-in-the-manger abusers of their government-sanctioned victim status by shoving "homophobes" noses in it out of anger and resentment.

Rational adults of whatever gender preference who are not pro-gay bigots would respect the religious rights of some cake baker and go patronize some other baker who solicits their business and welcomes it.

Assholes deliberately target someone for abuse such as this, mostly to get money, and in doing so they don't advance the cause of gay rights, much less foster social acceptance of gays, they are key players in the destruction and damage to the cause of homosexual social acceptance, as is demonstrated by the backlash that's growing all over the US, and elsewhere, against homosexuals, transsexuals and others like them.

You see, you can't use the blunt instrument of the Mace of State to force people to socially accept you. All that does is harden their resistance to giving up their prejudices and bigotry.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

..."Marriage" is an inherently spiritual/religious rite, ...

What ludicrous rubbish. Over the whole of the human world, not just the christian west, it has always been a type of societally recognised contract, often regulated by government, sometimes accompanied by religious rites (religions love to parasitise existing social constructs...)

the religious aspect is just an add-on to the secular and patrimonial as^pects of the marriage contract.

It's exactly the opposite. Religion came first, government interests came later.

[JimC]

Seth wrote:

As I said, marriage is inherently spiritual and religious, and it only became a matter of government interest when the bonding affected the larger societal interests government controlled, or wanted to control.

Utter bullshit.

[devogue]

Seth wrote:

As I said, marriage is inherently spiritual and religious, and it only became a matter of government interest when the bonding affected the larger societal interests government controlled, or wanted to control.

Utter bullshit.

I agree with Seth somewhat.

For instance, what harm is caused by bigamy outside of private or religious concerns about morality? However it is illegal - why? I suspect it's much to do with property law.

[pErvinalia]

A lot of our laws have underpinnings in religious bollocks. Look at abortion and euthanasia.

[Hermit]

A lot of our laws have underpinnings in religious bollocks. Look at abortion and euthanasia.

Also, the protestant work ethic.

[Seth]

Seth wrote:

As I said, marriage is inherently spiritual and religious, and it only became a matter of government interest when the bonding affected the larger societal interests government controlled, or wanted to control.

Utter bullshit.

Not at all. Religious pair-bonding ceremonies long pre-date government administration of marriages. By hundreds of thousands of years at least.

We call that "historical fact" Jim. Go learn some, it'll help your arguments.