- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 22,676
- Reaction score
- 4,282
- Location
- DC Metro
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
What "could" happen 100 years from now is not a good reason to deny people the right to enter into a civil marriage with each other. 100 years ago we wouldn't have had interracial marriages either.
Also, you are still arguing under the false premise that because it might be a choice, that homosexuals are not being discriminated against because of it. This is wrong. Our discrimination laws clearly cover religion as protected against discrimination, and there is no doubt that religion is a choice. The argument you really must make is if there is a legitimate reason for that discrimination, such as homosexuality would be harmful to someone in the relationship or even someone outside the relationship(must be able to prove the harm) or that there is a unique government benefit that every heterosexual couple that is allowed to marry provides society, that homosexual couples do not. If you can't prove these, then the discrimination is unjust and wrong.
No, I'm not. I think it IS a choice. What I am saying is that those that argue that it is not choice cite studies that if read and understood in their entirety don't say that it IS NOT a choice. What they all say is that it may be genetic. Not that it IS genetic.