I Chose To Be Gay!

What a great piece, well done!

Bravo!! Superb writing!!

Wow - great job with this article! I think it's the best I've seen on this topic. And a nice touch marrying the illegal immigrant:)

Nice article! If I would have known you were going to make me laugh so hard with the illegal immigrant comment I wouldn't have taken a drink at the time:)

1.7 I wouldn't have taken a drink at the time:)

LOL -- I hate it when that happens. My computer has taken a great deal of abuse since I discovered the Vine.

That is an incredible article. Thank you!!

1.7 I wouldn't have taken a drink at the time:)

LOL -- I hate it when that happens. My computer has taken a great deal of abuse since I discovered the Vine.

Believe me, your's isn't the only one!

I am so glad I found your articles, POaks! FR sent!

You are probably right about the people who need to see it. It's a shame that you can hit a person with a train load of reality and they still won't get it!

You wanna be called names? How about these?

Smart

Witty

Cuter then a bugs ear

Funny

wait...whadda ya mean those aren't the kinda names ya'll were meaning??????

Good job, POak, really well written. And funny and acerbic and....

hey. How does Woodchip know you're cuter than a bugs ear? Who has ever seen a bugs ear?

This is a little disturbing...

Dear POaksie- I have seen some of your posts, I think this is the first article I have seen- excellent! Thank you, people really think gay is a lifestyle- they
have no idea. My cousin died of AIDS in the 80s and my bestie is gay. Trust me- if it were a choice no one would make it.

I did not see an ear, so therefore I'd HAVE to be cuter, wouldn't I?

Well, dang, we could get into a whole mess of philosophical fallacies and circular logic here, but instead I'll just say......process of elimination. Nobody has yet found a bugs ear cuter than you, so, in effect, Woodchip is right :-)

Of course I am....I am a woman, therefore I am right!!!!!!!!

/blech/ lol

"If a man makes a statement in the forest, and nobody hears him, is he still wrong?"

Of course.

Well, I'm doomed...

Maybe I'm not doomed...

What a pathetic pity piece.

The only reason gays experience these things is because they DEMAND that everyone accept their sexual preference. Gay pride marches, gay rights, gay education, gay adoptions, all of this is exclusive from society, designed to segregate gayness from the rest of society.

Being gay is nobody's business but your own. Stop throwing it in everybody's face. Who cares??

Who cares??

That would be fine attitude in my opinion.

Out of curiosity, is asking for the right to marry throwing it everybody's face in your opinion?

You already have the right to marry any member of the opposite sex you so choose.

Please leave it at that, I've depleted my patience of rightfully equating gay marriage with men marrying sheep.

If we left them alone and treated them as equals this wouldn't be an issue.

I couldn't agree more. You do realize that in order to be left alone, they must first sit down. It's like the guy who stands up in front of you in a movie theater, and just stands there.

And there you have it.

So you would rather these people live a lie just to satisfy your hate and judgment?

No. Marriage is a CHOICE. Do you seriously think single people who choose not to marry are living a lie?

A woman has the right to marry a man.

A man does not.

Gender discrimination, pure and simple.

What happened to "Who cares?"

A woman has the right to marry a man.

A man does not.

What? A man has the right to marry a woman. No discrimination there.

Lets take the idea of gay marriage further. In fact lets assume it becomes law. Do you really think it will stop there? What is to stop the 'minority' of brothers who want to marry their 'sisters?' Or divorced fathers from marrying their sons? Or divorced mothers marrying their sons or daughters. Or bigamy... which is outlawed. This is your predicament. If you would deny inner-family marriage, or bigamy, based on any reason, you are being hypocritical. If you support it, as I think you might, then you have tossed morality out the window and have ushered in a moral sickness that will destroy society. Can you articulate a counter point to this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Slippery slope: It's an informal fallacy.

Your argument against it not being gender discrimination would also support "You can marry people in your own race" as not being racial discrimination.

It's not a slippery slope argument since marriage effects everyone, directly or indirectly. It's a valid piece of the argument.

But you can choose to avoid it. Since you have no valid counterpoint against it.

Do you really think it will stop there?

That's the definition of a slippery slope argument.

And you my point?

Your argument about inner family marriages doesn't fly. We deny that based on the very high likelihood of serious birth defects

You mean a divorced father can impregnate his legal aged son? Or that these people can't take medical measures to prevent pregnancy? Can't they abort defects just like single teens can? I mean why should Gays be the only ones who can't propagate the species 100% of the time?

Face it. You have NO argument.

aaron you seem to think slippery slope arguments are invalid. Some are, some aren't In this case it is in logically valid form since brothers actually have married sisters.

To make it valid, all I have to prove is that incest marriages have happened.

Ottenheimer also points out that sibling marriages were not always such an aberration.

"Brothers and sisters married in a number of different societies," he says. "This happened in Peru. This happened in Egypt. This happened in Hawaii."

ABC NEWS

Now stop dodging the question. Do you support inner family marriages or not?

I think my counterpoint was very valid.

I tore it to shreds. Try again.

harry--

There are already laws against all the things you mentioned in your post #1.32, and for very sound medical reasons.

moral sickness that will destroy society. Can you articulate a counter point to this?

Calling it a "moral sickness" is arbitrary, judgmental and elitist. Claiming it will "destroy society" is, at best, a guess, and at worst, a judgment call.

I understand that opposing view points can be called moral judgments, also. So the question is, leaving our own personal opinions out of the equation, does denying same-sex couples the legal rights afforded to other couples violate any of the Constitutional principals this country is guided by?

No, I believe that you have to show a chain of implication as well. And your insistence that morality is going to go out the window if we don't artificially decide to take a stand against gay marriage rights is no where near a clear chain of implication.

Inner family marriages? I've never given it much thought, since I don't know anyone who's wanted to do such a thing. I really don't have a formed opinion.

Have you conceded that it is gender discrimination, but just decided that's the price to pay to keep immorality at bay?

does denying same-sex couples the legal rights afforded to other couples violate any of the Constitutional principals this country is guided by?

As in Civil Unions? No. If Civil Unions are not providing the necessary legal rights for gay partners then change them so they do.

aaron,

Inner family marriages? I've never given it much thought, since I don't know anyone who's wanted to do such a thing. I really don't have a formed opinion.

Well now you do. Read it. Should they be afforded the right to marry?

Hmm.

Honestly I wouldn't be bothered at all if they got married.

So as to that gender discrimination?

Honestly I wouldn't be bothered at all if they got married.

Interesting. POak doesn't think so, citing genetic birth defects. So some gays would object, and some gays wouldn't.

Just like some people object to gay marriage (including Elton John and Obama), and some don't. Gays say that those of us who oppose gay marriage are bigots. I wonder aaron... would you call POak a bigot for opposing inner-family marriages?

Or does your hypocrisy have no limits?

Or does your hypocrisy have no limits?

Have I called anyone a bigot?

Now you're just get nasty and personal.

my apologies. You are right. Let me rephrase the question. Would it be acceptable to you if people labeled POak as a bigot for opposing inner-family marriage? If you anser no, then are people who oppose gay marriage bigoted?

I didn't start the gay marriage discussion. Just curious where it will go...

I generally don't go for the calling people a bigot thing. So I wouldn't call POak a bigot myself. And I wouldn't call anyone opposing gay marriage a bigot either, though I imagine the description fits some well. But not all.

I do, however, strongly feel they're on the wrong side of a debate on individual rights and liberties.

But this statement is particularly ugly:

I've depleted my patience of rightfully equating gay marriage with men marrying sheep.

I honestly wish I could stay longer, I do love debating with people who see things differently. Especially if it can be kept civil. But domestic duties are demanding my attention.

Despite our differences, and even the bit of ugliness, I hope your night goes well.

Oh! And apology completely accepted. I almost forgot than bit of civility.

Baaaaa!

Just kidding. I've enjoyed the debate and of course i'm not serious about equating gay marriage with men marrying sheep. I have a bad habit of rustling feathers rather unnecessarily at times.

Thanks for accepting my apology. Have a great day.

You do realize that in order to be left alone, they must first sit down. It's like the guy who stands up in front of you in a movie theater, and just stands there.

Damn those black people and their ignorant ways! Wanting to sit in the front on the bus and sitting at the counter with white people! And wanting to be able to marry a white person! They have rights! They have the right to be on the bus, to go into restaurants, and to get a civil union!* What do they think this is? 2010?! *sarcasm*

*As long as they are segregated to the back of the bus, sit in the crappy corner of the restaurant and not mingle with the white folk, and they have no choice for marriage, and can only have a civil union and they do not get the same rights in an actual marriage.

Not as much as your article means to those of us who have been banging our heads against the wall trying to get people to realize that being gay is not necessarily a choice. I have a number of friends and relatives who are gay & it peeves me that they are discriminated against at every turn.

I was involved in an "debate" recently with someone was insisting that homosexuality could not be genetic due to some ridiculous argument I won't bore you with.

But I watched one of the most dear people in the world to me come out and go through struggle of self loathing and despair about being gay. He's now find and happy thank God.

If it's not genetic it's completely unlike anything I understand as choice.

The kids coming up now have so much less of a problem with any of it. I guess it's only natural that would lead to some experimentation. Though the "cool" thing is a bit lame yeah ;)

Ok... The argument was simple. Homosexuality cannot be genetic, because homosexuals tend not to produce children. So the mutation would expire. (I'm paraphrasing)

Yeah. It's a stupid argument. ;)

I pointed him at the concept of kin selection, tried to explain how a trait that even outright eliminated the ability of a portion of a population to reproduce could still be selected for, asked him to explain how soldier termites could have been selected for (they don't reproduce) etc etc.

It didn't matter. He was running with it.