Supreme Court Same Sex Marriage Argumet

[Ace]

Conclusion: Gay people are going to take over, and wipe us out because they won't have any kids!

Takeover, no that is not what is being argued at all. One your numbers can never achieve such action and two, most children that are raised by the homosexual community are adopted then biologically born. It has more to do with the opening of society to another action/orientations that society’s law is not so open to accepting/allowing them to occur. They have already been mentioned in prior posts and informed that litigation is already occurring to push society's laws to acceptances of them also.

The fact that some people keep comparing homosexuality to murder and other such ridiculous things . . .

Again a misinterpretation of the meaning of words written.  It is never a good idea to read and interpret each sentence on its own when reading paragraph's. You will always miss the point/meaning of what is being written. Paragraphs are the collecting of sentences to convey a thought or idea that obviously can not be stated in a single sentences.

The argument that many in the gay community is that their [i]homosexuality is innate[/i], something that they have no control over and is the product of fate/nature. Ok, accept that argument; however, there are many things that both the medical and scientific community have also define as being an innate or having deep elements of innateness that societies mostly deems negative and dangerous or unacceptable. For example, pyromaniac, lying, killing, anger, jealousy, rap and pedophile. (The ever lasting argument in sociology, biology, chemistry and child development on what has more influence on individuals nature vs nurture) Numinous studies and scholar's have argued that those who commit such acts have truly no control of their actions. ( "They are just wired that way"). It is something that is very natural for them to do. Discussion on how society should treat these individuals who engage in such action must change.

That innateness is what Anima is addressing and questioning its actions to be or acceptances. In accepting one innateness, it is unreasonable to think that those who have different innate action would not also request acceptances. This causes many to say to the gay community; “if I accept you innateness what reason do I have to deny another person of their own innateness?” Which has been stated before is already occurring with pedophile right now, with the use of the homosexuality argument of innateness and a loving relationship.

Now you may argue that there is a tremendous difference in that it is illegal, unacceptable to society, a deviant action. However, what you are forgetting is that homosexuality was once illegal to, seen as something unacceptable in mainstream society, a deviant and respectable thing that is done.

. . . .  else world class overcompensation for the inability to admit their own sexuality.

Or it could also just be discussing a topic in another point of view. Looking at what is truly a valued or invalid argument when it is put to strict scrutiny.