PDA

View Full Version : Gay marriage.



Lanie
06-02-2008, 09:21 PM
I saw another thread on it and didn't want to intrude on it.

What's wrong with it? How does it hurt others?

Shannon
06-02-2008, 09:23 PM
Shit. Did I really start a welcome thread for you?;)

Phillygirl
06-02-2008, 09:24 PM
Shit. Did I really start a welcome thread for you?;)

Yeah you did. :rolleyes:

Shannon
06-02-2008, 09:25 PM
Yeah you did. :rolleyes:

It had been awhile. I forgot!!!:D

Lanie
06-02-2008, 09:30 PM
Shit. Did I really start a welcome thread for you?;)

Yes, thank you. :)

Jumpy
06-02-2008, 09:31 PM
Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. 'nuff said.

Lanie
06-02-2008, 09:37 PM
Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. 'nuff said.

We had to start reproduction somehow. We're up to six billion. We might have enough. Not that everybody should go gay or anything. lol.

lurkalot
06-02-2008, 10:15 PM
Personally I have nothing against anyone's right to make a stupid mistake, be miserable and pay for the rest of their life regardless of sexual orientation!

SaintLouieWoman
06-02-2008, 10:18 PM
Shit. Did I really start a welcome thread for you?;)

Shannon, it's all your fault!!

Your turn to explain to Lanie. :D

Goldwater
06-02-2008, 10:20 PM
Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. 'nuff said.

No it isn't, what explanation is that for people who aren't Christian or actually want a reason? I could just say in response that there are other species of animal that have homosexuality.

Jumpy
06-02-2008, 10:27 PM
No it isn't, what explanation is that for people who aren't Christian or actually want a reason? I could just say in response that there are other species of animal that have homosexuality.

I am not going to get into a huge debate, but some things are black and white. Marriage, and family are about a man and woman.. they usually make babies together, and that is called a family. It is what it is.

Create another name for gay people... unions.. etc. Just call it something different.

Goldwater
06-02-2008, 10:31 PM
Create another name for gay people... unions.. etc. Just call it something different.

Well wait, I agree with you, equal rights but the distinction that marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and woman.

Why, do they want to change the definition of the word or something?

LogansPapa
06-02-2008, 10:37 PM
It's no more than a control issue. The majority of society has lost enough of that and can't bear any more.

They want to feel masters of the human race, pure and godly, and a great part of that is judgemental.

Space Gravy
06-03-2008, 08:22 AM
I saw another thread on it and didn't want to intrude on it.

What's wrong with it? How does it hurt others?

I don't have a problem with it.

noonwitch
06-03-2008, 09:21 AM
I don't have a problem with it.


Is there a way to make money off it?

jediab
06-03-2008, 10:05 AM
No it isn't, what explanation is that for people who aren't Christian or actually want a reason? I could just say in response that there are other species of animal that have homosexuality.

There are also species that eat their mate and offspring. Should we then say that it should be considered normal that humans do the same?

This whole topic would be very easy to fix if government were to get out of marriage all together.

Gingersnap
06-03-2008, 10:41 AM
Leaving aside the religious arguments (and there are many), marriage is essentially a social/cultural institution for the creation and education of children and the welfare of the elderly. People who are tied by kinship have a vested interest in protecting other members of their family and a willingness to sacrifice for future generations or previous generations. This is good for them and it's good for society as a whole since families promote behavioral stability, economic protection, and some regard for the rule of law. This is true even when individual families don't produce children or take care of the elderly. Enough of the population do it to affect the entire group.

When marriage breaks down due to high divorce rates, serial monogamy, cohabitation, and single-parenting there is a dramatic increase in child poverty rates, child abuse from parental sexual partners, and behavioral problems in children.

Both gay marriage and cohabitation contribute to a general loss of status in the institution of marriage. If anybody can get married in any configuration then there's less reason to take the risk at all since the social benefits of being married have been diluted.

In countries where gay marriage (or a legally identical contract) are in place, heterosexual marriage rates decline rapidly. Worse yet, gay marriages between men are often a non-monogamous arrangement involving numerous extramarital contacts. This further confuses the meaning and usefulness of marriage for heterosexuals.

These are some of the purely secular reasons why marriage loses status and why gay marriage only adds to the problem.

Rebel Yell
06-03-2008, 11:54 AM
The gay marriage argument is usually made by liberals, right? Yes

The same liberals who openly mock Christianity, right? Yes

The same liberals who embrace evolution, right? Yes

The same evolution that means all animals are here, basically, to reproduce, right? Yes

Then (even throwing religion aside) by the laws that you do believe in, homosexuality is not natural, right?

I didn't make the laws of nature, Darwin did.

linda22003
06-03-2008, 12:01 PM
This is just a topic I can't get very exercised about. If gays marry it will have no impact on my marriage, and straights haven't necessarily set a fine example of commitment and fidelity.

As Robin Williams said, "Why shouldn't they have the same opportunity to lose half their stuff as the rest of us?" :rolleyes:

biccat
06-03-2008, 12:08 PM
You can't get exercised about state judges usurping the will of the people and the power of the legislature? That is the type of abuse that I think we should all get upset about.

linda22003
06-03-2008, 12:11 PM
See the adjoining thread on the same topic for my answer to that. The fact is, there's precedent.

Lanie
06-03-2008, 12:41 PM
No it isn't, what explanation is that for people who aren't Christian or actually want a reason? I could just say in response that there are other species of animal that have homosexuality.

That's not true. It has been recorded that other species have practiced homosexuality.

I thought I got Jumpy's quote. Darn. Here's the thing about civil unions. They get the minister of their choice to perform a ceremony, and there's really no difference between it and a marriage EXCEPT from what I understand civil unions don't bring the same legal rights. I don't know that argument well and I'll admit it though.


Well wait, I agree with you, equal rights but the distinction that marriage is a religious ceremony between a man and woman.

Why, do they want to change the definition of the word or something?

So what's up with atheists? Can they not get married?


I don't have a problem with it.

Cool. :)

Lanie
06-03-2008, 12:47 PM
Leaving aside the religious arguments (and there are many), marriage is essentially a social/cultural institution for the creation and education of children and the welfare of the elderly. People who are tied by kinship have a vested interest in protecting other members of their family and a willingness to sacrifice for future generations or previous generations. This is good for them and it's good for society as a whole since families promote behavioral stability, economic protection, and some regard for the rule of law. This is true even when individual families don't produce children or take care of the elderly. Enough of the population do it to affect the entire group.

When marriage breaks down due to high divorce rates, serial monogamy, cohabitation, and single-parenting there is a dramatic increase in child poverty rates, child abuse from parental sexual partners, and behavioral problems in children.

Both gay marriage and cohabitation contribute to a general loss of status in the institution of marriage. If anybody can get married in any configuration then there's less reason to take the risk at all since the social benefits of being married have been diluted.

In countries where gay marriage (or a legally identical contract) are in place, heterosexual marriage rates decline rapidly. Worse yet, gay marriages between men are often a non-monogamous arrangement involving numerous extramarital contacts. This further confuses the meaning and usefulness of marriage for heterosexuals.

These are some of the purely secular reasons why marriage loses status and why gay marriage only adds to the problem.


I think the strongest argument there is the kids. I do think it's important to have both a male and a female role model in their lives, preferably together. But I have to say I've known several people raised by single parents and turned out okay. I keep thinking another thing bad for kids is when they have two parents who are misrible together. That creates instability.

As far as marriage itself goes, we're getting divorces at a 50/50 rate right now. There's a number of reasons for that. I suppose homosexuality is one of them, but that's because they're trying to go "straight" and can't seem to do it. Do you think people should force themselves to be with who they don't want to? Do you think a person wants to be with somebody when they know their partner wants to be somebody of the same gender? I keep thinking the immorality comes with trying to use somebody of the opposite gender to live a normal life. Other reasons for marriages falling apart are abuse, money disputes, people getting married too young, and people just not wanting to put as much effort into working it out. I think some people watched too many fairy tales and expect it.

wilbur
06-03-2008, 01:34 PM
Leaving aside the religious arguments (and there are many), marriage is essentially a social/cultural institution for the creation and education of children and the welfare of the elderly. People who are tied by kinship have a vested interest in protecting other members of their family and a willingness to sacrifice for future generations or previous generations. This is good for them and it's good for society as a whole since families promote behavioral stability, economic protection, and some regard for the rule of law. This is true even when individual families don't produce children or take care of the elderly. Enough of the population do it to affect the entire group.

When marriage breaks down due to high divorce rates, serial monogamy, cohabitation, and single-parenting there is a dramatic increase in child poverty rates, child abuse from parental sexual partners, and behavioral problems in children.

Both gay marriage and cohabitation contribute to a general loss of status in the institution of marriage. If anybody can get married in any configuration then there's less reason to take the risk at all since the social benefits of being married have been diluted.



In countries where gay marriage (or a legally identical contract) are in place, heterosexual marriage rates decline rapidly. Worse yet, gay marriages between men are often a non-monogamous arrangement involving numerous extramarital contacts. This further confuses the meaning and usefulness of marriage for heterosexuals.

These are some of the purely secular reasons why marriage loses status and why gay marriage only adds to the problem.

This is not true:

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Arguments_concerning_divorce_rates):
"On an international scale, the most comprehensive study to date on the effect of same-sex marriage / partnership on heterosexual marriage and divorce rates was conducted looking at over 15 years of data from the Scandinavian countries. The study (later part of a book), by researcher Darren Spedale, found that, 15 years after Denmark had granted same-sex couples the rights of marriage, rates of heterosexual marriage in those countries had gone up, and rates of heterosexual divorce had gone down - contradicting the concept that same-sex marriage would have a negative effect on traditional marriage.[75]"

If you don't believe wikipedia, check out the book: Gay Marriage: for Better or for Worse?: What We've Learned from the Evidence (http://www.amazon.com/Gay-Marriage-Better-Learned-Evidence/dp/0195187512)

biccat
06-03-2008, 01:51 PM
This is not true:

Gay Marriage: for Better or for Worse?: What We've Learned from the Evidence (http://www.amazon.com/Gay-Marriage-Better-Learned-Evidence/dp/0195187512)
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

Check around, there are plenty of responses to Spedale's work. Wikipedia does not include critics of the book because they have an agenda. Wikipedia tends heavily towards liberal/libertarian thought, and they know how to manipulate the system to ensure that their point of view is properly shown.

Gay marriage may have revived "marriage" in Denmark and Sweeden, but it has destroyed the concept of families and the social bedrock on which children depend.

wilbur
06-03-2008, 02:45 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

Check around, there are plenty of responses to Spedale's work. Wikipedia does not include critics of the book because they have an agenda. Wikipedia tends heavily towards liberal/libertarian thought, and they know how to manipulate the system to ensure that their point of view is properly shown.


I would wage, the wiki is less bias than weekly standard, and especially Stanley Kurtz.



Gay marriage may have revived "marriage" in Denmark and Sweeden, but it has destroyed the concept of families and the social bedrock on which children depend.

The vast majority of couples with children out of wedlock marry after their first child in these countries. The vast majority of children are growing up in two parent homes. Reality simply doesn't match the apocalyptic babble from Kurtz about the family unit being destroyed.

Edit: Furthermore, those statistical patterns were already developing down that path well before gay marriage arrived. It had no effect.

biccat
06-03-2008, 02:50 PM
I would wage, the wiki is less bias than weekly standard, and especially Stanley Kurtz.
So a pro-gay marriage professor publishing works supporting gay marriage is unbiased, while a pro-family author critiquing that work is biased?

I suppose you would make a great editor at Wikipedia.


The vast majority of couples with children out of wedlock marry after their first child in these countries. The vast majority of children are growing up in two parent homes. Reality simply doesn't match the apocalyptic babble from Kurtz about the family unit being destroyed.
Actually the vast majority of homosexual couples get divorced in these countries, and eat babies at their second weddings.

Man, political positions are easy to support when you don't have to worry about the facts. Thanks for the great debate tactic. :rolleyes:

Gingersnap
06-03-2008, 03:07 PM
When you look at the statistical break down, gay marriage has not "revived" heterosexual marriage in Scandinavia. The slight uptick in heterosexual marriages for a brief period of time were coincidental. Some unmarried couples with children finally tied the know while some older people remarried after an earlier divorce. The generation for which these factors were true is going out and they don't pertain to younger Scandinavians.

For Scandinavians under 50, marriage is seldom considered as necessary except by the handful of traditional Christians left and for the immigrant community. Most children are born out of wedlock and cohabiting couples with children break up at two to three times the rate of married couples with children.

The development of gay marriage in Scandinavia is considered a major victory by radical feminists. Not because it offers gay couples the ability to normalize their relationship and create a family but because it further renders marriage irrelevant as an institution for heterosexual women. The gay marriage victory offered a platform for voices speaking out against heteronormative institutions and it divided the Lutheran church into weak factions. Since gay marriages by definition did not involve the power issues which "oppressed" women in heterosexual marriage, it appeared to be a superior relationship to many feminists. Feminists saw the destruction of heterosexual marriage as the next logical step to a free and empowered female populace.

wilbur
06-03-2008, 03:13 PM
So a pro-gay marriage professor publishing works supporting gay marriage is unbiased, while a pro-family author critiquing that work is biased?


The anti-gay marriage movement (fueled heavily by irrational religious bigotry) are the ones making extra-ordinary claims here, by tying gay marriage to every single social problem they can think of.. all with a bunch of rhetoric and a few factoids thrown in to make the appearance of an argument.

All I am claiming is the common sense position anyone reasonable person would take by default (unencumbered with religious presuppositions about homosexuality) that letting a small fraction of an incredibly small fraction of the population (2-3%?) isn't going bring about the apocalypse or have any noticeable effect on anyone's life. Crazy, I know....



Actually the vast majority of homosexual couples get divorced in these countries, and eat babies at their second weddings.


Thats probably not too far off from what many gay marriage opponents think.



Man, political positions are easy to support when you don't have to worry about the facts. Thanks for the great debate tactic. :rolleyes:

Yes, you also have been nothing but a fountain of well reasearched facts, journals and articles :rolleyes:

I'm generally am not going to take the time to write a thesis and bibliographies for message board posts about my claims, when google is right there for anyone to use... unless I happen to be looking at an article in question nor do I care to escalate the debate to that level.

biccat
06-03-2008, 03:26 PM
The anti-gay marriage movement (fueled heavily by irrational religious bigotry) are the ones making extra-ordinary claims here, by tying gay marriage to every single social problem they can think of.. all with a bunch of rhetoric and a few factoids thrown in to make the appearance of an argument.
Gay marriage proponents are the ones attempting to change the norm, they should bear the burden of proof. Typical liberal trick to redefine the argument so that you don't have to actually support your own position.


All I am claiming is the common sense position anyone reasonable person would (unencumbered with religious presuppositions about homosexuality) that letting a small fraction of an incredibly small fraction of the population (2-3%?) isn't going bring about the apocalypse or have any noticeable effect on anyone's life.
So religious people have no common sense? That's nice of you to say.


Thats probably not too far off from what many gay marriage opponents think.
Again with the ad homonim arguments.


Yes, you also have been nothing but a fountain of well reasearched facts, journals and articles :rolleyes:
Actually I have provided evidence contradicting your assertion that gay marriage helped society in northern Europe. I have shown evidence that homosexual marriage has a higher rate of divorce than real marriages. On the Constitutional/equal rights issue I provided a defense for my views based on established law. If you want proper citations, all you have to do is ask.


I'm generally am not going to take the time to write a thesis and bibliographies for message board posts about my claims, when google is right there for anyone to use... unless I happen to be looking at an article in question nor do I care to escalate the debate to that level.
As long as you're advancing your own views, you don't have to support them. But when you say things and then engage in attacks based on blind assertions, you are being dishonest.

Honestly, this thread is going nowhere because you are failing to honestly consider counterarguments. Anyone who is against gay marriage is an irrational religious whacko, and that's the crux of your argument.

You're sounding like the DUmp.

Vepr
06-03-2008, 03:57 PM
Why should gay people be special and allowed to escape the misery that is marriage? ;)

Lanie
06-03-2008, 10:18 PM
Why should gay people be special and allowed to escape the misery that is marriage? ;)

:D

I've often thought I'd like to let a partner just have some rights without making a commitment. lol.

Goldwater
06-03-2008, 10:24 PM
So what's up with atheists? Can they not get married?

Of course they can since marriage has also become a civil institution, the religious aspect of it must be preserved though.

Gingersnap
06-03-2008, 10:52 PM
I think the strongest argument there is the kids. I do think it's important to have both a male and a female role model in their lives, preferably together. But I have to say I've known several people raised by single parents and turned out okay. I keep thinking another thing bad for kids is when they have two parents who are misrible together. That creates instability. with somebody when they know their partner wants to be somebody of the same gender?

This is a different argument. All studies have shown that 2 intact heterosexuals who aren't happy in a marriage but who don't resort to physical abuse are better than divorced parents. A family is a good place to learn that you don't come first, people argue, it's not all about you, family isn't fair, and equality and justice are not interchangeable terms.

You don't get that if you are the only child of a single mother.

We are raising a generation of emotionally needy people who expect that their wants and needs trump not only their single parent's capacity but that of the culture at large.

We took a big wrong turn when we elevated romantic sexual interest above like values and ambitions when we imagined marriage and children. You can probably fall in love with anybody who shares your hopes and dreams but your brief sexual/romantic interests are not enduring and not helpful to children and society at large.

Lanie
06-04-2008, 12:54 AM
Of course they can since marriage has also become a civil institution, the religious aspect of it must be preserved though.

If a couple goes to a JP because one of them is an atheist, how is the religious part being preserved? Meanwhile, gays are having ceremonies in churches that accept their union.


This is a different argument. All studies have shown that 2 intact heterosexuals who aren't happy in a marriage but who don't resort to physical abuse are better than divorced parents. A family is a good place to learn that you don't come first, people argue, it's not all about you, family isn't fair, and equality and justice are not interchangeable terms.

You don't get that if you are the only child of a single mother.

We are raising a generation of emotionally needy people who expect that their wants and needs trump not only their single parent's capacity but that of the culture at large.

We took a big wrong turn when we elevated romantic sexual interest above like values and ambitions when we imagined marriage and children. You can probably fall in love with anybody who shares your hopes and dreams but your brief sexual/romantic interests are not enduring and not helpful to children and society at large.

Where are you finding these studies?

Going by personal experience, my parents didn't seem very happy. Kids know this stuff. Knowing their parents are misrable doesn't make them happier or better developed.

du freeper
06-04-2008, 08:27 AM
I saw another thread on it and didn't want to intrude on it.

What's wrong with it? How does it hurt others?

How does bestiality hurt others? What's wrong with it?

How does polygamy hurt others? What's wrong with it?

linda22003
06-04-2008, 08:30 AM
How does bestiality hurt others? What's wrong with it?

How does polygamy hurt others? What's wrong with it?

Why do you assume that those two things are equivalent to the topic under discussion?

Skygod
06-04-2008, 08:56 AM
I am not going to get into a huge debate, but some things are black and white. Marriage, and family are about a man and woman.. they usually make babies together, and that is called a family. It is what it is.

Create another name for gay people... unions.. etc. Just call it something different.

+1

I dont care if they have a "union". However, Its NOT a marriage.

You wouldnt call a peanut butter and peanut butter sandwich a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, would you?

No.

Get it?

Vepr
06-04-2008, 09:11 AM
To me this one comes down to "No skin off my back". I don't care what they want to call it and if it is between two consenting adults and it is not harming anyone else then why not?

Lanie
06-04-2008, 09:15 AM
How does bestiality hurt others? What's wrong with it?

How does polygamy hurt others? What's wrong with it?

Convince me that homosexual marriage itself (not other things related to it) hurts people, and I'll consider what you're saying. So far, Ginger has the best argument because I was looking it up last night. I do want to do more research to see what the counter arguments are of course.

du freeper
06-04-2008, 10:23 AM
Convince me that homosexual marriage itself (not other things related to it) hurts people, and I'll consider what you're saying. So far, Ginger has the best argument because I was looking it up last night. I do want to do more research to see what the counter arguments are of course.

The argument is valid. If you give into one perversion then all other freaks will pop up wanting special rights.

Gingersnap
06-04-2008, 10:37 AM
Where are you finding these studies?

http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED476114&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED476114

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212095450.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2592302.ece

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda02-05.cfm

There are zillions of studies that back the importance of marriage in positive outcomes for children.

Kids don't need parents with a happy, fulfilling marital relationship. That's the ideal, of course, but it doesn't impact outcomes as much as an intact marriage and a stable family life. Marriage confers benefits on children that are extremely complex.

But we're getting a little sidetracked from the topic. ;)

The Night Owl
06-04-2008, 12:26 PM
http://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED476114&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED476114

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/02/080212095450.htm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2592302.ece

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda02-05.cfm

There are zillions of studies that back the importance of marriage in positive outcomes for children.

Kids don't need parents with a happy, fulfilling marital relationship. That's the ideal, of course, but it doesn't impact outcomes as much as an intact marriage and a stable family life. Marriage confers benefits on children that are extremely complex.

But we're getting a little sidetracked from the topic. ;)

Having a mother and a father might be the ideal situation for a child, but don't you think that orphans who are difficult to place would be better off having gay adoptive parents than living in orphanages?

Vepr
06-04-2008, 12:35 PM
Having a mother and a father might be the ideal situation for a child, but don't you think that orphans who are difficult to place would be better off having gay adoptive parents than living in an orphanage?

Whoa there! You cannot go thinking about what will be best for the children. Plus it might deny some religions the chance to prey... I mean pray for and work closely with the children.

wilbur
06-04-2008, 12:36 PM
Gay marriage proponents are the ones attempting to change the norm, they should bear the burden of proof. Typical liberal trick to redefine the argument so that you don't have to actually support your own position.


If you say so. I like how you admitted earlier that anti-gay marriage rhetoric is comparable to the rhetoric used to defend miscegenation laws, but somehow its valid for 'gay marriage'. Not sure what kind of trick that is.



So religious people have no common sense? That's nice of you to say.


Most people have surprisingly little, but specifically the religious tend to go overboard on this issue. It's commonplace for religious leaders to not only blame woeful heterosexual marriage trends on gay marriage, but to go so far as to call disease, misery and every other evil they can think of as God's punishment for toleration of homosexuality. Hell, we hardly blink an eye at that kind of thing. And when the religious do decry those types of insinuations, its usually along the lines of "Well, we're sorry he put so bluntly.... but we understand.". They just arent playing with a full deck when it comes to this issue, and even smart people get roped in. When someone's chosen belief system treats something as so vile, destructive and uh.. what's the word... oh yes... as an abomination, no matter what the reality, there is little chance for them to consider the issue rationally.



Actually I have provided evidence contradicting your assertion that gay marriage helped society in northern Europe. I have shown evidence that homosexual marriage has a higher rate of divorce than real marriages. On the Constitutional/equal rights issue I provided a defense for my views based on established law. If you want proper citations, all you have to do is ask.


No you provided another opinion piece which paints quite the apocalyptic picture of the state of marriage in the world, but in the end has no successful connection between it and gay marriage.

If you really want to blame something for 'hurting marriage', blame feminism, the cultural shift of gender roles, women's rights, etc etc. The fact that we all have lives of at least semi-luxury compared to our ancestors and can generally sustain ourselves all independently, man or woman. Marriage isn't a necessity for survival anymore.

We have the similar patterns in the decline in marriage in just about every single western nation, most of whom do not have nor would consider gay marriage.



As long as you're advancing your own views, you don't have to support them. But when you say things and then engage in attacks based on blind assertions, you are being dishonest.


If you have links to support your point thats great, I will generally look at them. If feel like my points need support I will add them, if time permits and someone wants corroboration. I don't make it a point to do this because it is a web forum, not a day job.



Honestly, this thread is going nowhere because you are failing to honestly consider counterarguments. Anyone who is against gay marriage is an irrational religious whacko, and that's the crux of your argument.


That hasnt been the crux of my argument. The "crux" is that there is no reasonable evidence to suggest gay marriage has any kind of impact, positive or negative, on the institution of marriage. Stats showing that marriage trends have continued along the same trends for years, before or after gay marriage, should make it blatantly obvious that other cultural issues are the culprit.

As for my personal views, I'm all for eliminating the term "marriage" from the government completely. Civil unions or whatever name you want to give them would be the replacement, and doesnt automatically infer or necessatate a sexual relationship.

wilbur
06-04-2008, 12:37 PM
The argument is valid. If you give into one perversion then all other freaks will pop up wanting special rights.

So your saying you wouldn't be able to present a good argument against bestiality if gay marriage were legal?

Vepr
06-04-2008, 12:45 PM
So your saying you wouldn't be able to present a good argument against bestiality if gay marriage were legal?

As a fellow male I cannot imagine male dogs or horses being to put out with the situation as long as they are "driving". Now the poor chickens on the other hand would have an argument.

The Night Owl
06-04-2008, 12:45 PM
Here is a question...

If homosexuality were proven to be the result of genetic or biological factors, then should gays be allowed to marry?

RobJohnson
06-04-2008, 12:47 PM
Here is a question...

If homosexuality were proven to be the result of genetic or biological factors, then should gays be allowed to marry?

No.

So if you and your life partner want to exchange rings....go to France....

Vepr
06-04-2008, 12:48 PM
Here is a question...

If homosexuality were proven to be the result of genetic or biological factors, then should gays be allowed to marry?

I do not see why genetics should matter. Even if it is their "choice to be gay" they should be allowed to marry because America is all about freedom to choose how you live your life as long as you are not tramping on the rights of others.

biccat
06-04-2008, 12:51 PM
If you say so. I like how you admitted earlier that anti-gay marriage rhetoric is comparable to the rhetoric used to defend miscegenation laws, but somehow its valid for 'gay marriage'. Not sure what kind of trick that is.
No trick, just that liberals will not stop once gay marriage is allowed. Feminists were not content with equality, they want advantages. Race baiters like Jackson and Sharpton are not content with racial equality, they demand preferences and some even demand monetary compensation for past wrongs.

Hate crime legislation, affirmative action, the reparations movement, anti-sports activists, there's quite a few disadvantages that have come from conservatives saying "this far, but no more." You can't honestly expect liberal fanatics to stop once they 'win' the fight for gay marriage. There are going to be consequences, and I do not think they are good for this country.


Most people have surprisingly little, but specifically the religious tend to go overboard on this issue. It's commonplace for religious leaders to not only blame woeful heterosexual marriage trends on gay marriage, but to go so far as to blame disease, misery and every other evil they can think of as God's punishment for toleration of homosexuality.
Religion is a guiding element of our society. Without religion, there is no absolute moral code. Calling people who form the bedrock of our society 'irrational' is a bit bigoted.


That hasnt been the crux of my argument. The "crux" is that there is no reasonable evidence to suggest gay marriage has any kind of impact, positive or negative, on the institution of marriage.
Now you're changing the argument. Before you were arguing that allowing gays to marry helps heterosexual marriages, now you're saying there's "no reasonable evidence?"


As for my personal views, I'm all for eliminating the term "marriage" from the government completely. Civil unions or whatever name you want to give them would be the replacement, and doesnt automatically infer or necessatate a sexual relationship.
I don't necessarily disagree on eliminating government from marriage, but I think that it is an idealistic and ultimately unrealistic expectation. It is just not going to happen, there is too much of a lobbying force in the issue.

Government should get out of marriage, charity, private industries, basically out of a lot of things. Unfortunately, it is going to take a major swing in public sentiment to make people stop believing in government as the cure to all of our ills.

The Night Owl
06-04-2008, 12:58 PM
Religion is a guiding element of our society. Without religion, there is no absolute moral code. Calling people who form the bedrock of our society 'irrational' is a bit bigoted.



Feel free to list any laws or codes of conduct which require belief in a diety.

Gingersnap
06-04-2008, 12:59 PM
Having a mother and a father might be the ideal situation for a child, but don't you think that orphans who are difficult to place would be better off having gay adoptive parents than living in orphanages?

Maybe - if orphans lived orphanages in this country but they don't. They live with foster families, many of whom use their foster parenting experience as a step toward adopting a special needs child.

The Night Owl
06-04-2008, 01:01 PM
Maybe - if orphans lived orphanages in this country but they don't. They live with foster families, many of whom use their foster parenting experience as a step toward adopting a special needs child.

United States Of America
1 St. Joseph Orphanage 4308
2 St. Joseph Village 1986
3 The McClelland School 1898
4 Arms of Love International - Christian Children Home 1823
5 Oldest Orphanage in North America - Est. 1733 1745
6 Buckner Benevolences - Helping Children 1457
7 Bethel Bible Village Children Home 1360
8 High Plains Children Home 1268
9 Girls and Boys Town - the original Father Flanagan - Boys Home in Texas 1190
10 His House Children Home 1139
11 Baptist Children Homes of North Carolina 1022
12 Arkansas Baptist Children Homes 916
13 German Roman Catholic Orphan Home in USA 879
14 Bellewood Presbyterian Homes for Children in Kentucky 869
15 Florida Baptist Children Homes 846
16 Presbyterian Children Homes and Services 780
17 Foundation supporting orphanages Casa Hogar Sion, Hacienda, El Faro, Casa Hogar Esperanza 745
18 Presbyterian Children Services - Outreach Centers 696
19 Diocesan Catholic Children's Home is a treatment center for children, ages 6 to 14, who have severe to moderate emotional and/or behavioral problems 321

http://www.myorphanage.org/america/usa/index.php

Gingersnap
06-04-2008, 01:37 PM
United States Of America
1 St. Joseph Orphanage 4308
2 St. Joseph Village 1986
3 The McClelland School 1898
4 Arms of Love International - Christian Children Home 1823
5 Oldest Orphanage in North America - Est. 1733 1745
6 Buckner Benevolences - Helping Children 1457
7 Bethel Bible Village Children Home 1360
8 High Plains Children Home 1268
9 Girls and Boys Town - the original Father Flanagan - Boys Home in Texas 1190
10 His House Children Home 1139
11 Baptist Children Homes of North Carolina 1022
12 Arkansas Baptist Children Homes 916
13 German Roman Catholic Orphan Home in USA 879
14 Bellewood Presbyterian Homes for Children in Kentucky 869
15 Florida Baptist Children Homes 846
16 Presbyterian Children Homes and Services 780
17 Foundation supporting orphanages Casa Hogar Sion, Hacienda, El Faro, Casa Hogar Esperanza 745
18 Presbyterian Children Services - Outreach Centers 696
19 Diocesan Catholic Children's Home is a treatment center for children, ages 6 to 14, who have severe to moderate emotional and/or behavioral problems 321

http://www.myorphanage.org/america/usa/index.php

That's a site that aggregates information on orphanages around the world, both past and present. Virtually all Shirley Temple-style orphanages in the United States were dismantled in the 60s and 70s. Adoptable children generally live with foster parents or in small group homes. We don't have barracks of kids waiting around for gays to adopt.

Besides, gays aren't more inclined to adopt, let alone adopt a special needs child, than any other group. They tend to want biological children just like most people.

The Night Owl
06-04-2008, 01:41 PM
That's a site that aggregates information on orphanages around the world, both past and present...

Only one of the facilities listed on the page of US orphanages is closed and I took that one off the list.


Virtually all Shirley Temple-style orphanages in the United States were dismantled in the 60s and 70s. Adoptable children generally live with foster parents or in small group homes. We don't have barracks of kids waiting around for gays to adopt.

A group home is, by definition, an orphanage.

wilbur
06-04-2008, 01:43 PM
No trick, just that liberals will not stop once gay marriage is allowed. Feminists were not content with equality, they want advantages. Race baiters like Jackson and Sharpton are not content with racial equality, they demand preferences and some even demand monetary compensation for past wrongs.

Hate crime legislation, affirmative action, the reparations movement, anti-sports activists, there's quite a few disadvantages that have come from conservatives saying "this far, but no more." You can't honestly expect liberal fanatics to stop once they 'win' the fight for gay marriage. There are going to be consequences, and I do not think they are good for this country.


Perhaps, if you buy into the idea that gay marriage is a party line issue. I think most libertarian conservatives don't particularly care, and many on the left oppose it. It definitely used by the right politicians as a motivator for their religious base, particularly because of all the doomsday connotations surrounding it. Today's youth, regardless of party tend to support the idea.



Religion is a guiding element of our society. Without religion, there is no absolute moral code. Calling people who form the bedrock of our society 'irrational' is a bit bigoted.


This seems like the 'you cant have morality without god' fallacy... that should probably be a topic for another thread.



Now you're changing the argument. Before you were arguing that allowing gays to marry helps heterosexual marriages, now you're saying there's "no reasonable evidence?"


I played devil's advocate, granting that there may be a correlation between legality of gay marriage and heterosexual marriage rates. I argued if you were going to believe that correlation it would lead one to conclude that gay marriage improves them, ever so slightly. But in my original posts I said I don't think there really is a correlation.



I don't necessarily disagree on eliminating government from marriage, but I think that it is an idealistic and ultimately unrealistic expectation. It is just not going to happen, there is too much of a lobbying force in the issue.


You are probably right.



Government should get out of marriage, charity, private industries, basically out of a lot of things. Unfortunately, it is going to take a major swing in public sentiment to make people stop believing in government as the cure to all of our ills.

Sadly, true as well.

RobJohnson
06-04-2008, 01:56 PM
I do not see why genetics should matter. Even if it is their "choice to be gay" they should be allowed to marry because America is all about freedom to choose how you live your life as long as you are not tramping on the rights of others.

Well maybe you and Night Owl could get married and adopt. I just don't care to see the pictures.

wilbur
06-04-2008, 01:59 PM
Well maybe you and Night Owl could get married and adopt. I just don't care to see the pictures.

Do you really care to see the pictures of a typical fat american straight couple? :confused:

Lanie
06-04-2008, 02:04 PM
The argument is valid. If you give into one perversion then all other freaks will pop up wanting special rights.

When a man/woman looks at your private parts without your permission, it's perversion. When permission is granted, it's not perversion and it's not being a freak.

Why is wanting the right to get married "special rights"? I've never had that explained.

Lanie
06-04-2008, 02:06 PM
Maybe - if orphans lived orphanages in this country but they don't. They live with foster families, many of whom use their foster parenting experience as a step toward adopting a special needs child.

And many of those foster parents are doing it for money. No lie. I found foster parenting in the employment section one time. :eek:

Lanie
06-04-2008, 02:11 PM
That's a site that aggregates information on orphanages around the world, both past and present. Virtually all Shirley Temple-style orphanages in the United States were dismantled in the 60s and 70s. Adoptable children generally live with foster parents or in small group homes. We don't have barracks of kids waiting around for gays to adopt.

Besides, gays aren't more inclined to adopt, let alone adopt a special needs child, than any other group. They tend to want biological children just like most people.

Maybe most gays want a healthy child, but I've read they're more likely to adopt a special needs child than the average couple. I remember reading about one gay couple in Florida about to have their family broke up because of some law against gay adoption.

I'll look at your links soon.

Vepr
06-04-2008, 02:15 PM
Well maybe you and Night Owl could get married and adopt. I just don't care to see the pictures.

Well lets say we did. Who are we harming especially if we are not forcing anyone to see the pictures?

biccat
06-04-2008, 02:28 PM
Feel free to list any laws or codes of conduct which require belief in a diety.
I didn't say anything about laws or codes of conduct requiring belief in a diety. What I did say was that our laws are based on the concept of moral absolutes. For example, laws against drugs. Our moral system states that society's interest is best served if people are not allowed to engage in certain types of self-destructive behavior which tend to have a deteriorating impact on society.

Without moral absolutes, there is no rationale for any law.

Lanie
06-04-2008, 02:35 PM
Ginger, thanks for your links. One of the issues discussed was how marriage combated poverty and bad health. That's because a couple brings in more money than a single parent and in marriages, the husband/wife can put the spouse and kids on their insurance plan. Making gay marriage legal would actually help this problem. If gays were married, they could have the income of two people. If gays had legal marriages or at least civil unions, they could put their partner and kids on their health insurance (although they need law allowing people to put step-kids on their plan I suppose.

And of course, the less poor one is, the less likely they are to commit crimes (sorry, but research shows it's true).

But then the concept of needing both parental figures is stressed. So why can't the "other parent" see their kid often? It's not the same, but that would be presence needed. Of course, my mouth nearly dropped when they stressed that having two parents lead out to less smoking. So does not smoking oneself. I think that's the most powerful weapon against it.

Lanie
06-04-2008, 02:36 PM
I didn't say anything about laws or codes of conduct requiring belief in a diety. What I did say was that our laws are based on the concept of moral absolutes. For example, laws against drugs. Our moral system states that society's interest is best served if people are not allowed to engage in certain types of self-destructive behavior which tend to have a deteriorating impact on society.

Without moral absolutes, there is no rationale for any law.

There are arguments that drugs would be better combated by using the tax money to put people through rehab instead of jail.

I don't think "morals" should always lead out to laws. I think that does more harm than good at times.

biccat
06-04-2008, 02:47 PM
There are arguments that drugs would be better combated by using the tax money to put people through rehab instead of jail.

I don't think "morals" should always lead out to laws. I think that does more harm than good at times.
OK, so burglary laws. Our legal system states that those who violate the sanctity of a home in the commission of a crime should be punished harsher than those who simply commit a crime. What rationale is there for such a law, other than the fact that our society views the home as inviolate?

Without a moral ideal that the home has special status, a robbery committed in a house should be punished no differently than a robbery committed in a business.

Gingersnap
06-04-2008, 02:49 PM
But then the concept of needing both parental figures is stressed. So why can't the "other parent" see their kid often? It's not the same, but that would be presence needed. Of course, my mouth nearly dropped when they stressed that having two parents lead out to less smoking. So does not smoking oneself. I think that's the most powerful weapon against it.

It really isn't the same and that's the problem. Kids miss out on the hour-to-hour dynamic that plays out in family relationships. They also miss out on observing the interactions between opposite sex adults.

I don't know about you but most of the really important interactions I had with my parents just came up pretty casually in the course of mundane activities and conversations. No critical information was passed on during birthdays or while we went to the movies. Part-time parenting just isn't the best vehicle for raising kids.

RobJohnson
06-04-2008, 02:51 PM
Well lets say we did. Who are we harming especially if we are not forcing anyone to see the pictures?

Freaks of nature harm Society.

Vepr
06-04-2008, 03:10 PM
Freaks of nature harm Society.

If nature or god made something how can it be a "freak", was it not nature or gods design?

Honestly though I do not see how "freaks of nature" harm society unless said "freaks" actively try to limit our rights. Just because you find them disgusting that is not a good excuse.

RobJohnson
06-04-2008, 04:22 PM
And many of those foster parents are doing it for money. No lie. I found foster parenting in the employment section one time. :eek:

Don't be stupid.

Yeah, they do it for money....it pays about 25 cents an hour....

RobJohnson
06-04-2008, 04:23 PM
If nature or god made something how can it be a "freak", was it not nature or gods design?

Honestly though I do not see how "freaks of nature" harm society unless said "freaks" actively try to limit our rights. Just because you find them disgusting that is not a good excuse.

God did not make fags....humans choose to be fags.

RobJohnson
06-04-2008, 04:26 PM
Honestly though I do not see how "freaks of nature" harm society unless said "freaks" actively try to limit our rights. Just because you find them disgusting that is not a good excuse.

I don't want stay at home fags, that have never held a job, get spousal benefits after their faggot partner dies of AIDS.

Is that clear enough for you?

biccat
06-04-2008, 04:32 PM
If nature or god made something how can it be a "freak", was it not nature or gods design?
Do you extend the same sentiment to pedophiles or serial killers?

Molon Labe
06-04-2008, 04:40 PM
How does bestiality hurt others? What's wrong with it?

How does polygamy hurt others? What's wrong with it?

And the rationales go on and on don't they?

NAMBLA: What's wrong with a 15 year old boys choice? :rolleyes:

Vepr
06-04-2008, 04:51 PM
Do you extend the same sentiment to pedophiles or serial killers?

First I would not lump gay people in with serial killers and pedophiles. But if we are going to extend some grand design rights to some individual or thing like nature or god then yes. Disgusting as they are you have to say god or nature built them that way and it is part of the grand "design". Why is god only responsible for the good things and not the screw ups? Christians, why does god make pedophiles and serial killers. Please pray them away.

Vepr
06-04-2008, 04:54 PM
God did not make fags....humans choose to be fags.

RobJ when did you decide to be straight? One day did you say to yourself "I sure would like a piece of hairy man ass but you know what... I think I will be straight and go after women instead."

If they were born that way then god did make gay people? Why is god pumping out gay people? Maybe he is testing the faithful?

biccat
06-04-2008, 04:55 PM
First I would not lump gay people in with serial killers and pedophiles. But if we are going to extend some grand design rights to some individual or thing like nature or god then yes. Disgusting as they are you have to say god or nature built them that way and it is part of the grand "design". Why is god only responsible for the good things and not the screw ups? Christians, why does god make pedophiles and serial killers. Please pray them away.
I'm not equating homosexuals with serial killers and pedophiles except to the extent of the "God made them this way, so what's the problem" argument. Such an argument is patently absurd, because of the nature of God, you could rationalize any behavior.

Vepr
06-04-2008, 04:55 PM
I don't want stay at home fags, that have never held a job, get spousal benefits after their faggot partner dies of AIDS.

Is that clear enough for you?

What about stay at home straights that never held a job, get spousal benefits after their straight partner dies of cancer from smoking?

RobJohnson
06-04-2008, 04:57 PM
Christians, why does god make pedophiles and serial killers. Please pray them away.


Fuck off..

Vepr
06-04-2008, 05:05 PM
I'm not equating homosexuals with serial killers and pedophiles except to the extent of the "God made them this way, so what's the problem" argument. Such an argument is patently absurd, because of the nature of God, you could rationalize any behavior.

Sounds like religion. :D

I don't know that "freak" is fair when talking about gays. Maybe Albino's would fit but to me freak denotes something rare and surprising and it is not like gays are out of the ordinary.

Zafod
06-04-2008, 05:06 PM
Can anyone explain to me how being gay if natural in respect to evolution? How can being gay be considered "natural" and thought to be around since the begining of man when it prohibits procreation? You think that "evolution" would have kicked that whole thing out right away :rolleyes:

The Night Owl
06-04-2008, 05:12 PM
God did not make fags....humans choose to be fags.

Do you choose to be heterosexual? If being heterosexual is a matter of choice for you, then you are probably a gay man... or at least bisexual... not that there is anything wrong with that.

Vepr
06-04-2008, 05:13 PM
Fuck off..

Are you hitting on me? :eek:

The Night Owl
06-04-2008, 05:15 PM
Can anyone explain to me how being gay if natural in respect to evolution? How can being gay be considered "natural" and thought to be around since the begining of man when it prohibits procreation? You think that "evolution" would have kicked that whole thing out right away :rolleyes:

The survival of mankind does not depend on all humans being heterosexual and is in no way threatened by homosexuality because homosexuality occurs in only a small percentage of humans.

Vepr
06-04-2008, 05:17 PM
Can anyone explain to me how being gay if natural in respect to evolution? How can being gay be considered "natural" and thought to be around since the begining of man when it prohibits procreation? You think that "evolution" would have kicked that whole thing out right away :rolleyes:

Good question? Is it a genetic defect caused by certain people pairing up kind of like Tay-Sachs maybe? Can it be caused by certain conditions at birth? Who knows people are still studying it and maybe someday we will find out for sure but that does not mean that there is not a reason outside of "those dirty gays choose it!"

Zafod
06-04-2008, 05:45 PM
The survival of mankind does not depend on all humans being heterosexual and is in no way threatened by homosexuality because homosexuality occurs in only a small percentage of humans.

So to your line of logic being "gay" is to always be a minority? What keeps the percentage small?

Zafod
06-04-2008, 05:46 PM
Good question? Is it a genetic defect caused by certain people pairing up kind of like Tay-Sachs maybe? Can it be caused by certain conditions at birth? Who knows people are still studying it and maybe someday we will find out for sure but that does not mean that there is not a reason outside of "those dirty gays choose it!"

So what about people who were once gay but are now not?

RobJohnson
06-04-2008, 05:51 PM
Sounds like religion. :D

I don't know that "freak" is fair when talking about gays. Maybe Albino's would fit but to me freak denotes something rare and surprising and it is not like gays are out of the ordinary.

Sex between two people of the same sex will always be wrong and unnatural.

Gingersnap
06-04-2008, 05:55 PM
Christians, why does god make pedophiles and serial killers.

Predestination, dude. Everybody knows this. :D

Vepr
06-04-2008, 06:09 PM
So what about people who were once gay but are now not?

There is a cure? I don't know. I will admit that it is possible some people do choose but small numbers of people switching either to or away from being gay does not prove that majority are not born that way.

Vepr
06-04-2008, 06:12 PM
Sex between two people of the same sex will always be wrong and unnatural.

I don't know about wrong, that is subjective but I can see the argument for unnatural.

The Night Owl
06-04-2008, 07:21 PM
So to your line of logic being "gay" is to always be a minority? What keeps the percentage small?

I don't know. What keeps the percentage of albinos small?

Zafod
06-04-2008, 07:29 PM
I don't know. What keeps the percentage of albinos small?

So again along your line of logic being gay is the same as having a birth disorder?
Gay = retarded?

The Night Owl
06-04-2008, 07:44 PM
So again along your line of logic being gay is the same as having a birth disorder?

Correct.


Gay = retarded?

Incorrect. Homosexuality does not affect the brain in the same way that Down Syndrome does.

gator
06-04-2008, 07:47 PM
.



Incorrect. Homosexuality does not affect the brain in the same way that Down Syndrome does.

So one man wanting to suck the prick of another man is not retared some way or another?

Are you a homosexual?

Vepr
06-04-2008, 07:53 PM
Predestination, dude. Everybody knows this. :D

I tried to convince my wife I was predestined to watch college football every Saturday in the fall while eating nachos and drinking beer. She does not seem impressed with the theory. ;)

The Night Owl
06-04-2008, 07:57 PM
So one man wanting to suck the prick of another man is not retared some way or another?

No. Lots of brilliant people throughout history were gay. For instance, Alan Turing...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing

Consider... The United States might not have won WWII if not for the contributions Alan Turing, a homosexual.


Are you a homosexual?

I am straight.

DarkHalo
06-04-2008, 08:34 PM
I dont have a problem with gays. it means more young hotties for me. ;)

Seriously though this is another of those topics that is a waste of breath to discuss as we all know nobody will change anyone elses opinion on it.

Gay marriage is a danger to heterosexual marriage? Like marriage in America isnt already on its deathbed. This conservative doesnt have a problem with gay marriage. The only problem i have with "gay rights" is if that means 'special rights".

The problem with marriage today is unreasonable expectations. It aint a Wally and Beaver world but thats what most seem to expect. And when that doesnt happen they toss it all in the trash. I am 52 and when I was in grade school in the late 60's I heard of exactly 1 couple in our neighborhood that got a divorce and that was talked about in whispers.

Of course I am not a christian either so maybe thats part of it. Good luck with the discussion folks. the simple fatc is that gays have been around forever and will be around forever. As long as it is not forced on those not interested whats the big deal?

So lets move on to a more interesting topic....like what oral sex techniques women like receiving best? :cool:

wilbur
06-04-2008, 08:35 PM
Wow.

Just look at the past two pages of this thread... and people try and tell me I am bigoted for saying the anti-gay marriage crowd is bigoted (at least in very substantial amounts). :D

wilbur
06-04-2008, 08:38 PM
Seriously though this is another of those topics that is a waste of breath to discuss as we all know nobody will change anyone elses opinion on it.


This is true... I don't even really care about this issue, I don't know why I keep roped into the threads about it.. overall is ts pretty insignificant.



Gay marriage is a danger to heterosexual marriage? Like marriage in America isnt already on its deathbed. This conservative doesnt have a problem with gay marriage. The only problem i have with "gay rights" is if that means 'special rights".



I agree with this.

Goldwater
06-04-2008, 08:38 PM
Normal marriage in Massachusetts hasn't exploded and killed people in fires of evil, it isn't a big deal.

Lanie
06-04-2008, 09:10 PM
It really isn't the same and that's the problem. Kids miss out on the hour-to-hour dynamic that plays out in family relationships. They also miss out on observing the interactions between opposite sex adults.

I don't know about you but most of the really important interactions I had with my parents just came up pretty casually in the course of mundane activities and conversations. No critical information was passed on during birthdays or while we went to the movies. Part-time parenting just isn't the best vehicle for raising kids.

Well, I think you're right. However, if we make laws based on all these ideas, we might as well make divorces and other things that might be a threat to heterosexual marriage illegal. I believe that every situation is different and that we need to trust individuals to do what is right for their families.

Lanie
06-04-2008, 09:13 PM
Can anyone explain to me how being gay if natural in respect to evolution? How can being gay be considered "natural" and thought to be around since the begining of man when it prohibits procreation? You think that "evolution" would have kicked that whole thing out right away :rolleyes:

First, you don't have to reproduce in order for your species to progress. In fact, some people probably shouldn't reproduce because of all the things they'd pass down.

Next, evolution isn't necessarily about biological progress. It's about biological changes through mutation. Then, we pass those mutations down.

Lanie
06-04-2008, 09:16 PM
So one man wanting to suck the prick of another man is not retared some way or another?

Are you a homosexual?

Homosexuals are not typically shown to have a lower IQ or to have struggles in learning. Not there aren't homosexuals with intellectual disabilities, but it's not proven to be typical.

megimoo
06-04-2008, 09:28 PM
Homosexuals are not typically shown to have a lower IQ or to have struggles in learning. Not there aren't homosexuals with intellectual disabilities, but it's not proven to be typical.
Homosexuality was once defined as a treatable mental condition but with a few well chosen words,a few gay psychiatrists,a push to redefine in the interest of political correctness, and a few large donations the homosexual lobby was able to convince the APA to refine the definition !FruityNuts over at NU was incarcerated because of his affliction .Ask him,it's how he acquired his screen name

Goldwater
06-04-2008, 09:47 PM
Homosexuality was once defined as a treatable mental condition but with a few well chosen words,a few gay psychiatrists,a push to redefine in the interest of political correctness, and a few large donations the homosexual lobby was able to convince the APA to refine the definition !FruityNuts over at NU was incarcerated because of his affliction .Ask him,it's how he acquired his screen name

Gays were also manly spartan warriors too, lets not forget that, long before it was defined as bad, it was defined as good and healthy, in many cultures, from Greece to Japan.

Phillygirl
06-04-2008, 09:49 PM
Homosexuality was once defined as a treatable mental condition but with a few well chosen words,a few gay psychiatrists,a push to redefine in the interest of political correctness, and a few large donations the homosexual lobby was able to convince the APA to refine the definition !FruityNuts over at NU was incarcerated because of his affliction .Ask him,it's how he acquired his screen name

What? Megimoo that's crap. That is not how he acquired his screen name. I have no idea about him being incarcerated. But seriously, why throw in people on the net on this? It's petty.

du freeper
06-04-2008, 09:53 PM
Do you choose to be heterosexual? If being heterosexual is a matter of choice for you, then you are probably a gay man... or at least bisexual... not that there is anything wrong with that.

No. We were CREATED to be heterosexual. If you "choose" to be gay, you choose the perverted lifestyle. If you were born with a genetic defect to by gay then signed up for ADA benefits.

Lanie
06-04-2008, 10:05 PM
Homosexuality was once defined as a treatable mental condition but with a few well chosen words,a few gay psychiatrists,a push to redefine in the interest of political correctness, and a few large donations the homosexual lobby was able to convince the APA to refine the definition !FruityNuts over at NU was incarcerated because of his affliction .Ask him,it's how he acquired his screen name

That's a huge accusation. No proof of course. FN is one of the most wonderful posters I know. Not because he's a liberal, but because he has a good heart. I take offense to that.

I don't think there was ever a time when homosexuals were typically locked up for being homosexual. Anybody who was locked up has nothing to be ashamed of though, only the people who locked them up do.

The Night Owl
06-04-2008, 10:07 PM
Homosexuality was once defined as a treatable mental condition but with a few well chosen words,a few gay psychiatrists,a push to redefine in the interest of political correctness, and a few large donations the homosexual lobby was able to convince the APA to refine the definition !FruityNuts over at NU was incarcerated because of his affliction .Ask him,it's how he acquired his screen name

You might have to resort to your old trick of altering a screenshot of forum post to pull this one off. Hey, it worked last time, didn't it?

du freeper
06-04-2008, 10:16 PM
That's a huge accusation. No proof of course. FN is one of the most wonderful posters I know. Not because he's a liberal, but because he has a good heart. I take offense to that.

I don't think there was ever a time when homosexuals were typically locked up for being homosexual. Anybody who was locked up has nothing to be ashamed of though, only the people who locked them up do.

If you took away all of the gay posts and threads from FN post counts I doubt he be breaking 1000. :cool:

Vepr
06-04-2008, 10:19 PM
I never understood the religoius vehemenance towards gays. I always thought it was hate the sin but love the sinner.

du freeper
06-04-2008, 10:23 PM
I never understood the religoius vehemenance towards gays. I always thought it was hate the sin but love the sinner.

Where do you see a contradiction? I love gay people as the creation God intended. That doesn't mean I have to except their perversions?

Goldwater
06-04-2008, 10:27 PM
Where do you see a contradiction? I love gay people as the creation God intended. That doesn't mean I have to except their perversions?

No one asks you to accept their lifestyle, just not to interfere with it.

Vepr
06-04-2008, 10:28 PM
Where do you see a contradiction? I love gay people as the creation God intended. That doesn't mean I have to except their perversions?

As seen on this thread though many are openly hostile towards gays. I am all for freedom of association and the freeom to espouse opinions regardless if they are for or against a certain group. I just do not understand the visceral hate some seem to hold. It is almost like they see them as less than human.

du freeper
06-04-2008, 10:29 PM
No one asks you to accept their lifestyle, just not to interfere with it.

I won't interfere with it if they stop trying to teach my kids that it's "normal". ;)

Lanie
06-04-2008, 10:30 PM
As seen on this thread though many are openly hostile towards gays. I am all for freedom of association and the freeom to espouse opinions regardless if they are for or against a certain group. I just do not understand the visceral hate some seem to hold. It is almost like they see them as less than human.

Agreed. :(

Goldwater
06-04-2008, 10:31 PM
I won't interfere with it if they stop trying to teach my kids that it's "normal". ;)

Fair enough. ;)

du freeper
06-04-2008, 10:34 PM
As seen on this thread though many are openly hostile towards gays. I am all for freedom of association and the freeom to espouse opinions regardless if they are for or against a certain group. I just do not understand the visceral hate some seem to hold. It is almost like they see them as less than human.

You mistake the "visceral" language as hate. We hate what they are trying to do by corrupting the sanctity of marriage. We hate the fact that they try to teach our kids that homosexuality is normal. If you want a sac drug across your face that's your business. But quit trying to get us to except it as "normal".

Again, hate the sin, love the sinner...

Jumpy
06-04-2008, 10:39 PM
Many on your side are willing to teach my kids that gays are "perverts", so I see that as the pot calling the kettle black. In any case, it's always wrong to for an idea on kids in school (pro or anti gay rights).

I don't think it's loving to call somebody a pervert or beastly. LOVING, shmoving. Hows about we teach kids reading, writing and rithmatic in our schools?

Also... your last sentence.. there is NOBODY you would call a pervert, or beastly? A zillion fetishes under the sun.. pedophiles, who cannot seem to be cured probably think they are born that way..Can we call them pervs?

Hows about folks that are only sexually attracted to animals? Pervs? Beastly?

Gingersnap
06-04-2008, 10:42 PM
I tried to convince my wife I was predestined to watch college football every Saturday in the fall while eating nachos and drinking beer. She does not seem impressed with the theory. ;)

You aren't God. And she knows it.:D

du freeper
06-04-2008, 10:44 PM
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/dosequis/gere6ra.gif

Lanie
06-04-2008, 10:44 PM
LOVING, shmoving. Hows about we teach kids reading, writing and rithmatic in our schools?

Also... your last sentence.. there is NOBODY you would call a pervert, or beastly? A zillion fetishes under the sun.. pedophiles, who cannot seem to be cured probably think they are born that way..Can we call them pervs?

Hows about folks that are only sexually attracted to animals? Pervs? Beastly?

Never delete a post.

Yes, I would call somebody a pervert, real perverts. Somebody who molests a child is nothing near on the same scale as somebody who just falls in love with the same gender. Apples and oranges.

And I agree. Math, science, and so forth should be what's primarily taught in schools. All I'm saying is that we already have people pushing anti-homosexual ideas on students and it's not made a big deal out of. And don't say it doesn't happen. I know it does. I was in school once.

du freeper
06-04-2008, 10:46 PM
Never delete a post.

Yes, I would call somebody a pervert, real perverts. Somebody who molests a child is nothing near on the same scale as somebody who just falls in love with the same gender. Apples and oranges.

And I agree. Math, science, and so forth should be what's primarily taught in schools. All I'm saying is that we already have people pushing anti-homosexual ideas on students and it's not made a big deal out of. And don't say it doesn't happen. I know it does. I was in school once.


This is why I strive never to get on Jumpy's bad side. ;)

Lanie
06-04-2008, 10:52 PM
http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b334/dosequis/gere6ra.gif

Why are you posting pics of yourself? :D

du freeper
06-04-2008, 10:53 PM
Why are you posting pics of yourself? :D

Doh! I put Richard Gere's face on my body hoping no one would notice! :eek:

Vepr
06-04-2008, 10:54 PM
You mistake the "visceral" language as hate. We hate what they are trying to do by corrupting the sanctity of marriage. We hate the fact that they try to teach our kids that homosexuality is normal. If you want a sac drug across your face that's your business. But quit trying to get us to except it as "normal".

Again, hate the sin, love the sinner...


I don't know. For instance while you are able to discuss the the issue calmly while others like Rob seem to froth about it. Unfortunately the sanctity of marriage has seen far more abuse at the hands of hetrosexuals. :( I agree that teaching the morality or lack of morality when it comes to sex is the parents place and not anyone else's. That being said if a child is so easily swayed by something someone else says other than what you are teaching them then you have bigger problems than homosexuals.

Vepr
06-04-2008, 10:56 PM
You aren't God. And she knows it.:D
I tried for part time prophet and she would not buy that either.

du freeper
06-04-2008, 10:57 PM
I don't know. For instance while you are able to discuss the the issue calmly while others like Rob seem to froth about it. Unfortunately the sanctity of marriage has seen far more abuse at the hands of hetrosexuals. :( I agree that teaching the morality or lack of morality when it comes to sex is the parents place and not anyone else's. That being said if a child is so easily swayed by something someone else says other than what you are teaching them then you have bigger problems than homosexuals.

I agree with most of what you are saying. But our kids are in government run indoctrination camps which by law they must attend (unless homeschooled). They get crap like evolution and embracing everyone's sexual orientation in the daily grist.

Vepr
06-04-2008, 11:00 PM
I agree with most of what you are saying. But our kids are in government run indoctrination camps which by law they must attend (unless homeschooled). They get crap like evolution and embracing everyone's sexual orientation in the daily grist.

I see what you are saying but I often treat it as an opportunity. I always ask my kids what they learned that day and then try to discuss things with them from other points of view. This has brought up a lot of discussion on things from firearms, federal government over stepping its bounds, earth day, the civil war and even beer drinking. :)

megimoo
06-04-2008, 11:21 PM
You might have to resort to your old trick of altering a screenshot of forum post to pull this one off. Hey, it worked last time, didn't it?

Are you denying the fact of the matter eyeball?The definition of Homosexuality was indeed changed by the APA .Kids like you make me very nervous about Americas future ,Here read it and argue for a bait and switch .

!However, by 1965,Washington DC's Mattachine Society (MSW) was on the record stating that homosexuality and heterosexuality were equally 'normal'.

"'Gay Shock Troops'," ....'Zapping the Shrinks,May 3, 1971
On the heels of the Mayday protests came another joint operation of gay liberationists, Mattachine Society of Washington and the newly formed Gay Activists Alliance. The American Psychiatric Association was holding its annual convention at the Shoreham Hotel overlooking Rock Creek Park.
Seven years earlier, Jack Nichols and Dr. Franklin Kameny had launched a campaign to bring about removal of homosexuality from the psychiatrists' manual in which it was classified as a mental disease, on a par with schozophrenia and manic depression.

Following disruption by gay activists at the 1970 convention in San Francisco, the APA offered a conference panel discussion to be organized by Dr. Kameny, who invited Barbara Gittings, Jack Baker and others to participate in a discussion entitled "Lifestyles of Nonpatient Homosexuals", which ensured the panelists admittance to all of the convention's activities including the annual Convocation of Fellows.

Resisting the 'Sickness' Definition

The American Psychiatric Association's definition of homosexuality as an illness in its second Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (1968) provided crucial underpinnings for federal discrimination against homosexuals. From the late 1940s, civil laws had in many states criminalized homosexuality defining it as a sexual pathology and providing imprisonment and institutionalization as punishment. A core of American psychiatrists and psychologists provided written arguments supporting the definition of homosexuality as an illness.

In contrast to older homosexual organizations' accommodation of medical opinion, Washington DC's Mattachine Society (MSW) took a contrary view that homosexuals were as 'normal' as heterosexuals. MSW's position was not accomplished without dissent. Jack Nichols, co-founder of MSW, in an October 14, 1963 letter to the MSW Board proposed a formal statement opposing the medical establishment. Discussion of the policy within Mattachine was protracted.

However, by 1965, MSW was on the record stating that homosexuality and heterosexuality were equally 'normal'.

Vepr
06-04-2008, 11:27 PM
While we should not be to quick to move away from the teachings of the past (because there is often wisdom there) we also have to remember that changes are not always bad. Not so long ago women could not vote, some would argue it should still be that way but I personally think it was the right thing to do... maybe ;)

Just because homosexuality was believed to be a mental illiness 30 or 40 years ago does not mean it was the correct view.

Gingersnap
06-04-2008, 11:39 PM
I tried for part time prophet and she would not buy that either.

Many are called but few are chosen. :D

The Night Owl
06-04-2008, 11:50 PM
No. We were CREATED to be heterosexual. If you "choose" to be gay, you choose the perverted lifestyle. If you were born with a genetic defect to by gay then signed up for ADA benefits.

Do you have any evidence to support this idea that homosexuals are really just perverted heterosexuals or are you just guessing?

Vepr
06-04-2008, 11:52 PM
Many are called but few are chosen. :D

After 4 children and 12 years of marriage I rank somewhere under the washer and dryer and above the toaster.

megimoo
06-04-2008, 11:52 PM
While we should not be to quick to move away from the teachings of the past (because there is often wisdom there) we also have to remember that changes are not always bad. Not so long ago women could not vote, some would argue it should still be that way but I personally think it was the right thing to do... maybe ;)

Just because homosexuality was believed to be a mental illiness 30 or 40 years ago does not mean it was the correct view.Has any new scientific,non gay agenda driven, research shown that it a normal self perpetuating life .
The working definitions were changed by brute force to accodate the raging homosexuals .The understandings of abnormality in human beings needs to be investigated for the sake of humanity .

If all men and woman were suddenly to become gay due to some disease that has been for long been dormant would humanity survive ?

Vepr
06-05-2008, 12:00 AM
Has any new scientific,non gay agenda driven, research shown that it a normal self perpetuating life .
The working definitions were changed by brute force to accodate the raging homosexuals .The understandings of abnormality in human beings needs to be investigated for the sake of humanity .

If all men and woman were suddenly to become gay due to some disease that has been for long been dormant would humanity survive ?

Studies into the genetics of gays is being done. Like I said before I think we will learn more as more research is done. I do not think all of it is gay driven either. Many gays seem to be worried that if the cause is found genetic, mental or otherwise a cure will be created.

If all men and woman were suddenly turned gay the population would probably cease to grow as fast but being gay does not mean you cannot procreate or do not care to procreate. There are gay women that are interested in being mothers just like their are gay men that are interested in being fathers. Some live the lifestyles of straight people hiding the fact that they are gay. Maybe this is how the gene etc survives.

Gingersnap
06-05-2008, 12:00 AM
After 4 children and 12 years of marriage I rank somewhere under the washer and dryer and above the toaster.

Well, the toaster is "unclean" as we all know so you're doing good.

Vepr
06-05-2008, 12:01 AM
Well, the toaster is "unclean" as we all know so you're doing good.

I am nervous about the new toaster oven though. :(

Gingersnap
06-05-2008, 12:03 AM
I am nervous about the new toaster oven though. :(

Worry about the Dyson vac. The toaster oven is a tool of Satan.

Vepr
06-05-2008, 12:05 AM
Worry about the Dyson vac. The toaster oven is a tool of Satan.

My wife wants a Dyson but I told her for what they cost they should include a steering wheel and leather seats.

du freeper
06-05-2008, 12:37 AM
Do you have any evidence to support this idea that homosexuals are really just perverted heterosexuals or are you just guessing?

I'm saying that homo's are perverts. They are aberrant in their thinking. Anything else?

Lanie
06-05-2008, 12:49 AM
I'm saying that homo's are perverts. They are aberrant in their thinking. Anything else?

Nice way to convince people that you're right.

du freeper
06-05-2008, 12:51 AM
Nice way to convince people that you're right.

You are not going to find (any longer) the definition of a homo being a pervert. TNO knows that. He is asking to prove a morality. He is being a dick.

wilbur
06-05-2008, 08:01 AM
Studies into the genetics of gays is being done. Like I said before I think we will learn more as more research is done. I do not think all of it is gay driven either. Many gays seem to be worried that if the cause is found genetic, mental or otherwise a cure will be created.


If they find a gay gene, it will be fastest u-turn in history as Christians rush to embrace genetic embryonic research and abortion.

megimoo
06-05-2008, 08:05 AM
While we should not be to quick to move away from the teachings of the past (because there is often wisdom there) we also have to remember that changes are not always bad. Not so long ago women could not vote, some would argue it should still be that way but I personally think it was the right thing to do... maybe ;)

Just because homosexuality was believed to be a mental illiness 30 or 40 years ago does not mean it was the correct view.Should we also re_examine the definition of syphilis and leprosy for the sake of brevaty,perhaps it's not as bad as we first thought ?

The Night Owl
06-05-2008, 08:48 AM
Studies into the genetics of gays is being done. Like I said before I think we will learn more as more research is done. I do not think all of it is gay driven either. Many gays seem to be worried that if the cause is found genetic, mental or otherwise a cure will be created.

If all men and woman were suddenly turned gay the population would probably cease to grow as fast but being gay does not mean you cannot procreate or do not care to procreate. There are gay women that are interested in being mothers just like their are gay men that are interested in being fathers. Some live the lifestyles of straight people hiding the fact that they are gay. Maybe this is how the gene etc survives.

There is strong evidence that homosexuality is at least in part a genetic trait.

du freeper
06-05-2008, 08:53 AM
If they find a gay gene, it will be fastest u-turn in history as Christians rush to embrace genetic embryonic research and abortion.

If you believe in "evolution" you must be aware that the evolutionist believes that species are always evolving to propagate and preserve itself. That being the case the "gay gene" would be a defect.

If you find a "gay gene" it means that "evolution" is trying to rid itself of a defects.

Before you try to say I am calling homos "defects" know that I do not believe in the farce of evolution.

The Night Owl
06-05-2008, 09:11 AM
If you believe in "evolution" you must be aware that the evolutionist believes that species are always evolving to propagate and preserve itself.

The evolutionist does not believe that living things evolve to propagate and survive.

du freeper
06-05-2008, 09:18 AM
The evolutionist does not believe that living things evolve to propagate and survive.

So evolutionist believe that eventually we will all evolve homo's? Well, the environment whacko's will be thrilled to hear that!

Rebel Yell
06-05-2008, 09:29 AM
There is strong evidence that homosexuality is at least in part a genetic trait.

If they find the "gay gene", and it can be reversed, will you still say the ones that elect to stay gay should be allowed to be married?

biccat
06-05-2008, 09:39 AM
The evolutionist does not believe that living things evolve to propagate and survive.
No, but only living things that propagate survive.

Homosexuality, if it were genetic, would have been bred out of humanity within 3-4 generations, unless it was a detriment attached to a beneficial trait (e.g. sickle cell anemia).

Why is the gay agenda so obsessed with "conscious choice or genetic?" Those are not the only options, which any rational thinker would recognize. The environment you grow up in has a lot to do with how you develop. The "Nature vs. Nurture" argument has been going on for quite some time.

I think many homosexuals are subjected to a female dominated childhood where they see men as mere sexual objects to be used and discarded. They don't see a strong man leading a family, and so they do not grow up to be strong family men. In a society that says to embrace your perversions rather than ignore them, it's no surprise that there are more open gays now than ever.

Rebel Yell
06-05-2008, 09:46 AM
No, but only living things that propagate survive.

Homosexuality, if it were genetic, would have been bred out of humanity within 3-4 generations, unless it was a detriment attached to a beneficial trait (e.g. sickle cell anemia).

Why is the gay agenda so obsessed with "conscious choice or genetic?" Those are not the only options, which any rational thinker would recognize. The environment you grow up in has a lot to do with how you develop. The "Nature vs. Nurture" argument has been going on for quite some time.

I think many homosexuals are subjected to a female dominated childhood where they see men as mere sexual objects to be used and discarded. They don't see a strong man leading a family, and so they do not grow up to be strong family men. In a society that says to embrace your perversions rather than ignore them, it's no surprise that there are more open gays now than ever.

I completely agree with your post, but I think there is alot simpler reason for the boom of open fags today. MTV has made it cool to be gay. I think that is a huge part of it.

biccat
06-05-2008, 09:51 AM
I completely agree with your post, but I think there is alot simpler reason for the boom of open fags today. MTV has made it cool to be gay. I think that is a huge part of it.
More than MTV. Back when they still played music, they weren't promoting homos like they are now. Maybe younger kids are gay because of MTV, but there must have been some event 20-30 years ago to trigger some of the older ass pirates.

The Night Owl
06-05-2008, 10:05 AM
No, but only living things that propagate survive.

Homosexuality does not prevent propagation. It might mike propagation less likely, but it does not prevent it. Case in point... Mr. Ted Haggard, father of 5 children.


Homosexuality, if it were genetic, would have been bred out of humanity within 3-4 generations, unless it was a detriment attached to a beneficial trait (e.g. sickle cell anemia).

Why?


Why is the gay agenda so obsessed with "conscious choice or genetic?"

The gay agenda? I'm straight. I have no dog in this hunt... except for the one looking for the truth.

biccat
06-05-2008, 10:25 AM
Why?
Because evolutionists tell us that traits which inhibit or discourage breeding can not survive. Evolution is all about surviving and procreating. If you don't survive to procreate, or have a trait by which you choose not to procreate, your genetic makeup is not passed down.

Don't they teach this stuff in grade school?

Goldwater
06-05-2008, 10:27 AM
lol "gay agenda", they are organized and will take over the world!

Rebel Yell
06-05-2008, 10:27 AM
Because evolutionists tell us that traits which inhibit or discourage breeding can not survive. Evolution is all about surviving and procreating. If you don't survive to procreate, or have a trait by which you choose not to procreate, your genetic makeup is not passed down.

Don't they teach this stuff in grade school?

They teach it, but with the PC police and all, it can't relate to homosexuality.

Rebel Yell
06-05-2008, 10:39 AM
They also teach that AIDS is not a gay disease, but consider this.


However, AIDS is by far most common among the homosexual population in the United States, primarily because the type and frequency of sexual contact, combined with STDs, is the perfect method of spreading a body-fluid borne virus.

Public health records demonstrate that homosexuals, representing 2 percent of America's population, suffer vastly disproportionate percentages of several of America's most serious STDs, with incidences among homosexuals of diseases like gonorrhea, syphilis, hepatitis A and B, cytomegalovirus, shigellosis, giardiasis, amoebic bowel disease and herpes far exceeding their presence in the general population. These are due to common homosexual practices that include fellatio, anilingus, digital stimulation of the rectum and ingestion of urine and feces.

<snip>

To the present time, 75 to 85 percent of AIDS cases reported are related to homosexual activity, promiscuous heterosexual sex and IV drug abuse. AIDS stubbornly refuses to spread into the population in general, even 20 years after its discovery, despite dire warnings to the contrary.

http://www.marysremnant.org/Friends/DBK/BKHomAids.html

Why don't I consider fags normal? From the same link....

An exhaustive study in The New England Journal of Medicine, medical literature's only study reporting on homosexuals who kept sexual "diaries," indicated the average homosexual ingests the fecal material of 23 different men each year. The same study indicated the number of annual sexual partners averaged nearly 100. Homosexuals averaged, per year, fellating 106 different men and swallowing 50 of their seminal ejaculations, and 72 penile penetrations of the anus. (Corey, L, and Holmes, K.K., "Sexual Transmission of Hepatitis A in Homosexual Men," New England Journal of Medicine, 1980, vol 302: 435-438; as quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

A study by McKusick, et al., of 655 San Francisco homosexuals reported that only 24 percent of the sample claimed to have been "monogamous" during the past year, and of this 24 percent, 5 percent drank urine, 7 percent engag-ed in sex involving insertion of a fist in their rectums, 33 percent ingested feces, 53 percent swallowed semen and 59 percent received semen in their rectums in the month just previous to the survey ("AIDS and Sexual Behavior Reported by Homosexual Men in San Francisco," American Journal of Public Health, December 1985, 75: 493-496; quoted in "Homosexuality and Civil Rights," Tony Marco, 1992).

That is by very definition, perverted.

Zafod
06-05-2008, 10:40 AM
well no one really answered my questions but what ever.
The gay lifestyle is unnatural and disfunctional.

biccat
06-05-2008, 10:48 AM
well no one really answered my questions but what ever.
Yes, No, 12, and George Takai.

Hope that answers your questions.

Teetop
06-05-2008, 11:09 AM
The "gay lifestyle" is doomed. No gay, or lesbian, couple can pro-create. So, they will become extinct. :cool:

The Night Owl
06-05-2008, 11:16 AM
Because evolutionists tell us that traits which inhibit or discourage breeding can not survive. Evolution is all about surviving and procreating. If you don't survive to procreate, or have a trait by which you choose not to procreate, your genetic makeup is not passed down.

Don't they teach this stuff in grade school?


The "gay lifestyle" is doomed. No gay, or lesbian, couple can pro-create. So, they will become extinct. :cool:

There is no evidence that homosexuality is passed on only from homosexual parents. If the genes which cause homosexuality can be passed on from heterosexuals, then there is no reason to think that homosexuality is a genetic dead end.

Rebel Yell
06-05-2008, 11:21 AM
There is no evidence that homosexuality is passed on only from homosexual parents. If homosexuality can be passed on from heterosexuals, then there is no reason to think that homosexuality is a genetic dead end.

If it is genetic, it is like Gingers, recessive.

Teetop
06-05-2008, 11:35 AM
There is no evidence that homosexuality is passed on only from homosexual parents. If homosexuality can be passed on from heterosexuals, then there is no reason to think that homosexuality is a genetic dead end.


Can two males alone,pro-create? No.
Can two females alone procreate? No.

I win.
You lose.

Unless, of course, you have some new scientific article on how two females alone, or two males alone can pro-create?

The Night Owl
06-05-2008, 11:44 AM
Can two males alone,pro-create? No.
Can two females alone procreate? No.

I win.
You lose.

Unless, of course, you have some new scientific article on how two females alone, or two males alone can pro-create?

I must not be making myself clear. The genes which cause homosexuality can be passed down from homosexuals and heterosexuals.

megimoo
06-05-2008, 11:49 AM
Gays were also manly spartan warriors too, lets not forget that, long before it was defined as bad, it was defined as good and healthy, in many cultures, from Greece to Japan.

Harem keepers and civil servants only.Are you trying to equate Spartens warrior's and gays ?An interesting sidelight is IMHO is when the Persians finally defeated the Spartans the Persian king Xerxes ordered the emasculation of the young Sparten princes to remove any trace of their warlike nature .
He had them installed them into his male harem,bisexuality was an afflictions of the Persian nobles who didn't actually fight in battles!
Alexander the Great was said to be exposed to this depravity at the Persian court !

wilbur
06-05-2008, 11:58 AM
No, but only living things that propagate survive.

Homosexuality, if it were genetic, would have been bred out of humanity within 3-4 generations, unless it was a detriment attached to a beneficial trait (e.g. sickle cell anemia).


Not quite... It's possible to carry recessive genes that don't get expressed in an individual, but will become expressed in the offspring.



Why is the gay agenda so obsessed with "conscious choice or genetic?" Those are not the only options, which any rational thinker would recognize. The environment you grow up in has a lot to do with how you develop. The "Nature vs. Nurture" argument has been going on for quite some time.


Environmental factors can also change the expression of ones genes.



I think many homosexuals are subjected to a female dominated childhood where they see men as mere sexual objects to be used and discarded. They don't see a strong man leading a family, and so they do not grow up to be strong family men. In a society that says to embrace your perversions rather than ignore them, it's no surprise that there are more open gays now than ever.

How's that explain Dick Cheney's daughter?

megimoo
06-05-2008, 11:59 AM
I must not be making myself clear. The genes which cause homosexuality can be passed down from homosexuals and heterosexuals.Are you now an expert in genetics or just parroting the gay talking points.Watch my lips and follow this if you can ,Homosexuality is a choice not an genetic disorder .

The Night Owl
06-05-2008, 12:10 PM
Are you now an expert in genetics or just parroting the gay talking points.Watch my lips and follow this if you can ,Homosexuality is a choice not an genetic disorder .

Like I wrote earlier, there is strong scientific evidence indicating that homosexuality is at least in part a genetic trait. My position on homosexuality is based on science. What is your position on homosexuality based on? Something Jerry Falwell said?

linda22003
06-05-2008, 12:13 PM
Someone said, way back in the thread, that judges shouldn't be able to countermand the will of the people on an issue like this. Every poll I've seen says that acceptance of gays - and gay marriage - increases as the age of the person polled decreases. There's very little homophobia under the age of 30 or so.

So.... what if the will of the people changes as time goes on, as it well might? Is it okay for the people to decide gays can marry?

biccat
06-05-2008, 12:14 PM
I must not be making myself clear. The genes which cause homosexuality can be passed down from homosexuals and heterosexuals.
Lets see, simple Mendelian inheritance...

1st generation there are 25% homosexuals, 50% carriers, 25% heterosexuals.

Except those 25% homosexuals don't procreate. So 1/3 of the population will not pass on the gay gene. Next generation there's about 10% homosexuals, and about 40% of the population is homogeneus for the straight gene.

If homosexuals had continued to procreate, then they would steadily reintroduce their recessive trait back into the gene pool. But because 1/3 of the carriers of the recessive gene voluntarily remove themselves from the gene pool, it's only a matter of time until the recessive gene is removed. Simple statistics shows that it wouldn't take long for homosexuals to be bread out of existance.

Lanie
06-05-2008, 12:16 PM
You are not going to find (any longer) the definition of a homo being a pervert. TNO knows that. He is asking to prove a morality. He is being a dick.

He's being a dick for thinking homosexuals shouldn't be called perverts. I don't think so. I think you're being the dick.

Rebel Yell
06-05-2008, 12:17 PM
He's being a dick for thinking homosexuals shouldn't be called perverts. I don't think so. I think you're being the dick.

And I bet there's nothing you hate more than dick.

linda22003
06-05-2008, 12:18 PM
And I bet there's nothing you hate more than dick.

As an organ, or as a behavior? They're two very different things. :p

Lanie
06-05-2008, 12:18 PM
If you believe in "evolution" you must be aware that the evolutionist believes that species are always evolving to propagate and preserve itself. That being the case the "gay gene" would be a defect.

If you find a "gay gene" it means that "evolution" is trying to rid itself of a defects.

Before you try to say I am calling homos "defects" know that I do not believe in the farce of evolution.

Evolution is not about that.

Evolution is about change through mutation. That mutation can be good or bad. For example, I think there are animals that used to have wings or longer teeth thousands of years ago. Now they don't.

The only way I can think of homosexuality being a "defect" would be the issue that homosexuals can't reproduce. And honestly, do we need more reproduction with six billion people on the planet?

megimoo
06-05-2008, 12:19 PM
Like I wrote earlier, there is strong scientific evidence indicating that homosexuality is at least in part a genetic trait. My position on homosexuality is based on science. What is your position on homosexuality based on? Something Jerry Falwell said?
Cite your evidence and make your case then if you have anything definitive, I challenge you.The search for the rare 'gay gene'goes on and on ad infinitum but somehow is ever elusive.

Lanie
06-05-2008, 12:20 PM
Should we also re_examine the definition of syphilis and leprosy for the sake of brevaty,perhaps it's not as bad as we first thought ?

So homosexuality kills people and homosexuals should be stayed away from as somebody "not clean" because they are like one with leprosy? And people want to know why people like you are being accused of hate.

The Night Owl
06-05-2008, 12:21 PM
Cite your evidence and make your case then if you have anything definitive, I challenge you.The search for the rare 'gay gene'goes on and on ad infinitum but somehow is ever elusive.

I haven't claimed that the evidence is definitive. What I wrote is that the evidence is strong. And it is strong... and visible...

http://www.ias.ac.in/jgenet/Vol83No3/251.pdf

megimoo
06-05-2008, 12:22 PM
Someone said, way back in the thread, that judges shouldn't be able to countermand the will of the people on an issue like this. Every poll I've seen says that acceptance of gays - and gay marriage - increases as the age of the person polled decreases. There's very little homophobia under the age of 30 or so.

So.... what if the will of the people changes as time goes on, as it well might? Is it okay for the people to decide gays can marry?The will of all of the people shall prevail,and the people always get older !

Lanie
06-05-2008, 12:23 PM
well no one really answered my questions but what ever.
The gay lifestyle is unnatural and disfunctional.

You mean your question about evolution? Yes, I did answer it. Scroll up. As for your latest comment, that's answered too.

Lanie
06-05-2008, 12:26 PM
Are you now an expert in genetics or just parroting the gay talking points.Watch my lips and follow this if you can ,Homosexuality is a choice not an genetic disorder .

We all learned genetics in school. Let's use hair color for example. Your parents both hold dominant and recessive genes for probably more than one hair color (even though they only have one hair color). Those genes get passed down to you and you might end up with a completely different hair color (especially once your mom's recessive hair color genes are added with dad's).

In any case, who cares if it's a choice? I don't think it is a choice, but should the government be telling us who we can marry and so forth?

Lanie
06-05-2008, 12:28 PM
And I bet there's nothing you hate more than dick.

You sound like you're jealous. :p

And there's another ignorant idea. If somebody believes in homosexual rights or is a liberal, they must be gay. :D

Vepr
06-05-2008, 12:28 PM
Are you now an expert in genetics or just parroting the gay talking points.Watch my lips and follow this if you can ,Homosexuality is a choice not an genetic disorder .

Again if it is a choice when did you choose? At what point in time did you find both men and women attractive and you decided to bat for one team instead of the other?

I had a friend that was gay growing up. We knew something was different about him even in 2nd and 3rd grade but we did not know what it was at the time. It became obvious later why he was different but I doubt in first grade he decided to be gay. He has an older and younger brother who are both straight. I do not know if it is truly genetic or if there are other causes and factors but I do not believe all gays just choose to be gay. They can choose not to partake in homosexual activity of course but that does not mean they are still not attracted to the same sex. Who you find attractive sexual is not something you can just switch. I am not comparing gays to pedophiles but that is why trying to treat pedophiles and cure them is a waste of time. They are attracted physically to children and they cannot turn it off. They do not have to act on those urges of course but trying to cure them of those urges is a waste they need to be left in jail instead.

Rebel Yell
06-05-2008, 12:30 PM
You sound like you're jealous. :p

And there's another ignorant idea. If somebody believes in homosexual rights or is a liberal, they must be gay. :D

Maybe you just carry that one recessive gene.;)

Lanie
06-05-2008, 12:30 PM
The will of all of the people shall prevail,and the people always get older !

Not that it's the same, but are you by chance against the Brown decision? Should the will of the people have prevailed then?

While people get older, many of them carry the values they grew up with or tried to have forced on them. A lot of younger people had elders that just didn't care what two people did in the privacy of their own bedroom.

megimoo
06-05-2008, 12:31 PM
Evolution is not about that.

Evolution is about change through mutation. That mutation can be good or bad. For example, I think there are animals that used to have wings or longer teeth thousands of years ago. Now they don't.

The only way I can think of homosexuality being a "defect" would be the issue that homosexuals can't reproduce. And honestly, do we need more reproduction with six billion people on the planet?
You never fail to amaze me with your intellectual discourse !The operative word is regressive as in 'goes away' as opposed to evolves as in 'changes' !

linda22003
06-05-2008, 12:39 PM
The will of all of the people shall prevail,and the people always get older !


People always get older, but if you were raised without racism in your upbringing (as an example), you're not suddenly going to become racist. If you were raised with women working in your family, you're not going to suddenly insist women should all stay home as you get older.

wilbur
06-05-2008, 12:40 PM
Lets see, simple Mendelian inheritance...

1st generation there are 25% homosexuals, 50% carriers, 25% heterosexuals.

Except those 25% homosexuals don't procreate. So 1/3 of the population will not pass on the gay gene. Next generation there's about 10% homosexuals, and about 40% of the population is homogeneus for the straight gene.

If homosexuals had continued to procreate, then they would steadily reintroduce their recessive trait back into the gene pool. But because 1/3 of the carriers of the recessive gene voluntarily remove themselves from the gene pool, it's only a matter of time until the recessive gene is removed. Simple statistics shows that it wouldn't take long for homosexuals to be bread out of existance.

Not exactly so simplistic. Sex linked traits work a little differently. You can produce all female carriers and all sons who don't have the expressed gene.

It can also be a case of multiple genes affecting one trait.

Here's an interesting article: For Fruit Flies, Gene Shift Tilts Sexual Orientation (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03cell.html)

megimoo
06-05-2008, 12:42 PM
We all learned genetics in school. Let's use hair color for example. Your parents both hold dominant and recessive genes for probably more than one hair color (even though they only have one hair color). Those genes get passed down to you and you might end up with a completely different hair color (especially once your mom's recessive hair color genes are added with dad's).

In any case, who cares if it's a choice? I don't think it is a choice, but should the government be telling us who we can marry and so forth?

Very good, you remembered it very well.Lets try explaining it with eye color,OK.

For a start the brown eye color is 'regressive' !If a couple (Non-Homos)marry and have several children statistically each subsequent generation will have fewer and fewer brown eyed children.

If two blue eyed (again non-gay)marry it is impossible for them to have brown eyed kids,Genetic regression,OK ?

biccat
06-05-2008, 12:43 PM
Not that it's the same, but are you by chance against the Brown decision? Should the will of the people have prevailed then?
How about Dred Scott? Do you think that judicial activism was appropriate to overturn the will of the people?

The issue of judicial activism cuts both ways, that's why Conservatives support what the Constitution actually says, it cuts down on contrary rulings.

biccat
06-05-2008, 12:47 PM
Not exactly so simplistic. Sex linked traits work a little differently. You can produce all female carriers and all sons who don't have the expressed gene.

It can also be a case of multiple genes affecting one trait.

Here's an interesting article: For Fruit Flies, Gene Shift Tilts Sexual Orientation (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/03/science/03cell.html)
I haven't heard of women (or men) being more likely to be homosexual, have you? I was illustrating a point, unless homosexuality is linked to a positive survival trait, it is going to be bred out of any society. This is all academic anyways, because we don't even know if a 'gay gene' exists, or how it operates.

I'm sticking to my "upbringing" argument, because either conscious choice or genetic are absurd options.

Vepr
06-05-2008, 12:49 PM
I haven't heard of women (or men) being more likely to be homosexual, have you? I was illustrating a point, unless homosexuality is linked to a positive survival trait, it is going to be bred out of any society. This is all academic anyways, because we don't even know if a 'gay gene' exists, or how it operates.

I'm sticking to my "upbringing" argument, because either conscious choice or genetic are absurd options.

There could be other things like conditions during gestation or birth added into the mix also.

wilbur
06-05-2008, 12:56 PM
I haven't heard of women (or men) being more likely to be homosexual, have you? I was illustrating a point, unless homosexuality is linked to a positive survival trait, it is going to be bred out of any society. This is all academic anyways, because we don't even know if a 'gay gene' exists, or how it operates.


In three or four generations? I don't think so. By that logic there would be no such thing as cystic fibrosis or any inherited disease that kills children, before they can procreate.

Also, I know several people with gay parents. They do breed on occasion. We can't discount pressure to adhere to social norms. Look at all the gay (seemingly usually "family first" republican) politicians that get caught soliciting gay sex or hookers... most of them actually have families.



I'm sticking to my "upbringing" argument, because either conscious choice or genetic are absurd options.

It could be all of those things. Environmental conditions do have effects on genes, and people with certain gene combinations are likely to have different 'symptoms' because of them.

megimoo
06-05-2008, 01:11 PM
They also teach that AIDS is not a gay disease, but consider this.



http://www.marysremnant.org/Friends/DBK/BKHomAids.html

Why don't I consider fags normal? From the same link....


That is by very definition, perverted.It goes much beyound mere perversion.Even dumb animals behave better than some queers !

megimoo
06-05-2008, 01:21 PM
Not that it's the same, but are you by chance against the Brown decision? Should the will of the people have prevailed then?

While people get older, many of them carry the values they grew up with or tried to have forced on them. A lot of younger people had elders that just didn't care what two people did in the privacy of their own bedroom.Most people, as they grow older, change their way of thinking some.They sure do care about spreading homosexuality if they have any grandchildren !

CUNewbie
06-05-2008, 01:27 PM
Lanie: "I saw another thread on it and didn't want to intrude on it.

What's wrong with it? How does it hurt others?"

Two points:

Leaving religion aside:

It's not reproductive, period.

People have overwhelmingly voted against such nonsense but Big Brother pushes it anyway.

Do you not have a problem with those and particularly the fact that people have voiced their displeasure with it yet Big Brother wants to jam it down our throats anyway?

Rebel Yell
06-05-2008, 01:29 PM
We all learned genetics in school. Let's use hair color for example. Your parents both hold dominant and recessive genes for probably more than one hair color (even though they only have one hair color). Those genes get passed down to you and you might end up with a completely different hair color (especially once your mom's recessive hair color genes are added with dad's).

In any case, who cares if it's a choice? I don't think it is a choice, but should the government be telling us who we can marry and so forth?

So, if a gay man impregantes a gay women, that child would have to be gay. The same as if two blond haired people had a child. Is that what you're saying? That should be pretty easy to prove or disprove.

linda22003
06-05-2008, 01:32 PM
Most people, as they grow older, change their way of thinking some.They sure do care about spreading homosexuality if they have any grandchildren !

If they are not prejudiced against gays as young people, they're not going to become so as they age. Bigotry is dying out in many areas, and I think this will be just one more.

megimoo
06-05-2008, 02:20 PM
People always get older, but if you were raised without racism in your upbringing (as an example), you're not suddenly going to become racist. If you were raised with women working in your family, you're not going to suddenly insist women should all stay home as you get older.
How do you factor racism into this or are you using the old liberal chestnut 'if you don't agree with me,you must be a racist '?

linda22003
06-05-2008, 02:29 PM
How do you factor racism into this or are you using the old liberal chestnut 'if you don't agree with me,you must be a racist '?

I'm not factoring it in. I specifically said "as an example". Racism per se is not connected; my point was that people who do not have prejudices in youth are not likely to develop them as they get older. People who know gay kids they're in school with (high school, college), have a high level of tolerance of it these days. They're not suddenly going to become bigoted about it as they get older. It's one of those things that is no big deal. It used to be, but it isn't any more.

Security clearances don't even ask the gay question any more. It was once thought to be something you could be blackmailed with; now it's very unlikely since attitudes toward it have changed.

Goldwater
06-05-2008, 03:04 PM
How do you factor racism into this or are you using the old liberal chestnut 'if you don't agree with me,you must be a racist '?

It's an example of how attitudes change on social issues dramatically under certain circumstances.

Zafod
06-05-2008, 03:05 PM
so the answer I have recieved is that homo's are not effected by evolution and they are a deffect. A natural reject. I guess natures way of stopping a certain person from procreating thus ending that cycle of deffect from the overall gene pool?


hmmmmm

linda22003
06-05-2008, 03:11 PM
It's an example of how attitudes change on social issues dramatically under certain circumstances.

THANK you. Somehow I thought actually inserting the words "as an example" would be sufficient to indicate that I was using racism as an EXAMPLE. :rolleyes:

wilbur
06-05-2008, 03:23 PM
so the answer I have recieved is that homo's are not effected by evolution and they are a deffect. A natural reject. I guess natures way of stopping a certain person from procreating thus ending that cycle of deffect from the overall gene pool?


hmmmmm

wtf are you babbling about?

The only people who said its immune to evolution are those trying to deny that it could be caused by genetics and heredity. Which is a bunk argument and a gross oversimplification of evolution and genetics.

If it is caused by a mutation, well, whether its a defect or not really depends on its environment. One creatures defect can be its asset given the right selective pressures. Every single one of us, on average, has over 150 genetic mutations. Are we unnatural? If its a mutation, its one of the most natural things that can be.

Sickle Cell anemia is a perfect example. We see populations where the vast majority of people have it.. because the ones that don't die of malaria at a young age. Sickle cell makes them immune to it. In populations that arent heavily exposed to malaria, sickle cell will be a minority, because the selective pressure isnt there to kill off the people without the trait.

Goldwater
06-05-2008, 03:27 PM
so the answer I have recieved is that homo's are not effected by evolution and they are a deffect. A natural reject. I guess natures way of stopping a certain person from procreating thus ending that cycle of deffect from the overall gene pool?


hmmmmm

If thats your view, why deny these people who's genes are coming to the end of the line the chance to marry each other? :P

Zafod
06-05-2008, 03:45 PM
If thats your view, why deny these people who's genes are coming to the end of the line the chance to marry each other? :P

where did I comment on the marriage aspect? I didnt even touch that due to still being on the base of the argument of whether gay is natural.

Lanie
06-05-2008, 03:54 PM
so the answer I have recieved is that homo's are not effected by evolution and they are a deffect. A natural reject. I guess natures way of stopping a certain person from procreating thus ending that cycle of deffect from the overall gene pool?


hmmmmm

Uh, no.

I wanted to leave it at "Uh, no", but the system said it was too short. :eek:

Lanie
06-05-2008, 03:56 PM
Very good, you remembered it very well.Lets try explaining it with eye color,OK.

For a start the brown eye color is 'regressive' !If a couple (Non-Homos)marry and have several children statistically each subsequent generation will have fewer and fewer brown eyed children.

If two blue eyed (again non-gay)marry it is impossible for them to have brown eyed kids,Genetic regression,OK ?

Chances are, the parents with brown eyes have some recessive genes that were overturned for them. Those recessive genes with other recessive genes do get combined.

BTW, a gay person can marry and have children. They've been doing it. That's how some conservatives appear to want it.

Goldwater
06-05-2008, 03:58 PM
where did I comment on the marriage aspect? I didnt even touch that due to still being on the base of the argument of whether gay is natural.

Where did I say I was addressing you in the question itself?

Oh yeah, you see that? I'm like the Houdini of debates.

megimoo
06-05-2008, 04:18 PM
Chances are, the parents with brown eyes have some recessive genes that were overturned for them. Those recessive genes with other recessive genes do get combined.

BTW, a gay person can marry and have children. They've been doing it. That's how some conservatives appear to want it.I guess i'll never learn not to deal with you,!I always have a headache after it's over !

Teetop
06-05-2008, 04:40 PM
I must not be making myself clear. The genes which cause homosexuality can be passed down from homosexuals and heterosexuals.


I must not be clear enough. I never disputed anything about genes, did I?

My statement was clear and correct. Two gays, alone, cannot pro-create. Extinction is the outcome.

Vepr
06-05-2008, 04:44 PM
I must not be clear enough. I never disputed anything about genes, did I?

My statement was clear and correct. Two gays, alone, cannot pro-create. Extinction is the outcome.

False. A lesbian and gay guy can have a child. ;)

Rebel Yell
06-05-2008, 04:50 PM
False. A lesbian and gay guy can have a child. ;)

By your rules though, that child would be gay, right?

wilbur
06-05-2008, 05:01 PM
By your rules though, that child would be gay, right?

The answer to that question is, we have no freaking idea.

Vepr
06-05-2008, 05:05 PM
By your rules though, that child would be gay, right?


Possibly but maybe it would not show up until their great grand child had a child with someone else of the proper genetic make up etc. Then again there could be other factors during gestation or birth etc who knows. Maybe it is triggered by certain traumatizing events or elements early in life like exposure to someone like Ann Coulter.... ;)

Zafod
06-05-2008, 07:24 PM
Where did I say I was addressing you in the question itself?

Oh yeah, you see that? I'm like the Houdini of debates.

ok :D:D:D:D

megimoo
06-05-2008, 10:25 PM
So homosexuality kills people and homosexuals should be stayed away from as somebody "not clean" because they are like one with leprosy? And people want to know why people like you are being accused of hate.Your powers of association are very strange and who mentioned anyone being unclean or killing people ?The statement was in regards to the mental definition of homosexuality as compared to the medical definition of syphilis and leprosy A simple comparason to illistrate extent of the fraud within the APA compromise with the homosexual power groups .And your liberal self-righteous outrage is rather false and transparent ,Try and follow the topic and conversational flow Bridget darling !

wilbur
06-05-2008, 11:20 PM
Your powers of association are very strange and who mentioned anyone being unclean or killing people ?The statement was in regards to the mental definition of homosexuality as compared to the medical definition of syphilis and leprosy A simple comparason to illistrate extent of the fraud within the APA compromise with the homosexual power groups .And your liberal self-righteous outrage is rather false and transparent ,Try and follow the topic and conversational flow Bridget darling !

Your ultra-conservative, whacko, irrational religious tendencies are totally off the charts.

You are insane.

Stop drinking the kool-aid of your religious cult.

megimoo
06-06-2008, 12:24 AM
Your ultra-conservative, whacko, irrational religious tendencies are totally off the charts.

You are insane.

Stop drinking the kool-aid of your religious cult.Is there a new draft in here ?
First of all who asked you to butt in ,the reply wasn't intended for you !
But you had your say now I will have mine .

"Ultra conservative" I think not,conservative yes.

"Wacco" ,A judgement call as in insane, I am as sane as you and in much better control of my emotions.

"irrational religious tendencies" ,How in the world did you come to that conclusion you know nothing about me.

"Totally Off the charts" ,at you're old stomping grounds 'DU' yes !

"Insane" again compared to whom ? Where did you come from 'Wilber',are you new here ?Have you been a member of any other message boards recently ?

"Stop drinking the kool-aid" ,my church doesn't serve 'kool-aid' does yours ?

"your religious cult" my church is far from a cult and can I assume that you are a church going critter ?
From your irrational outburst you sure sound like some kind of half human primitive critter !

du freeper
06-06-2008, 12:46 AM
Your ultra-conservative, whacko, irrational religious tendencies are totally off the charts.

You are insane.

Stop drinking the kool-aid of your religious cult.

And you are a liberal who would let our Nation rot in a cesspool of immorality under the banner of tolerance.

You could give a rat's ass about the future of this Nation as long as your friends are able to get shit on their dipsticks.

megimoo
06-06-2008, 12:51 AM
And you are a liberal who would let our Nation rot in a cesspool of immorality under the banner of tolerance.

You could give a rat's ass about the future of this Nation as long as your friends are able to get shit on their dipsticks.Thanks DU !

Goldwater
06-06-2008, 08:12 AM
And you are a liberal who would let our Nation rot in a cesspool of immorality under the banner of tolerance.

You could give a rat's ass about the future of this Nation as long as your friends are able to get shit on their dipsticks.

You live under the delusion that as long as it's in the law, people don't do it and that you have the right to tell them not to do it. This is not reality I'm afraid. Look at anywhere gay marriage is legal, morality has not died, religious values have not dissapeared, and the region has not gone up in smoke. Whether someone finds it disgusting or not is irrelevant as you are not being forced to neither accept, condone nor witness what these people are doing.

biccat
06-06-2008, 10:26 AM
Possibly but maybe it would not show up until their great grand child had a child with someone else of the proper genetic make up etc. Then again there could be other factors during gestation or birth etc who knows. Maybe it is triggered by certain traumatizing events or elements early in life like exposure to someone like Ann Coulter.... ;)
If there is a gay gene, it is obviously recessive. Otherwise, fags would be the majority. If two parents having a homogeneus recessisve gene mate, then there is no chance that their child will exhibit the dominante trait.

That's how genetics works.


Sickle Cell anemia is a perfect example. We see populations where the vast majority of people have it.. because the ones that don't die of malaria at a young age. Sickle cell makes them immune to it. In populations that arent heavily exposed to malaria, sickle cell will be a minority, because the selective pressure isnt there to kill off the people without the trait.
Sickle Cell anemia is exactly the point I was making. Being heterogeneus for Sickle Cell increases your chances of surviving a malaria infection. However, anyone who is heterogeneus either for or against Sickle cell has a lower chance of surviving. Sickle cell anemics didn't evolve alongside modern blood transfusion techniques, and so often died early. Non-sickle cell carriers died early of malaria.

It is only because there is an advantage towards being heterogeneus for sickle cell anemia that the condition persists today.

du freeper
06-06-2008, 11:28 AM
You live under the delusion that as long as it's in the law, people don't do it and that you have the right to tell them not to do it. This is not reality I'm afraid. Look at anywhere gay marriage is legal, morality has not died, religious values have not dissapeared, and the region has not gone up in smoke. Whether someone finds it disgusting or not is irrelevant as you are not being forced to neither accept, condone nor witness what these people are doing.

Wait till they start putting up pink flamingos in your neighborhood...

aerojarod
07-15-2008, 11:32 AM
Government's involvement in "marriage" is not about getting involved in YOUR business of what you want to stick where, or who you want to love. Government exists to organize a society based on rule of law, and such laws are based upon a universal "morality", or at least what is seen as a common benefit to society at-large.

With that said... explain to me, outside of the emotional/sexual bond, what benefit a homosexual marriage gives to society?

A heterosexual marital union, based on thousands of years of plain-as-day evidence, exists for the benefit of civilization to create a strong child-rearing situation. A benefit to society and CIVILIZATION, no doubt. Marriage (outside of religion) is Government's recognition that FAMILY is a benefit to the success and furtherence of the society.

And now before you say "gay couples can raise kids"... sure, they can. So can a single parent. They should have that right if they so chose. But that does not take away the fact that BIOLOGICALLY, it takes a heterosexual couple to produce a kid. Even one that a gay couple adopts.

Health insurance benefits, wills, estate transfers, power of attourney? All can be set up to be legaly given to whomever you wish, giving gay couples the same rights as a married couple. Look up "revocable living trust". If there are things we can fix to smooth out the legal hurdles to give your benefits to your gay lover, then we can talk about that and fix it.

If you're gay and in love, do you really need GOVERNMENT's permission to make a committment to each other? Do you need some legislator's approval before you stick your wank where you wish? Then what is the real driving force behind the Gay Marriage movement? Love is love, sex is sex, with or without the government involved. Homosexuals seemt to jsut want to force society to look at their love/sex life and get our approval. WHY DO YOU NEED IT? Are you insecure about it because maybe deep down you know it's wrong?

Marriage exists as a government "benefit" because society recognizes that the stable union of a man and a woman provides the best possible situation for creating and raising children for the furtherence of civilization/society. Every individual is created equal and should have equal rights.... but marriage is recognition that there is a special uniqueness to the love and relationship between a man and woman... that should be encouraged, btw... that is more of a benefit to society than a homosexual relationship, which cannot naturally produce children.

Loogie
07-16-2008, 10:30 AM
I didn't read the entire thread, but here are my two cents.

1. The definition of marriage should be left to the people of each State to decide, as the Constitution left this issue to the States.

2. Either a federal amendment should be proposed to enforce the above, or the dumbass judicial activists should realize that the above is 100% true.

3. There should be no forcing the people of a pro-heterosexual-marriage-State to accept homosexual marriages. If you are married in Commiefornia and move to Michigan, your marriage is void.

4. Moving the ability to choose what is best farther and farther away from the people results in diluting their will. I believe in keeping as many important decisions local, as this most accurately reflects the peoples' needs. Why should the will of Commifornians be forced upon me? Remember, it cuts both ways: Michiganders could win a big ruling and force Commiefornia to abandon their choice to accept gay marriage. Oops...the people didn't choose to accept gay marriage...but, you get my point.

5. If you want gay marriage accepted, you should convince the people of your state to support your position. When the people are ready, gay marriage may be accepted.

BEG
07-16-2008, 12:09 PM
Wait till they start putting up pink flamingos in your neighborhood...


*SNORT* :D

Ree
07-30-2008, 12:01 AM
Here's a strange idea, Govt gets out of the marriage biz and deals only in Civil unions. Leave marriage up to the churches.