Unless a rape occurs, everyone  chooses whether or not to engage in sexual activity.  

this an "up for grabs" issue.  perhap we need to settle the argument regarding the "gay" factor.  is it biological, psychological, physiological, or enviromental.  what ever it is, one thing for sure is that it exists and these folks are law abiding, tax paying citizens.  we have to be careful not to marginalize people just because they are different.

joa

excuse me, let me rephrase, ask your gay friends when they chose their orientation

probably not because Jesus did uphold the institution of traditional (one man one woman) marriage

joa

I see homosexuality as an innate characteristic not a chosen behavior. 

No,  he has it right.  WHen it comes right down to it, no one has this right. You may love Angellina Jolie, but you do not have the right to marry her, only the opportunity.  If she agrees.

Okay, let's say two human beings, over the age of 18, should have the right to marry each other if they choose. 

Sorry, actually it's not "up for grabs" even though the homosexual movement would like to paint it that way and evidently you have bought into their argument.  Ever since the late 60s, homosexual activists and their supporters are trying to list a person's "sexual orientation" (as though sexual behavior is somehow their identity) as a minority classification alongside bona fide protected groups based upon race, gender, ethnicity, etc.

There is no right to homosexuality so what "right" do homosexuals have to claim this special status? The courts have 3 basic criteria to determine if a minority group deserves civil rights protections. One of them as I have said is that the group must exhibit obvious, immutable or distinguishing characteristics as in race or gender. The homosexual community fails on all 3 measures.

JOA POSTS:

"Orientation"? I see you have bought into homosexualist sophistry as well..but let's go with it. We are all born with the heterosexual orientation.  Unlike homosexuality, heterosexuality is immutable. All human beings with the exception of hermaphrodites (people with genital deformities) are born with a reproductive system that is heterosexual by nature. We are either male or female. We have sexual feelings only becasue of chemical and other processes that are rooted in our procreative heterosexual design. Thus, a male is sexual orientated  toward a female (or vice versa) is self evidently normal and natural. By contrast male to male or female to female attraction is self evidently abnormal and unnatural. In reality, homosexuality is nothing more than same gender sexual behavior among people who are innately and unchangeably heterosexual. Homosexuality is more equivalent to pedophilia, sado-machochism, beastility, or any sexual behavior that deviates from the normal design based function of the human being.   

BOUDICA POSTS:

BOUDICA,

I can't count how many times I've heard homosexuals aren't responsible for their behavior, but that God is. In the theory of SPecial Creation, based upon the Holy Bible, God would not have created a genetic condition which sabotaged His own design, nor would He have created an entire class of people with no choice but to engage in a behavior which He had condemned. On the contrary, God gives each person free will and holds him accountable for his choices.

What about the idea that people are born homosexual? The preponderance of evidence is on the side that it's not genetic. Researchers, clinicians, and psychologists think it's learned behavior and evidence for this  comes from many sources. Many doctors believe that homosexuality arises from various environmental factors. Adverse situations in a child's life that can lead to homosexual temptations are peer rejections, homosexual molestation, same sex experimentation, exposure to homosexual pornography, etc.

The idea that homosexuality is an inborn trait is debunked further and rather conclusively by the existence of hundreds of thousands of men and women who have successfully changed their sexual preference and left the homosexual lifestyle.

I am willing, in fact, I am asking to be enlightened to the difference between homosexual rights and the rights of the heterosexual community. It seems to me that under the Constitution, we all have the same rights as human beings. I have never understood this push for homosexual "rights". They are US cititzens, they are human beings...they get the same rights as the rest of us do.

Let's say this is the case, that an individual is "shaped" by the harmonic convergence of various environmental factors which in fact causes their minds to interpret their inate biological information in an abnormal way.

Is this their choice?  Is this their fault?  and, since their population is growing, how shall we treat them within our society?  If there is something "wrong" with them, do we have any obligation to them while we are trying to find a "cure".

You say they have the same rights as everyone else and, technically, they do.  But they are shunned, judged, rejected, and by some, hated for a quality they posess that most of them had nothing to do with.

Perhaps if folks were not so homophobic, it wound not be such an issue.  If there existed some compassion amongst healing communities, like the church, perhaps things would be different. But, true to form, we need to nail anyone who's oddities fall beyond the boundaries of our own.  This is, at the core, sounds like nothing more than bigotry.

The main difference I can see between homosexual rights and the rights of the heterosexual community is the lack of ability for homosexuals to obtain a legal status that recognizes long term, monogamous relationships.  Honestly, their community is not known for having a high percentage of these kind of relationships, none the less, they feel they are entitled to the same benefits (tax, health etc) of any legal long term commited realtionship.  They wish to have this legal process to separate themselves from those who are merely cohabitating and realize that with priviledge comes responsibility and they are willing to accept that as well.

I am in favor of this kind of change.  Committed, momogamous relationships are healthier and provide more stability for the individuals, their families and our communities than revolving partnerships.  I believe this change will benefit everyone.  I am in favor of civil union for homosexual partners, I am not in favor of marriage as I believe marriage means one man and one woman.

joa

many overcome all kinds of things but they always need the following:

acceptance

support

compassion

time

this is a good place to start

joa

I am close to two people who describe themselves as homosexual---one male in late 30's and a women in late 60s, both of whom suffered under the bondage of homosexuality and are now living chaste lives.  Every person has crosses to bear in this life and suffering is real and painful. Homosexual persons, like unmarried heterosexuals, must be chaste to be truly happy.

Most people I know including myself are the "live and let live" types.....very tolerant and fair-minded. But tolerance is no longer enough and most homosexuals want full blown acceptance and legal recognition of their sexual behavior in the form of "rights".  I do not buy into the victimhood status and am against giving legal recognition based upon a person's sexual behavior. I know that homosexuals aren't oppressed victims of unjust discrimination. They aren't being told to sit in the back of the bus and aren't being denied credit or education becasue of the sexual behavior. They are for the most part  successful, affluent, and undetectable unless they want to be detected.

Because of AIDS and other diseases, I can't agree  that the homosexual population is growing.

JOA,

I agree completely with your comments in #26.

Lula-

I don't completely agree with your perspective but I believe, though not in the same paragraph, we are on the same page.

I have enjoyed your commments

JOA

Well, if you need help, I will donate some time.

Hugh and Hillary Rodham should have the right to marry each other?