I'm saying I don't care whether it is biological or not, because it doesn't matter from a practical standpoint. I believe there is a strong genetic basis for being gay, but I don't think the science is totally settled (few things in genetics are). If the science suddenly turned the other way, it wouldn't factor into my opinion. I'd be just as strongly in favor of gay rights.

Are you saying you wouldn't be?

Would you oppose gay rights?

If not, then that is exactly my point. Personally, it wouldn't change my opinion. I'd still be just as strongly in favor.

If so, you have seriously messed up priorities.

I'm 100% I'm going to get another one offer that doesn't answer my question.

I'll be waiting.

choose to be gay?

As someone with an actual working knowledge and experience with genetics research, I think your lack of knowledge on it is showing. Overwhelming evidence that there is a strong genetic component, yes. Overwhelming evidence that it can't be changed, 100%. So no not a choice at all. "repairative" therapists are a pseudoscience scams, we both agree on that. There is no way to change someone's sexual orientation, even if it had a .0001% success rate (it has a 0) it would be wrong to try to without their consent, as often happens to teenagers forced into these programs by their abusive parents.

Completely settled as to the exact causes of and that it is only 100% genetic with no epigenetic factors? We don't have that for any complex human behavior period.

Of course you'll try and again twist this into me thinking being gay is choice, despite my obvious stance on it.

keeping people from getting married before.

Now state marriage laws will not be able to discriminate based on sex any longer.

And biological gender doesn't cause 100% any elective human behavior. There is no elective complex behavior that men engage in that women don't.

Again, most of our basic rights are not derived from inherited biological forces. They are derived from a universal state of humanity that everyone has.

of the same sex.

The forms had boxes for two different genders.

Most prominently, the idea of gender roles, which harm everyone.

However, it doesn't change the fact that I think homophobia is wrong from a fundamental human freedom standpoint.

of Justices on the Supreme Court, and their's are the opinions that count.

But put aside the issue of orientation -- there was STILL the issue of sex discrimination. Barring same-sex marriages meant that a person wasn't able to choose a marriage partner simply because of that person's GENDER. And that was illegally discriminatory.

No one has answered this question. If you would still support gay rights, then you would agree it doesn't matter. Thats what I think. That is why I'm asking the question.

And that constituted illegal discrimination.

If homosexuality wasn't genetic, would you still support gay rights?

If you would still support it, clearly you agree it doesn't matter whether it is or not.

That is my position, I'm asking if it is yours.

Even if being gay were completely a choice, and a lifestyle, which it isn't, it is harmful to no one.

But that has nothing to do with the regressive practice of polygamy. Government has the right to make laws that favor certain practices and not others, and (based on available research) I'm comfortable with polygamy not being favored or supported by law -- though I think it should be de-criminalized.

Maybe you should read the Obergefell opinion.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/06/26/3674356/single-important-word-todays-historic-marriage-equality-opinion/

Regardless of the genetic nature of it is now considered "libertarian trolling".

should be restricted?

No.

kthxbai

Mostly by saying "I don't like it" means it is harmful.

do people favor restricting?

Please tell me you're not so dishonest as to claim that prostitution and polygamy are completely non-harmful and that opposition to them is only based on irrational 'ick' factors.

Both are made so by draconian social restrictions. Same thing with pornography.

We make things harmful by pushing them underground. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.

There is no reason legal and well regulated pornography, prostitution or polygamy have to be harmful.

more of the glibertarian bullshit--economic exploitation of human sexuality is GREAT if it's legal.

at least the honest libertarians concede that not every harmful behavior should be regulated.

it's quite another to sit there and pretend that institutions that depend on economic disparity, exploitation, and inequality are never inherently harmful.

In the Netherlands, they import poor women from Eastern Europe and Africa to service the johns there?

Wanna know why?

Because educated Dutch women who have other options don't enter that trade.

Because, you know, it's really not good for them.

As a matter of fact...

Drat, the clown for the party canceled on me. The cake isn't ready either

I'm shocked and outraged you would threaten me with clowns.

I think you might like those. Have no idea why though.

I learn something every day.

Whether it's an innate characteristic (which I believe it is) or not, there is no logical or moral reason to oppose rights for LGBTQ people.

was born that way or not, what matters is leave her the fuck alone and as long as her relationship is with a consensual adult, it is none of my business, etc.

is that what it is all about?

That is the place where most of these posts are speculating, proselytizing and rationalizing from.

I'm gay. I've known it since I was 15. I didn't just suddenly become part of some trend, that was my life and IS my life at stake.

going on and on about how horrible and dishonest people are who don't support polygamy and who mention that polygamy and polyamory are not at all the same thing.
Reason for PPR: Operating multiple accounts, created new accounts while flagged for review

I would like to suggest that you apologize to the many good DUers your sock pal insulted in threads hosted by you. You were playing big chums with the sock, and that sock called other people dishonest and you know that's really vile. I would like to think you did not know that person was a big fake, but to believe that requires me to think you are lacking in discernment skills and the ability to read what is in front of you.
I think that whole display you and that creep put on was nasty, aggressive and obviously at least on the part of the sock, wholly dishonest. I mean, he was 'poly' in that he was many posters. Does that count?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=324427&sub=trans

You realize if that was the case, my posting privileges would be revoked too.

I have no control over what other people do to their accounts. Why should I apologize for the behavior of people I don't even know?

There were other people with thousands of posts in that thread who agreed with me or didn't. I'm not responsible for the behavior of anyone except myself and I didn't sock-puppet anybody.

Honestly had no idea they were a sock. I don't even know who they were a sock of.

I said this- " I would like to think you did not know that person was a big fake, but to believe that requires me to think you are lacking in discernment skills and the ability to read what is in front of you."

After this response I'm going with the second option. You got played. But you know, your falling for that crap allowed that sock to insult people all up and down your thread. That's how you roll I guess.
But man, if you fell for that you would fall for any line of crap that tugged your rope.

You're implying I had any ability to stop them from posting whatever they wanted to. They were acting in bad faith and got banned. That isn't my fault. I agreed with Human Activist just as much as I agreed with that person.

What exactly did they say that was "bigoted"?

launched. Unwittingly, sure. But the thing is, you try to come on like the Big City Sexpert you were the schlemiel of the week. You and Human Activist share the schlemiel of the week. Equally of course, or if you would prefer, you could share it with your sock pal in a sexy, very avant three way award scenario.

Sorry to distract from your self certain sermonizing. Carry on.

"You and Human Activist share the schlemiel of the week. Equally of course, or if you would prefer, you could share it with your sock pal in a sexy, very avant three way award scenario. "

Perfect example of why these threads need to be made. Some people seriously don't get it. You're the one demanding I apologize for the behavior of some sock puppet, but you're the one actively insulting people's sexuality.

Why these threads had to be made? By Wella and the sock crowd? Jesus, dig that hole deeper.
You and Human Activist getting catfished by some religious asshole. Both of you were nasty and dismissive of people you have seen here for years while you rushed to rally around people who were not even real, not telling the truth.

You got played while crowning yourself Dan Savage for a day. It's hilarious.

You were mocking them, implying the only reason I'd defend them is I'm one of that. Why does all that sound familiar to me... hmmm.

I find it hilarious you found their posting more offensive than claims like "their relationships are intrinsically less valuable" and "not all consenting romances between adults deserve equal dignity". Given your flippant and rude attitude toward the subject matter, I'm inclined to believe you do.

Every time I make a thread about it, I see a perfect example of why these threads need to be made.

Meanwhile, I agreed with a poster acting in bad faith by having multiple accounts. I don't know how I'll ever live down the shame.

Right? It must be, according to your OP.

Homosexual and heterosexual behaviors are both behaviors that are expressions of an underlying sexual orientation and identity.

I don't know much about it though, I'm pretty exclusive in having sex with other guys.

What a ridiculous nitpick.

FYI, generally (but not always) it has been gay behaviors that were legally restricted. That is where the meme of "just live cold sexless lives with no intimacy and you'll be fine" from bigots who wanted to police other people's lives come from.

Are they unable to love? Should they be denied the right to marriage because they do not fall into the two bucket basket of hetero/homo?

Questions abound on this subject.

Kissing your parent or cuddling them can be an expression of both your love and an underlying sexual orientation. I do know asexual people who aren't aromantic and some who are romantically inclined to the same gender. I know one really nice guy who is, I wish him all the happiness in the world.

certain voices are limiting marriage to either hetero or homo marriages. The asexual falls outside of these bounds just like the poly does. The asexual does not have a natural sexual tendency, so any relationship would be based on lifestyle choice, not biological drive.

I agree, marriage is an expression of love, not of basic biological urges manifested in a contract.

You seem to be saying all this.....
----------------
It doesn't matter why you are gay, if it is innate or a choice. You deserve civil rights regardless of the reason. Being a member of a religion is a choice, and there are legal protections for religions.

As being gay Affects (not effects) no one else, there should be no restrictions on "gay behaviors".

If a study came out proving something that we don't know about, even then we shouldn't strip gays of anti-discrimination protection because that would be discriminatory.

Various civil and constitutional rights are not dependent upon genetics cause, but are civil rights.

Genetics are not necessary for a behavior.

If a behavior does not harm others, and is between consenting adults, no reason to restrict it.
-------------

My questions for you. What are "gay behaviors"? Why conflate religion with being gay, as far as protections and rights?

Do you seriously believe that it doesn't matter why you are gay? Tell that to so many who have had to deal with parents and others trying to force them to not be gay, to pray the gay away, to be looked down upon, mistreated, awfully, for "chosing" to be gay. Tell them that it doesn't matter why they are gay, whether a choice or innate matter.

Pretty much the only part of what you write that I agree with is "If a behavior does not harm others, and is between consenting adults, no reason to restrict it".

restricted in the United States, that all came to an end years ago. So if we are talking about things people do, what's the problem? People already can and do any old thing they want to do.
So that's settled.

They were the one who brought it up.

To escape the cognitive dissonance of supporting the right for gays to exist and the idea you shouldn't be policing other consensual sexual behaviors by adults. They want to continue to legally control the sexuality of others, but want to be supportive of gay rights. Essentially that even if it wasn't genetic, it would still be an asshole move to try and control the sexuality of consenting adults. How many people here would be willing to admit they would do a 180 on gay rights if it wasn't genetic? If you wouldn't do that, then your position on gays shouldn't have anything to do with whether it it innate or not.

I do agree that the fact it isn't a choice makes people more supportive, but I'm saying that it really shouldn't matter in the end.

I focused mostly on behaviors, because that is generally what is restricted. I do agree that there is a lot more to being gay than gay behaviors. That clearly didn't come through as clearly as I wanted it to in my post.

the nasty replies about polymarriage? "They want to continue to legally control the sexuality of others, but want to be supportive of gay rights" makes me think that. And yes, I've noticed.


"How many people here would be willing to admit they would do a 180 on gay rights if it wasn't genetic?" That makes no sense. It is rather like: How many would be willing to say it's ok to kill someone if they didn't stay dead? How many more people would put litter in trash containers when out in public if they knew otherwise it'd end up rotting in their bed?

The question makes no sense to me.

If the reason you support gay rights is that being gay is genetic, then it only stands to reason that if everything else was exactly the same, but it wasn't genetic you wouldn't support gay rights anymore.

It is more of a thought exercise than anything. All else being equal change y, how do you respond? If it doesn't change how you respond then y wasn't really the crux of the issue in the first place.

The fact is gay people should have the same rights regardless of if being gay is determined at birth. I think it is, but even if it wasn't, it shouldn't be a factor.

beyond the one that says "human." I support you on this issue.

[center] [/center]

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]It would be nice to live in a world where so long as we aren't hurting or endangering others all behavior between consenting adults is legal.

But we don't live in such a world.

If all biological components for sexual orientation were disproven tomorrow, I doubt a single person here would change their position. We would continue to solider on and try and change people's minds in favour of LGBTQ acceptance and rights.

But I can't say that for the average American. I can't say that if that happens support for marriage equality would not vanish with moderates and a constitutional amendment banning SSM would be before congress. We have been advocating for LGBTQ acceptance for decades and only recently has it become popular...in SPITE of there being evidence that orientation is biological and not a choice.

Whether we like it or not, a large number of people believe it is perfectly fine to discriminate against people for the choices they make even if it does not affect anyone else. And the fact that orientation is not a choice, that it has a biological component has been one of our most persuasive arguments to win them over to our side.

Because punishing people for something beyond their control goes against the average american's sense of justice and even then only just 60% of Americans have been persuaded, and I am not going to risk jeopardizing the progress that has been made by undermining one of the most powerful arguments at our disposal.[/font]