4/1/2013 8:55 AM
You said the choice of one's sexual partner matters because it determines their sexual preference.  Why does someone's sexual preference matter?

Clearly it matters or else we would not even be having this discussion, i.e. if everyone were heterosexual, there would be no need for a discussion of this issue as it wouldn't exist.
Bistiza, you're an idiot, so it doesn't surprise me that you don't know what the word "preference" means, but I'll just check the dictionary for you:

dahs, you seem somewhat intelligent until you start with the personal attacks, and then you seem like a petulant child.
"That which one prefers." Not "That which one chooses."

You choose who you prefer to be with. No one forces anyone else (under normal circumstances) to be with anyone in particular, either romantically and/or sexually. You're in control of who you are with in those ways, and clearly those choices indicate who you prefer to be with at that time.
Sexual preference is not a choice.  Who you choose to have sex with is a choice.  But not sexual preference.
Sure, you could prefer to have sex with someone else, but that is irrelevant compared with what you actually do.
I wish you'd respond to the questions about having sex with men...  If it's a choice, you could do that, right?  Just flip the switch in your head and change to a homosexual preference.  Right?
If I wanted to do so, yes, I could.

There's no reason anyone can't do so if they want to do so. It's simply a matter of what you want to do - everyone has their own reasons for choosing what they do, and anyone could change at any time. It's up to each person to choose.
4/1/2013 9:11 AM
"Clearly it matters or else we would not even be having this discussion, i.e. if everyone were heterosexual, there would be no need for a discussion of this issue as it wouldn't exist."

The argument being made is that it shouldn't.  Why do you think it does/should as it relates to marriage?
4/1/2013 9:33 AM
I believe marriage is a term that should mean a union between a man and a woman.

I'm all for equal rights, and homosexuals should have equal rights. That does not mean it needs to be called marriage. Give them the same rights and call it a civil union, give it some other term, but don't call it marriage.

I just don't want the term "marriage" to include anything other than a man and a woman, because I value that term, and I think it loses its value when it includes same-sex unions (or whatever you want to call them - just not marriage).
4/1/2013 9:34 AM
Biz, are you sexually attracted to men?
4/1/2013 9:59 AM
No, bad luck, I am not sexually attracted to men.

However, just like anyone else, I could decide to persue a romantic and/or sexual relationship with anyone - including a man - for any reason or reasons I want, so it's really irrelevant.

4/1/2013 10:03 AM
Posted by bistiza on 4/1/2013 9:33:00 AM (view original):
I believe marriage is a term that should mean a union between a man and a woman.

I'm all for equal rights, and homosexuals should have equal rights. That does not mean it needs to be called marriage. Give them the same rights and call it a civil union, give it some other term, but don't call it marriage.

I just don't want the term "marriage" to include anything other than a man and a woman, because I value that term, and I think it loses its value when it includes same-sex unions (or whatever you want to call them - just not marriage).
Why do you feel that way? What do you care what homosexuals do?
4/1/2013 10:11 AM
Posted by bistiza on 4/1/2013 9:59:00 AM (view original):
No, bad luck, I am not sexually attracted to men.

However, just like anyone else, I could decide to persue a romantic and/or sexual relationship with anyone - including a man - for any reason or reasons I want, so it's really irrelevant.

It's really not irrelevant. You aren't sexually attracted to men, so men aren't an option for you when you choose a partner.
4/1/2013 10:41 AM
See that's where you're wrong - men are still an option for me, just as they are for anyone. That's WHY your question is irrelevant.
4/1/2013 11:11 AM
If you review the questions the Justices asked in regards to the Prop 8 case, orientation isnt important.

This is an issue of legal standing.

You can agree or disagree that gays should be married. What we need to establish is how these issues are to be dealt with in law.

Giving the power to the people or giving the power to the Federal Government.
4/1/2013 11:38 AM
Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/1/2013 11:11:00 AM (view original):
If you review the questions the Justices asked in regards to the Prop 8 case, orientation isnt important.

This is an issue of legal standing.

You can agree or disagree that gays should be married. What we need to establish is how these issues are to be dealt with in law.

Giving the power to the people or giving the power to the Federal Government.
For Prop 8, wasn't the question of standing related to who could defend the statute, not Fed vs States rights?

Since the State of CA isn't willing to defend the statute, another group would have to show damages to appeal the lower court's ruling.

Otherwise the appeal will get tossed and Prop 8 will be overturned per the lower court's ruling.
4/1/2013 11:39 AM
Posted by bistiza on 4/1/2013 10:41:00 AM (view original):
See that's where you're wrong - men are still an option for me, just as they are for anyone. That's WHY your question is irrelevant.
But you aren't gay, so you would never choose a man.
4/1/2013 12:03 PM
I'm not gay BECAUSE I haven't chosen a man, not the other way around.

Has this been your problem all along? If so, you really need to learn how cause and effect work.


Never mind the fact that you can't even be sure of the statement you made - my choice could change, so you have no idea if I would "never" do any such thing.


4/1/2013 12:05 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/1/2013 12:05:00 PM (view original):
I'm not gay BECAUSE I haven't chosen a man, not the other way around.

Has this been your problem all along? If so, you really need to learn how cause and effect work.


Never mind the fact that you can't even be sure of the statement you made - my choice could change, so you have no idea if I would "never" do any such thing.


No, you're not gay because you aren't attracted to men.

I could give you a hug and not be gay. But if I was attracted to you, I'd be gay, whether or not I gave you a hug.
4/1/2013 12:08 PM
Attraction has nothing to do with it.  Anyone can be attracted to anyone and it means nothing.

You could be attracted to women but have a sexual encounters with only men - you're gay, not straight.

You could be attracted to men but only have sexual encounters with women - you're straight, not gay.

Again, you need to learn how cause and effect work.

4/1/2013 12:20 PM
Posted by bistiza on 4/1/2013 12:08:00 PM (view original):
Attraction has nothing to do with it.  Anyone can be attracted to anyone and it means nothing.

You could be attracted to women but have a sexual encounters with only men - you're gay, not straight.

You could be attracted to men but only have sexual encounters with women - you're straight, not gay.

Again, you need to learn how cause and effect work.

Attraction has everything to do with it.

Gay or straight is only about who you are attracted to.

Like you said, you could decide to blow a dude. But if you hate it, you're straight (or you're one of several girls I dated in high school).
of 358

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.