Personally I don't buy the idea that there is no free will. There is certainly things we have no choice in, but there are other things we have plenty of choice for. I can choose plenty of things, and sometimes I don't know which is best. The mere fact that I can be indecisive is absolute proof that I have free will to make choices.

For the purpose of this discussion I'll agree with the use of the word agent.

I agree that genetics plays a part in it, I've posted another reply to Beyond with a variety of studies which shows it isn't just the gene which plays a part in a person being gay. There are other factors which play a part and scientists think it might have a lot to do with generational conditions, such as if your great grandfather smoked or if your great grandmother was involved in a famine.

Which is proved false by my inability to make a choice under certain circumstances.

If you are going to post these ridiculous replies then I'm going to ignore you just like I do Brian.

You should already know that my viewpoint is that free will does not exist.

I worked for a non-profit during the 90's as part of my psychology paper. I had the opportunity to speak with roughly 20 gay males who would either come in for help or were volunteering like me.

I recall from my research that every gay male I spoke to came from a variety of different background and families. Two of them I remember most of all were these two catholic guys which one was an only child and the other came from a large family.

They told me that around the age of 10-11 they started to notice other guys. They would get that funny feeling of excitement and it never happened with girls. On occasion they would get erections when they thought of the guys they liked.

This continued through high school and they never told any one. Each of them dated girls but they eventually broke up and never had sex with the girl. They both went to prom alone. They both had lots of girl friends. They both liked fashion and really enjoyed shopping. 

Eventually they told their parents when they were finishing or had finished college because the pressure was to get married. Make babies. Etc. Both of them were rejected by their families and only the one with the larger family had any support from the siblings, of which one of the siblings supported them 100% and the other was 50/50.

They both thought of suicide often and they both had planned out their deaths in detail several times coming very close to doing it. They said they felt guilty and that they were ashamed. Every time they had a fantasy the level of guilt was beyond their level of tolerance and they would break down crying. The one who was the only child had it the worst. No one to talk to, no one cared, parents who wouldn't even let him come home to visit when the mother was dying of cancer.

The stories were all similar but these stuck out because I could relate to their stories of Catholicism.

A few of them had been raped and molested in their youth but it wasn't what made them gay. They told me that they knew they liked guys already and they knew they were different.

Some had tried to 'pray away the gay' but it didn't work. They told me that the people who ran the programs used shame to try and get them to change but it was like trying to mix oil with water.

Molestation does not have an effect on people on becoming gay. 

Religion only makes things worse because it ignores the natural course.

No one chooses to be gay.

Coming from my viewpoint nothing we do is a choice, so technically being poly or zoo or gay or hetro is all the same and woven in to your dna and the environment around you.

You asked previously how do you test for a person being gay or not, it's easy. Show a picture of some stud muffin with a thick 8 inch cock dripping with cum and then show them a bimbo with perky tits, a tight ass and her legs spread wide with her fingers in her pussy.

If the guy says he wants the 8 inch cock in his ass he's fucking gay. If he wants to have his cock sucked off by the bimbo and then fuck her, then he is hetro. If he wants to have a three-some then maybe he is bi.

wow

So assuming that, why is it okay to discriminate against one in terms of legal marriage, but not the others?

Since my point was regarding infants in response to your unprovable assertion that everyone who is gay was born gay, I doubt you would get much sexual response from showing infants porn. For adults, I think it is easier to just ask. Although you did answer one of my other questions- apparently you believe a person is either gay or hetero, human sexuality is hardly so clear cut. I think you just told everyone a lot more about you than anything.

It wasn't on the table. The court was working on one issue. Are gay marriages recognizable by the feds. Also, my viewpoint doesn't hold water with the feds. They are going to view things differently so this part of the discussion is moot.

We are discussing gays and hetero. I know there are a half dozen others, LBGT are just four of them. I even consider people who are pedo in the same class unforunately. I've seen recent studies and heard interviews from people who said around 10-13 they started to get sexually excited around kids.

If there was a medical test for infants it would also work on adults.

HAHA.

Fucking fuck fucked fucker fuckage

I'm really annoyed at the self righteous christians who need to be fucked over.

You've asked a lot of questions, which one specifically are you speaking of?

1 - There is no distinction between sexuality, gay/hetero/bi/etc. Being poly is not a sexuality.

2 - Horses are either wild or property. They do not have human rights.

3 - Poly is not a sexuality. People do not wake up at 10 or 14 years of age and say "I want to marry 10 women" it doesn't happen. It is a trained mental condition. I'm not saying it is wrong, but people who want to marry multiple spouses aren't changing their sexuality. It is already defined as hetero, homo, bi, ect.

A man who wants to have sex with ten women is hetero. I man who want to have sex with ten women and ten men is bi. etc

No sexuality is a choice. All sexuality are developed at birth and while there are some confused people about what they want "like closet gays" they are only forcing the homosexuality to be suppressed due to shame or guilt or what ever other social restrictions being placed in the way.

I think the right to marry a man with a man or a woman with a woman is naturalized. Show me a heterosexual male who wakes up in his 10-14 time of life and says, "geee I wonder if I like women" they don't do it. It happens to billions of males who start to notice tits and butts. They are attracted to pheromones released by the females. Their hormones go in to overdrive and they start getting erections and when they start to masturbate they learn that they can get more stimulation having a female fuck or suck them.

Heterosexual males DO NOT CHOOSE to be attracted to females. Any one who says that they are is a fucking ignorant fool.

I was reading some of the court rulling today and realized I made a mistake in terms. The proper term is sexual orientation and not sexuality.

Marriage is just a word. I don't care if they called union or partnership. There have been other societies through out time which 'joined' men with men. The point is a guy who wants to have one woman vs a guy who wants to have ten women is still a heterosexual either way. They both get the same rights as heterosexuals. Unfortunately this society frowns on a man having ten wives. The one thing I don't like about the people in FLDS type of situation where girls are raised in a cult environment and aren't allowed to make decisions for their selves. They are instead in arranged marriages with plenty of physical and mental abuse. These people I reject.

Zoophillia is not a sexual orientation.

This emphasis on bestiality as a behavior rather than as a possible sexual orientation can probably be traced back to the seminal work of Alfred Kinsey. In his classic 1948 book with Wardell Pomeroy and Clyde Martin, Sexual Behavior in the Human Male(W. B. Saunders), Kinsey reported that 50 percent of the population of American “farm-bred males” claimed to have had sexual contact with various other species, usually ungulates. Many of these people, said Kinsey, were ashamed of their early sexual experimentation with animals (most of these puerile encounters took place when the boys were between ten and twelve years of age), and so he advised clinicians to assure these now grown males that it was all part of being raised in a rural environment where females were scarce and premarital relations strictly forbidden. “To a considerable extent,” wrote Kinsey, “contacts with animals are substitutes for heterosexual relations with human females.

I believe Kinsey summed it up best.

Sex has nothing to do with marriage but sexual orientation does. A person who is quadralpegic might still want to have the company of another male rather than a female, so sex isn't a part of it, but they are still sexually attracted to the other person because of their sex.

That doesn't explain why it has become such a big feature of the porn industry.

If beastiality were simply a result of no access to females, then it should be incredibly rare on the internet where there is no limited access. It should be limited to a few people who took private videos of themselves while growing up on a farm. And it should all be classified as child porn considering the age group referenced.

But none of that is the case. So I will call you on this too.

Please post statistics. And I'll call bullshit on animals in the porn industry being any big feature. It is more of a shock value than any thing else and would account for less than 1% of 1% of 1% of all the porn that is out on the web today.

You have nothing but your dumb ass assertions. You are bullshit. Shut your fucking pie hole Brian.

And to get back on track... People who want to fuck animals aren't classified by any of the medical or psychology associations as having a sexual orientation so this discussion is over. Until they do re-classify due to scientific inquiry then my opinion doesn't change.

And we have this all wrong, apparently 'beast' and 'zoo' are too different terms with one being an act and the other being the attraction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoophilia

Your use of the word beastiality was correct. I'm not sure what else in that warped Canadian mind you think is right.

Far more societies have recognized plural marriages. Outside of Christianity, plural marriages is the norm. Which going back to your original comment that started this tangent, poly marriages was a relevant point for the anti gay marriage crowd to bring up because there is no clear line of distinction to classify one a human right but not the other. The question before the court was whether or not marriage is a fundamental right. The only distinction you have drawn is cultural acceptance, but if you have a Constitutional right to do something, cultural acceptance is irrelevant. The KKK certainly is not accepted culturally, but they still have a right to spew their shit.

Which is irrelevant unless you are suggesting all plural marriages are coercive. A coerced marriage is illegal, even if it would otherwise be legal with consent.

Why does sexual orientation have anything to do with it at all? The person someone wants to live with and have for companionship is not necessarily the same person they want to have sex with. What magic is it that makes orientation so damn sacred? (Other than xtians being obsessed with it) 

None of which changes any thing at this current time for the classification of such people. Going back to the original issue, we have people who like women, those who like men and some of them happen to be of the same sex and within the human race. I will not conceed to those who want to fuck animals as being any thing more than a mental condition which can be fixed with therapy and/or drugs. People who are hetero or gay or bi are all so due to their genetics. People who are zoo or beast are there because of environment.

While those who wish to use this recent ruling to advance their 'plural lifestyle' I would hope the courts see that there opinion is still hetero and not a different form of sexual orientation. They are still hetero and that has been my point all along. This is a completely different game with wanting ten wives because it is based on environment rather than genetics.

Tell that to all the girls who are coerced in to marriage then hidden away from the law because those who strive to keep control over their domain will murder those who try to leave their cult.

Sexual orientation has every thing to do with this because the courts ruled that gay marriage has the same rights as hetero marriage. 

No, the court ruled that marriage is a fundamental right, then applied that ruling to the specific cases before them, which were same sex marriages. Supreme Court rulings are not narrow, they are used to apply law in cases that may be dissimilar by ruling on the major question. The question before the court was not "is gay marriage a fundamental right." The question was "is marriage a fundamental right" which it answered in the affirmative. The four preferences in the decision were

1. "...the right to personal choice regarding marriage is inherent in the concept of individual autonomy." Isn't the decision to marry multiple people just as much of a personal choice?

2. "...the right to marry is fundamental because it supports a two person union unlike any other in its importance to the committed individuals." Does anyone dispute that to the committed individuals in a poly relationship, marriage is as important as it is to anyone else?

3. " ...it [the right to marry] safeguards children and families and thus draws meaning from related rights of childrearing, procreation and education." It seems to me that this premise applies even more to poly marriages than gay ones. It is certainly arguable that a poly marriage provides advantages to childrearing over traditional marriages.

4. "...marriage is a keystone of our social order." It then goes on to discuss the numerous benefits government bestows upon marriages and the ancient tradition of marriage in all societies. While there have been gay marriages in history, poly marriages have been practiced with far more regularity in history.

Those are the four premises laid out in the opinion. It is from those the Court drew their conclusion for the specific cases, and it is those four premises that future courts will look to when ruling on marriage rights cases. None of them have anything to do with sexual orientation, nowhere does the opinion state that it is because of sexual orientation that marriage is a fundamental right. At most, it states that orientation is not a sufficient basis to refuse a marriage license.  

Those who dissented were thinking anti-gay and those pro were thinking pro-gay.

Those working behind the scenes were in private rooms talking about anti-gay and pro-gay stuff.

The media talked about gay rights

The President used the gay colors to light up the White House.

I don't care what was written it was about gays.

Animals also don't know the meaning of the act of marriage. They can't say that they want the marriage. They can't say 'i do'. They can't sign the marriage certificate.

I believe that plural marriages and marrying animals is the same issue. It's people with mental disorders. However I'm pro-plural but anti-zoo/beast