Posted by bistiza on 6/13/2013 3:28:00 PM (view original):

Everyone - whether they are black or white - can marry someone of the same race.

We've already been over this - race is determined by biology, and sexuality is determined by choice. 

What you're trying to do is the same as comparing height to getting a DUI - one involves a biological factor, the other involves an active choice.

In case you aren't aware (and I'm sure you're not), that means you can't compare the two things accurately. There goes that entire argument, but knowing how stubborn you are, I'm sure it will continue anyway (though not with me because I've already shown it to be illogical).

I disagree. I think sexuality is not a choice.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2013 3:26:00 PM (view original):
Laws that prevent felons from voting after they have completed their prison sentences and are no longer on parole or probation.

Are you going to admit that you were wrong?

Posted by bistiza on 6/13/2013 3:16:00 PM (view original):

It's not on me to do anything. I'm not even sure what exactly your question is.

I'm saying you ONLY care about the homosexual agenda, not about issues of "stupid, discriminatory laws" in general, as you suggested.

If I'm wrong, show me examples of "stupid, discriminatory laws" you care about that do not have anything to do with the homosexual agenda. Stop dancing around this and either do it or admit you can't.

You even put it in bold.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2013 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Why do you care SO MUCH about this law?

It strikes a chord with me. We prohibit a group of people from doing something that everyone else can. And we prohibit it primarily because we don't like them. 

I wish you were this passionate for the right to bear titties.

I disagree. I think sexuality is not a choice.

Yet despite all your efforts you haven't yet established that argument successfully, which means you can't attempt to make another argument from that one.

In other words, it doesn't matter if you disagree because logical reasoning and fact are against you.

Are you going to admit that you were wrong?

No, because I think you made up one example just to avoid the obvious, which is that you are only in favor of the homosexual agenda. I don't believe you really care about the law preventing felons from voting at all.

Otherwise, you'd have responded immediately  with many examples rather than dancing around the issue for some time before providing just one example.

I think you are an active part of the homosexual agenda, and you've done nothing to dissuade that idea.

1) We've already agreed that attraction to one gender or the other isn't a choice. You're arguing semantics.

2) Then why ask? I could have made up any answer at any time. Mike and I had already discussed felons and voting on the last page, I didn't need time to come up with the answer.

Free them big titties!!!

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 3:56:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2013 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Why do you care SO MUCH about this law?

It strikes a chord with me. We prohibit a group of people from doing something that everyone else can. And we prohibit it primarily because we don't like them. 

I wish you were this passionate for the right to bear titties.

I would love it if women walked around topless.

Well, spend less time demanding that gays should have the right to marry and spend more time championing the right to bear breasts.

Here you go.  I'm afraid you might get hurt, though.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/13/2013 4:38:00 PM (view original):
Well, spend less time demanding that gays should have the right to marry and spend more time championing the right to bear breasts.

I think you should spend less time fighting against the gays and more time fighting for ****.

We've already agreed that attraction to one gender or the other isn't a choice. You're arguing semantics.

We've already agreed that who you are with in sexual and/or romantic relationships is your choice.

We also agreed you don't always choose (or even have the option of choosing) to be with someone whose features match everything you find most attractive - meaning people choose to be with someone who isn't their ideal pick more often than not.

Put more simply: Attraction to one gender over another is no different than being attracted to any other feature i. e. If you're attracted to blondes and not brunettes, you may choose not to be with a brunette. That doesn't somehow mean you couldn't have made the choice to be with a brunette if you wanted to do so. Or you may choose to be with a brunette because you discover one whose other features you find attractive. Or maybe there are no blondes you like who also like you back, so you opt for a brunette since they do want you.

The point is there are plenty of reasons why people can - and do - choose to be with someone who isn't their ideal preference for any number of features, including hair color and, yes,  even gender. They can do this because IT'S A CHOICE.

Posted by bad_luck on 6/13/2013 3:14:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tecwrg on 6/13/2013 2:37:00 PM (view original):
Why do you care SO MUCH about this law?

It strikes a chord with me. We prohibit a group of people from doing something that everyone else can. And we prohibit it primarily because we don't like them. 

Yet, SSM aside, not everybody can marry whoever they want.

If Joe is married to Sally, and he wants to also be married to Karen, he can't.

Why aren't you also fighting for Joe's rights?

BECAUSE JOE WANTS TO BE WITH CHICKS!!!!!  DUH!!!!!