I feel pretty. Oh so pretty. I feel pretty and witty and g-a-a-a-y. And I pitty any girl who isn't me tod-a-a-a-y.

Is being gay hereditary?

Tihnk off the CLHILDRNe!N!!

If you have 2 older brothers, your odds of being gay shoot way up. Not exactly hereditary, but it's something to do with development. So, theoretically, if they could develop some sort of hormone treatment for the baby in the womb, it's possible they could severely reduce the number of gay people.

Whether or not that's a good thing is another question.

The say that one in 5 children born in the world is Chinese ..... I'm one of 5 brothers and 3 of them Brad, Josh and Matt think that is utter nonsense, however the other one Li Chang Wu is staying very tight-lipped on the subject

Based on the OP...

Being gay - what a pain in the arse.

Marriage has long been a welfare program for conservatives that's why they don't want to expand it.

Lol, nice Draug.

Alternate question: Why is *government acknowledged* gay marriage good for society?

And don't play the "It's only fair" card, because government treat people differently all the time. For example, government don't equally tax people. So, since we already know government don't treat all people equally, why should the government go out of the way to acknowledge gay marriage? What good will it do for *society*? And no...I don't want to hear about what perceived individual good it might do, becuse the government doesn't care about the individual, either - it is not proper to try to benefit an individual, unless it always benefits the whole.

So what good to society as a whole would it be to have government acknowledged gay marriage Shack up, express your love to the world, smoke all the pole you want – why do you need government approval? Hell, it *used* to be that good Liberals told government to stay the hell OUT of the bedroom…now you want the stamp of approval…

Krellin - Sorry to be on the other side of this issue from you, but the question is "What harm does it cause society *not* to acknowledge gay marriage?" And the answer is clear, it disenfranchises an entire group of citizens and treats them as second class citizens. I can think of another government did that to a group of its citizens in the late 30s. Anyone want to take a stab at who it was?

The webdip mods banning sandgoose?

You don't have to apologize for disagreeing with krellin, Draug.

Well, I consider him a friend and generally agree with his basic points on most things, even if I disagree with his delivery. But this one I disagree with his basic point on. And, as you well know, we Midwesterners hate to disagree with friends so we apologize up front when we do.

Draug - I actually wasn't taking a side, I was asking a question. But no, the government treats people differently all the time so clearly the governemtn doesn't act in all matters to make sure people are being treated equally (i.e. not disenfranchised). So the question remains: What benefit is it to the government and therefore society to recognize gay marriage. It is a completely different question from what harm is there. Government should act to benefit society as a whole. As for comparing gay marriage to killing jews, I think any ghost of a Jew would take umbrage with your comment...nobody is lining up gays for teh gas chamber, Draug - keep it real.

And, gays can currently get married - to a member of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals, right? Equal treatment. It's a valid argument. If gays can get married, then I want to marry my girlfriend and have two wives - I'm being disenfranchised from my special three-way love and our lover is oppressed by this bigotry - she's being cut out of rights of visitation when I die, etc even though she shares our bed, blah blah blah.

I am a Midwesterner and I love to disagree with friends.

bo - instead of getting your panties in a bunch because Draug is actually attempting civil dialogue, maybe you should try it. I didn't take a stand - I asked a question, the purpose of which is to see if people actually know WHY they espouse the beliefs they claim to have, and if their logic in holding said belief is consistent across the board. I find that *most* of the people around here, particularly on the left, have knee-jerk reactions to various issues, taking the stand they've been taught to take without having a clue why, without being able to defend it logically when you apply the same principles to a different situation....for example, gay marriage versus polygamy.

Government disenfranchises people all the time, but people throw this argument out as if it's the end of the discussion in gay marriage. Logically, it's not...not even close.

I'm not getting my panties in a bunch, I'm just subtly trolling you both as I pretend to listen during econ.

@Draug - Ok, alternate, alternate question: What is the purpose of the Federal Government? Is it to facilitate your love life? Or is it to negotiate treaties, fight foreign wars, keep the general defense of the nation? How does acknowledging gay marriage in any wayu support the general purpose of the Federal Government?

The Feds need to get OUT of marriage, not add new categories.

SUBTLY?

Yeah, kind of like how all of the dedicated climate scientists are simply trolling us all into thinking that the world is ending.

Bo- you should *really* be paying attention to econ. Or...well...maybe not, since the teacher is probably some left-wing, anti-free-market loon.

@Krellin -

From our Declaration of Independence (the *first* of our federal papers *before* the Constitution): All men are created equal.

Just because the government *doesn't* treat everyone fairly does not mean it should *continue* to not treat people fairly.

Let me put this in simple terms. A man beats his wife and kills her. He manages (somehow) to get out of the charges. He marries again. Because he beat and killed his first wife in the past, should he beat and kill this one as well? Your argument in a nutshell says he should because he should continue doing what he has always done.

And just because you can see no immediate positive outcome for society doesn't mean there isn't a hidden one. Arguably, abolishing slavery had a *negative* outcome to southern society and business. Should we still have slaves? Giving women the vote resulted in a reduction to the male populace's power and influence. Should we have not given women the right to vote?

But I will give you a positive. If gay marriage is recognized by the federal government, then they will feel more like full citizens of society and, in their state of happiness, they will be more productive citizens. A happy citizenry is a productive citizenry.

And I do agree they should be out of marriage and so should the states. But if they are going to be in it as they have always been, they need to be in it equitably for all people.

"And, gays can currently get married - to a member of the opposite sex, just like heterosexuals, right? Equal treatment. It's a valid argument. If gays can get married, then I want to marry my girlfriend and have two wives - I'm being disenfranchised from my special three-way love and our lover is oppressed by this bigotry - she's being cut out of rights of visitation when I die, etc even though she shares our bed, blah blah blah. "

We have had this discussion before. I believe any combination of consenting adults (legally able to enter into a binding contract) should be allowed to marry no matter the race, gender, or quantity thereof.

Draug - why does it need to be "marriage"? Why can't it be a simply "civil" arrangement that bestows upon them contractual rights to hospital visitation, financial benefits, etc?

Where you say, "I makes them happy...happy citizens are productive citizens" I can point to a whole bunch of citizens that are unhappy about it -- therefore, the government is making people unhappy if they promote gay marriage.

And if the government is supposed to be promoting the happiness of it's citizens...well, there are some poor kids out there that are being left out of the conversation in school because they can't afford the PS4/XBox One, and this is causing alienation and hard feelings. It's just simply not fair that *some* kids can have a new console, and others must suffer with out. Some of those kids will become bitter and angry and may very, very possibly turn to crime.

Sorry, Draug, you happiness argument doesn't fly; the purpose of the Federal Government is no way, shape for form is to promote your personal happiness.

Dec of Ind - everyone equal -- yes, as I stated before, "gays" can get married to a member of the opposite sex, in the equal manner that "non-gays" can get married to the opposite sex.

The whole gay marriage thing has nothing to do with anything but gays saying, "I want the label"...it isn't about financial transactions, inheritance, etc or they would be happy with suggestions of civil unions, which would be much easier to get passed. therefore, becuase they are insisting on a label, for the purposes of their self-worth, you are now suggesting that the Federal Government should be in the business of stroking people's ego and making them feel good about themselves...what a horrifying concept.

OK - as you stated above, you think anyone should be able to get married. I agree. I think the Feds need to get out of marriage completely. Go have your church ceremony or trade pixie sticks while dancing naked in the woods before your tribe - I don't' care - and then file the general civil paperwork with the court declaring who gets to visit you in the hospital and inherit your shit. Done.

"The purpose of the Federal Government is no way, shape for form is to promote your personal happiness"
-Krellin

"We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness"
-Declaration of Independence


Who do YOU belive?

The Declaration of Independence is not the Constitution. The Federal Government is formulated and runs based upon the Constitution.

Not to mention the fact that *your* quote, while close, is actually not a quote from the Declaration of Independence.

But find...let's discuss that quote...all men are created equal - this is a religious reference to God's creation. And in this creation, they have inalienable rights...in other words, these rights are INHERENT TO MAN, and not derived from Government.

Thanks for playing, but this, in no way, suggests that the purpose of government is to actively promote your happiness. That's just a completely wrong interpretation of this document.

YOU, personally, have the God-Given right of your creation TO PERSONALLY PURSUE HAPPINESS.

Nowhere at all does this document say, "And government must act to PROVIDE your happiness".


Disgusting liberalism and their constant misinterpretation of language to suit their political needs...

So you *do* think we should have continued with slavery as it made a lot of people in the south unhappy to no longer have slave labor as farm hands and household servants. And you *do* think we should have continued keeping women down and not allowing them the right to vote as the rich tycoons of business were incredibly unhappy with their will being perverted by them damn women's libers. And, for that matter, you *do* think you should have to own land to vote (once a requirement of voting as well).