Hope for same-sex marriage still a faint glimmer in Thailand

[Longwood50]

59 minutes ago, Mr Dome said:

Referring to the part about mammals & animals:

n few species. In males it is most likely to be correlated with dominance and thus to occur in species with hierarchies such as terrestrial monkeys and members of the sheep and goat tribe. In females it is often correlated with sexual condition; a female in heat most often mounted another female, 

Two things.  First off do these animals who had sex with another animal of the same sex, also have sex with animals of the opposite sex.  That would make them "bi-sexual" Not homosexual.  Secondly, the fact that one male lords over another as dominance, or that another female licks another female during mensuration is hardly sexual behavior.

Name 1 just 1 example of males or females who are "homosexual" that is they have sex with only another of their own sex to the exclusion of others.  That sir, is decidedly human. 

[Mr Dome]

On 12/20/2021 at 11:40 AM, Longwood50 said:

n few species. In males it is most likely to be correlated with dominance and thus to occur in species with hierarchies such as terrestrial monkeys and members of the sheep and goat tribe. In females it is often correlated with sexual condition; a female in heat most often mounted another female, 

Two things.  First off do these animals who had sex with another animal of the same sex, also have sex with animals of the opposite sex.  That would make them "bi-sexual" Not homosexual.  Secondly, the fact that one male lords over another as dominance, or that another female licks another female during mensuration is hardly sexual behavior.

Name 1 just 1 example of males or females who are "homosexual" that is they have sex with only another of their own sex to the exclusion of others.  That sir, is decidedly human. 

You have issues. I don't have to name anything, you need to educate yourself before making claims and provide supporting links to qualified sources. End of.

 

Anyway, since you're from the US, gay marriage has been legal there since 2015. It's over, Boomer (& I'm likely older than you ???? ). Sure, we started out with "in Thailand" but none of the nutty points the steamed member provided had even the slightest specific Thailand angle.

[BobBKK]

On 12/13/2021 at 7:42 PM, Jingthing said:

Being gay is not a choice.

I bet you think people who steal don't have a choice too.

[newnative]

18 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

I bet you think people who steal don't have a choice too.

     Decisions, decisions.  Do I enter this comment in the Dumbest Statement of the Year contest or Leaver's comment that McDonalds put all the other hamburger shops in Orlando out of business.  Tough choice.  And, here I thought I would likely be submitting a ridiculous statement by some Thai official.  

[Longwood50]

5 hours ago, Mr Dome said:

You have issues. I don't have to name anything, you need to educate yourself before making claims and provide supporting links to qualified sources. End of

First off I did not claim there was not some "sexual" acts in animals between same sex animals.  I said that there was no "homosexuality" that is a species that selects "ONLY" the same sex.  This was in response to a poster to said homosexuality was not a choice but rather something compelled in them. 

There is ZERO evidence of any imprinting of a person to become Gay.  If that were true, the numbers of gays would decrease over time since it is only heterosexuals without that chromosome that reproduce. 

Being gay is A CHOICE.  Not any different than a person who prefers a sexual partner that is younger, blonde, slim, curvaceous, Asian, etc.  It is a sexual attraction. 

The fact that a monkey mounts another male monkey, or a female monkey licks another female monkey during mensuration is as much proof as when the dog mounts a person leg.  It is a inbred response, not a choice and certainly not like being truly homosexual a term that applies to only having sex with someone of the same sex. 


Using your "logic" and I use that term very generously.  The following would be an example and proof that animals sexually are also "Trans Species" since this is obviously a dog trying to mount a cat. 

 

[Longwood50]

20 hours ago, BobBKK said:

I bet you think people who steal don't have a choice too.

I love it. 

Yes people who join Swingers clubs "don't have a choice" People who have group sex "don't have a choice".  People who like sex with underage children "don't have a choice"  People who engage in sex with a corpse "don't have a choice"  People who engage in sex with an animal "don't have a choice" 

This notion of gays somehow being imprinted at birth is another mental coping mechanism to somehow soothe whatever reservations they have about the LIFESTYLE or to provide for whatever reason some justification to others for it. 

People have preferences.  Some men prefer younger women, some blondes, some Asians, some heavy women, some small women, some women with long legs etc. For whatever reason there are some people who are likewise physically attracted to others of their same sex. 

If it was valid there was any chromosomal predisposition to cause offspring to be gay, that would soon be diminished in the gene pool since only heterosexuals reproduce. 

 

[cjinchiangrai]

On 12/17/2021 at 11:56 AM, ikke1959 said:

According to the Constitutional Court a marriage is to reproduce .... Two women who could not get pregnant should be helped the same as a heterosexual couple...because women are the only ones who can carry them.... But I don't know if adoption is so important for ALL gay couples.. Gay couples like to be free and go around and with kids your are limited....So first a legal relationship is more important than adoption of kids for the few who want that 

I don't believe it is true that gays don't want kids but first things first. Recognize the marriage, then move on to confirming the rights that that entails. 

 

There is a shortage of adoptive parents and it seems that expansion of the adoption pool could help.

Edited December 22, 2021 by cjinchiangrai

[BobBKK]

10 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

I don't believe it is true that gays don't want kids but first things first. Recognize the marriage, then move on to confirming the rights that that entails. 

 

There is a shortage of adoptive parents and it seems that expansion of the adoption pool could help.

People cannot easily adopt that's why many go to China etc.

[BobBKK]

1 hour ago, Longwood50 said:

I love it. 

Yes people who join Swingers clubs "don't have a choice" People who have group sex "don't have a choice".  People who like sex with underage children "don't have a choice"  People who engage in sex with a corpse "don't have a choice"  People who engage in sex with an animal "don't have a choice" 

This notion of gays somehow being imprinted at birth is another mental coping mechanism to somehow soothe whatever reservations they have about the LIFESTYLE or to provide for whatever reason some justification to others for it. 

People have preferences.  Some men prefer younger women, some blondes, some Asians, some heavy women, some small women, some women with long legs etc. For whatever reason there are some people who are likewise physically attracted to others of their same sex. 

If it was valid there was any chromosomal predisposition to cause offspring to be gay, that would soon be diminished in the gene pool since only heterosexuals reproduce. 

 

To be fair I think people can be born with a disposition and preferences. There are many things in life we might prefer but never act on. I have no problem with guys who want to dress as girls as I have no problem with Elvis impersonators dressing like Elvis. My issue is they DEMAND minority rights as if it really is a right - not just sexual minorities but racial too. We are all equal but it's pretty obvious the majority should have the majority say?  isn't that a kinda democracy?

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, cjinchiangrai said:

I don't believe it is true that gays don't want kids but first things first. Recognize the marriage, then move on to confirming the rights that that entails. 

 

There is a shortage of adoptive parents and it seems that expansion of the adoption pool could help.

Some do. Some don't. In my experience lesbian couples are more likely to want kids and all they need is a sperm donor. Gay couples in my experience more often want a dog.

[Longwood50]

1 hour ago, BobBKK said:

My issue is they DEMAND minority rights as if it really is a right - not just sexual minorities but racial too.

Well said.  There are too many minorities that don't demand "equal" treatment but preferential treatment.  For me, whether gay, lesbian, transsexual etc. that is a conscious choice.  Now some people may be swingers, or into group sex, or into bondage.  Hey if that is your thing and everyone is a consenting adult go for it.  However, don't ask me to admire it, embrace it, celebrate it, or not call it exactly what it is. 

In the case of same sex marriage, I don't want anyone to lose out on any rights and privileges afforded married couples. However I draw my line with the demand that it be called "marriage"  We distinguish all things in life by differences.  A caesarean and natural child birth both achieve the same result but are different.  A duet, trio, quartet, and choir are all singing groups but they have different names because of difference in numbers.  

A union, life partnership, life companion, civil union, or registered relationship whatever you wish to call it should come with the same rights and privileges as married couples but have a different term to signify there is a difference between two people of the same sex forming a union and two people of the opposite sex.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

However I truly believe the push for the demand for marriage is a red herring by the LGBT community.  What they are really wanting is to convey to future generations the "normality" of the lifestyle and hence promote it.  No, normal is what the vast majority due, abnormality is when something is not mainstream. 

What I hugely object to is the pandering to minority groups placing them on a pedestal that somehow we are suppose to embrace, agree with, and pledge allegiance to.   

I do not see the heterosexual, or celibacy flags flying over the embassies of the USA , but I do see gay pride flags.  I don't see months being devoted to White History or Heterosexual Pride, but I do see Black History Month and Gay Pride Month.  I don't see colleges having special lower admission standards for Caucasians, or Asians, but I do for Blacks, and Hispanics.  I don't see contract set asides for Caucasians but I do for minorities. I don't see legislation being even suggested that forces companies to have a percentage of their workforce, and/or board of directors be black, brown, or LGBT.  But I do see the opposite. 

That is the definition of systematic racism when preferential treatment is given solely on the basis of race.  Equality is when everyone is treated identically and it is not giving preferential treatment to gain identical outcomes. 

[jak2002003]

14 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

Well said.  There are too many minorities that don't demand "equal" treatment but preferential treatment.  For me, whether gay, lesbian, transsexual etc. that is a conscious choice.  Now some people may be swingers, or into group sex, or into bondage.  Hey if that is your thing and everyone is a consenting adult go for it.  However, don't ask me to admire it, embrace it, celebrate it, or not call it exactly what it is. 

In the case of same sex marriage, I don't want anyone to lose out on any rights and privileges afforded married couples. However I draw my line with the demand that it be called "marriage"  We distinguish all things in life by differences.  A caesarean and natural child birth both achieve the same result but are different.  A duet, trio, quartet, and choir are all singing groups but they have different names because of difference in numbers.  

A union, life partnership, life companion, civil union, or registered relationship whatever you wish to call it should come with the same rights and privileges as married couples but have a different term to signify there is a difference between two people of the same sex forming a union and two people of the opposite sex.  Nothing more, nothing less. 

However I truly believe the push for the demand for marriage is a red herring by the LGBT community.  What they are really wanting is to convey to future generations the "normality" of the lifestyle and hence promote it.  No, normal is what the vast majority due, abnormality is when something is not mainstream. 

What I hugely object to is the pandering to minority groups placing them on a pedestal that somehow we are suppose to embrace, agree with, and pledge allegiance to.   

I do not see the heterosexual, or celibacy flags flying over the embassies of the USA , but I do see gay pride flags.  I don't see months being devoted to White History or Heterosexual Pride, but I do see Black History Month and Gay Pride Month.  I don't see colleges having special lower admission standards for Caucasians, or Asians, but I do for Blacks, and Hispanics.  I don't see contract set asides for Caucasians but I do for minorities. I don't see legislation being even suggested that forces companies to have a percentage of their workforce, and/or board of directors be black, brown, or LGBT.  But I do see the opposite. 

That is the definition of systematic racism when preferential treatment is given solely on the basis of race.  Equality is when everyone is treated identically and it is not giving preferential treatment to gain identical outcomes. 

You clearly have no understand of any of the issues you are talking about and it's embarrassing to read it because it's so obvious your being homophobic, raciest and ignorant. 

 

 

 

 

[Nimbus712]

For me it is quite simple:

 

1. a secular state for starters

2. a civil partnership required by all to benefit from legal provisions and also to be held accountable

3. if desired, a ceremony of whatever rocks your boat wherever you wish but of no legal consequence

[Longwood50]

1 hour ago, jak2002003 said:

homophobic, raciest and ignorant

Oh, please show me those White Lives matter movement with the leaders of congress kneeling to it.   Or the heterosexual pride flag over the U.S. embassies.  Please show me the White Pride month.  Show me the laws that bar employers from terminating whites on the basis of race.  Show me the affirmative action laws mandating that black owned companies must have a specific percentage of whites on their payroll and boards.  Show me the policies at universities particularly at Predominantly  Black Colleges that mandate for diversity they must have a targeted percentage of whites on campus.  Show me the laws that says heterosexual schooling must be taught at pre-schools or they lose federal funding.  

You see there is a huge double standard and you are evidence of it.  If I suggested any of those preferential treatments be to whites or heterosexuals then I would be labeled a racist and/or  a homophobe.  However you are blinded to the fact that these are not "equal" but preferential treatments.  That sir is being a hypocrite. 

Thomas Sowell - Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow at Stanford  Institute said it best. 

 

Edited December 22, 2021 by Longwood50

[jak2002003]

On 12/20/2021 at 12:55 PM, Longwood50 said:

n few species. In males it is most likely to be correlated with dominance and thus to occur in species with hierarchies such as terrestrial monkeys and members of the sheep and goat tribe. In females it is often correlated with sexual condition; a female in heat most often mounted another female, 

Two things.  First off do these animals who had sex with another animal of the same sex, also have sex with animals of the opposite sex.  That would make them "bi-sexual" Not homosexual.  Secondly, the fact that one male lords over another as dominance, or that another female licks another female during mensuration is hardly sexual behavior.

Name 1 just 1 example of males or females who are "homosexual" that is they have sex with only another of their own sex to the exclusion of others.  That sir, is decidedly human. 

Name me one animal that gets married.

 

If you want to be like animal then you would support rape of females, killed their babies so you can impregnate then with your own, raping infants, killing and eating rivals young.

 

Do you really want to go by what animals do rather than allow 2 people of the same sex to get married?

 

What's wrong with you man? 

 

 

[JackGats]

I once talked to a hard-line gay man who was dead against the recognition of same-sex marriages. I asked him how on Earth he of all people could have such a stance? He explained that marriage meant divorce meant alimony. He was promiscuous and didn't want his mignons to sue him after he was done with them. Clever man.

 

I'm straight but I'd like marriage between men and women not to be recognised any longer. No more wives, no more common-law wives. I'm for equal rights. No marriages for all !

[jak2002003]

2 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

Oh, please show me those White Lives matter movement with the leaders of congress kneeling to it.   Or the heterosexual pride flag over the U.S. embassies.  Please show me the White Pride month.  Show me the laws that bar employers from terminating whites on the basis of race.  Show me the affirmative action laws mandating that black owned companies must have a specific percentage of whites on their payroll and boards.  Show me the policies at universities particularly at Predominantly  Black Colleges that mandate for diversity they must have a targeted percentage of whites on campus.  Show me the laws that says heterosexual schooling must be taught at pre-schools or they lose federal funding.  

You see there is a huge double standard and you are evidence of it.  If I suggested any of those preferential treatments be to whites or heterosexuals then I would be labeled a racist and/or  a homophobe.  However you are blinded to the fact that these are not "equal" but preferential treatments.  That sir is being a hypocrite. 

Thomas Sowell - Professor of Economics and Senior Fellow at Stanford  Institute said it best. 

 

Are you on the same planet as the rest of us?

 

It's obvious that we dont need 'white lives matter' as white people are rarely targeted and abuses by people of other colours due to being white as the reason.

 

Your 'heterosexual pride' is every day in bars, nightclubs...and ever time heterosexuals get married in public or are shown together on TV or in movies. 

 

There is no need to have targeted number of whites at universities...they are the majority already! 

 

Are you so ignorant that you can't understand equal rights is not preferential or more rights?

 

Take a look at what various minorites have to endure in their lives, discrimination, hate, violence and discrimination...and please have some compassion and kindness to share some of the rights you have and that you have the privilege to enjoy. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

The constitutional court of Thailand delivered a harsh setback for marriage equality.

 

But the struggle continues.

 

The road will be very long.

 

But march on, march on, eyes on the prize.

 

 

[Longwood50]

11 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

It's obvious that we dont need 'white lives matter' as white people are rarely targeted and abuses by people of other colours due to being white as the reason.

So using your logic and I use that term generously.  Discriminating against whites is OK not treating them identically is ok because they are rarely targeted.  

 

  Discrimination is the act of making unjustified distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong or are perceived to belong. People may be discriminated on the basis of race, gender, age, religion, or sexual orientation, as well as other categories.
 

  Then please justify White students being denied entrance into colleges in favor or minorities "just because they are white" 

Then please explain how a white contractor can be denied receiving a contract because he is white and the law says it must go to a 'minority" and that is not targeting

Please explain how a white employee can be fired by a black supervisor and be denied equal protection under the law to sue for being targeted for their skin color, but a minority fired can immediately sue claiming racial discrimination.  

Please explain how government loans and grants only go to minorities but that is not targeting by default the Caucasians. 

Using the gay population, tell me how it is not targeting heterosexuals in legislation that "MANDATES" that LGBT curriculum must be allowed in pre-schools or they lose federal funding and that doesn't "target" heterosexuals. 

If you substituted the word White or Straight in Black Lives Matter, Predominately Black Colleges, The Black Caucasus, The NAACP, Black only scholarships, Minority Contract Set Aside, Affirmative Action, etc. You would scream discrimination.  Saying that there should not be a White Caucasus, a National Association for the Advancement of White People, Scholarships that only go to Whites, Contract set asides only for Whites, etc. 

Discrimination works both ways,  Just as it is wrong to give prejudicial treatment to minorities that hurt them, it is equally wrong to give preferential treatment based on being a minority that by default discriminates and hurts those who are in the majority. 

Equality is when "everyone" is treated equally.  Equal treatment for everyone, and special privilege for no one. 







 

[Longwood50]

12 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

If you want to be like animal then you would support rape of females,

What planet are you living on.  My reply was to a person who said that being Gay was not a choice but rather something that they were genetically pre-disposed to.  I countered saying if that were true, it would evidence itself in other animals which it does not. I know of no examples in nature where another animal chooses ONLY another of the same sex and excludes those of the opposite sex. 

I continue to say, that being gay, or lesbian is a choice.  Not any different than someone who has a sexual preference for someone with blonde hair, tall, Asian, etc.  It is not genetically imprinted and if it was that gene would soon diminish in the gene pool since only heterosexuals reproduce. 

 

[jak2002003]

12 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

What planet are you living on.  My reply was to a person who said that being Gay was not a choice but rather something that they were genetically pre-disposed to.  I countered saying if that were true, it would evidence itself in other animals which it does not. I know of no examples in nature where another animal chooses ONLY another of the same sex and excludes those of the opposite sex. 

I continue to say, that being gay, or lesbian is a choice.  Not any different than someone who has a sexual preference for someone with blonde hair, tall, Asian, etc.  It is not genetically imprinted and if it was that gene would soon diminish in the gene pool since only heterosexuals reproduce. 

 

Why are looking to animals for how humans should behave?

 

Mad. 

 

 

[Longwood50]

2 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

Why are looking to animals for how humans should behave?

I am not sure I have enough crayons and paper to explain it in a way so juvenile that you could understand. 

  The person said they were not "gay" by choice but were genetically predisposed.  I countered saying if that was the case, it would also manifest itself in other animals.  

Edited December 23, 2021 by Longwood50

[Longwood50]

12 hours ago, jak2002003 said:

It's obvious that we dont need 'white lives matter' as white people are rarely targeted and abuses by people of other colours due to being white as the reason

Here is a perfect example today.  Joe Manchin is "targeted" only because HE IS WHITE.  If Joe Manchin said something absolutely identical about another Black politician and say they don't care about the whites.  YOU WOULD LABEL MANCHIN A RACIST.

 

However, racially charged accusations by minorities are "accepted" while by non minorities immediately chastised. 

 

[Lemsta69]

19 hours ago, BobBKK said:

To be fair I think people can be born with a disposition and preferences. There are many things in life we might prefer but never act on. I have no problem with guys who want to dress as girls as I have no problem with Elvis impersonators dressing like Elvis. My issue is they DEMAND minority rights as if it really is a right - not just sexual minorities but racial too. We are all equal but it's pretty obvious the majority should have the majority say?  isn't that a kinda democracy?

you sound like the dinosaurs I had the misfortune of meeting in Witherspoons a few nights ago. won't be going back there again LOL

[jak2002003]

12 minutes ago, Longwood50 said:

I am not sure I have enough crayons and paper to explain it in a way so juvenile that you could understand. 

  The person said they were not "gay" by choice but were genetically predisposed.  I countered saying if that was the case, it would also manifest itself in other animals.  

But it does. And that is not rare. 

 

There are many cases of gay animals.. There are also hermaphrodite animals, males that give birth, animals that are bi sexual and use sex as greetings to each other, animals that can change from being one sex to another as they age or as group dynamics shift. 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2021 by jak2002003

[nrasmussen]

Why all the talk about special rights for gays when the issue is equal rights?

 

As an example of how this can be done let me quote the Danish marriage act:

 

"The law applies to marriage between two persons of different sexes and between two persons of the same sex." [Translation from Danish by Google]

 

In addition, as far as I can tell, nowhere in the act is mentioned anything about man, woman, husband, wife. All references are to spouses and parties.

 

This is genuine equality - it really is as simple as that!

[Jingthing]

14 minutes ago, nrasmussen said:

Why all the talk about special rights for gays when the issue is equal rights?

 

As an example of how this can be done let me quote the Danish marriage act:

 

"The law applies to marriage between two persons of different sexes and between two persons of the same sex." [Translation from Danish by Google]

 

In addition, as far as I can tell, nowhere in the act is mentioned anything about man, woman, husband, wife. All references are to spouses and parties.

 

This is genuine equality - it really is as simple as that!

The reason for the endless attacks using fake issues?

Also simple.

Hatred, ignorance, and bigotry.

[nrasmussen]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

The reason for the endless attacks using fake issues?

Also simple.

Hatred, ignorance, and bigotry.

I agree. I find it quite tiresome that as soon as the word "gay" is mentioned the haters invariably start oozing out of the woodwork. It makes you wonder why they are so obsessed with the subject.

 

I once read the following possible explanation: "Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies." If that is true it certainly explains a lot.

[sherwood]

23 minutes ago, nrasmussen said:

I agree. I find it quite tiresome that as soon as the word "gay" is mentioned the haters invariably start oozing out of the woodwork. It makes you wonder why they are so obsessed with the subject.

 

I once read the following possible explanation: "Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies." If that is true it certainly explains a lot.

It just gets sillier with every response.

That's not a personal attack but I fail to see any logic here, more like she said he said and so it goes, on and on. 

So tell me please, do the GLBTbacon and mayo set want to take over the world?

For what's its worth, be my guest. 

[newnative]

22 hours ago, Longwood50 said:

I am not sure I have enough crayons and paper to explain it in a way so juvenile that you could understand. 

  The person said they were not "gay" by choice but were genetically predisposed.  I countered saying if that was the case, it would also manifest itself in other animals.  

      Probably an exercise in futility but if I might make my comments on genetics and sexuality from the perspective of a gay man.   Several of your posts have made the point that there isn't a way genetically to determine if one is gay or not.  In other words, there is no gay gene, if you will.   In this, you are correct with what we currently know.  This was the finding of one of the most recent and one of the largest studies of genetics and sexuality. 

      Instead, the study found that sexuality is polygenetic, with hundreds or sometimes thousands of genes making tiny contributions to one's sexual traits.  So, no specific 'gay gene', but genes do play a role.  The study also found that other factors like psychology, environment, and life experiences also contribute.  The main takeaway from the study was that sexuality is quite complex, involving many factors, including genes.  

      When you think about it, it makes sense that there isn't a single 'gay gene'.  If there was, things would be a lot more cut and dried.  "Well, let's take a look under the hood.  Yep!  There's the gay gene.  You are definitely gay, fella."  Doesn't work that way.  Instead, we have hundreds or sometimes thousands of genes in various combinations that, along with other factors,  result in some of us being straight, some gay, some bi, some trans, etc.   

     And, it doesn't work to say, as you have in earlier posts, that being gay is a 'choice'.  No, it's not.  It's a non-choice combination of genetics and other factors, just as it is for those who are straight.  I doubt you woke up one day, perhaps around age 11 or so, and said, "Well, I've weighed all the pros and cons and I've made the choice to be straight."   Doesn't work that way with sexuality--gay or straight.  In my case, I knew I was gay before I even knew what gay was.  That might be a confusing statement but that's how it was for me.   There was no choice involved, there was just. . . what was.  

    What also doesn't work, by the way, is conversion therapy, according to all the latest research.  And, when you think about it, that makes sense, too.  If being gay was just a choice, it should be easy to change that choice--after all, it's just a choice.  Let's see...do I choose Coke or Pepsi?  I could be easily persuaded to change my choice if one or the other is on sale.  Doesn't work that way with sexuality. 

      I liked how one writer explained things with his article on the sexual genetic research study.  He said to think of every person on earth as being the same book, each with the same words.  Although the book and the words are the same, each person's book will be different because some of the words will be colored differently.  

     The way my words are colored in my book makes me different from you, and everyone else.  Same with you and your word colors.  And, neither of us had any choice in the coloring.  We were both born with our words colored already--and they contribute to making us who we are.

     Here's one strange thing with my 'genetic coloring', if you will.  I write on paper with my left hand but on the blackboard I use my right.  I also use my left hand with forks and spoons but I use my right hand with knives and other utensils, tools, and sports.  I grew up being called left-handed because of my eating and writing but actually I do more things with my right hand.  In reality, I am somewhat ambidextrous.  I say somewhat because someone truly ambidextrous can do things equally well with their left hand or right.  In my case, I can do lots of things with both hands, but usually not equally well.   The right hand seems to better with big movements--I use my right hand with a paint roller, for example, but I can use either hand with a paint brush.  If I ever took up art painting I'd use my left hand on paper and my right on a big canvas on an easel.  Weird--and nothing I chose.  I recently discovered that I can use either hand with ping pong or badminton but my right is better. 

      My point with the above description is to show that my 'genetic book' has been 'colored' a bit wildly, and in some cases outside the lines.  My genetic coloring, along with possibly other factors, resulted in my being gay; but it also made me rather unconventional with my dexterity when I use my hands and arms.  Fun fact, one of the biomarkers for same sex attraction is being left-handed or ambidextrous.  I didn't have any choice with my genetic coloring but the result is--me: blue-eyed, brown-haired, gay, and somewhat ambidextrous.

     In any case, the 'choice' or 'not a choice' argument should have no relevance whatsoever with the discussion on gay marriage--except that somehow it's always thrown into the debate, along with anything else, no matter how irrelevant, that can be thought up.  Many of these have appeared on this thread and not a single one has any merit.  All bogus, some with no relevance at all to marriage, straight or gay.  But, I guess that's to be expected when you've got the tough task of finding reasons to deny someone the same benefits you have.