RE: Gay rights within the template of religion proves flaws in "religion"
October 15, 2014 at 3:56 pm
(October 14, 2014 at 7:10 pm)One Above All Wrote:(October 14, 2014 at 12:39 pm)CristW Wrote: Yes, I was referring to Kant's argument. No, if you were born with a biological mechanism to be a particular category, concerning sexual orientation, I doubt that genetics plays a role. This is why I say, you "decide" to be gay. Nevertheless, if you skip the previous argument and determine sexuality by an "act". The "act" would be the only way someone could determine if they are gay or not.
It really does not bother me if scientists find out if someone is born gay or not. I was by-passing the argument, even though, I mentioned it by mentioning last the final "act".
There are two arguments to the conclusion - (Gay).
One argument - genetics or social environment.
One argument - flaws in religion through social legislation.
I by-passed the first argument and concentrated on the second one.
So bisexuals like myself need to have an orgy to actually be bisexuals? That's news to me. Oh well. Better get started!
(October 14, 2014 at 5:20 pm)CristW Wrote: What's wrong, disappointed that I love women ??? are you jealous ???
Pfft. I love women and men. Top that.
1. If you want to be Bi-sexual that's your business not mine. As for the argument, that is still a "decision". Have you slept with both men and women in a separate incident in the past? "Orgy" was never part of the conversation.
2. I am not bi-sexual! I don't care if you are bi-sexual. However, when marriage comes up who do you marry?
