[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
He used the word “homophobic.”
That just makes me smile.
This is the kind of blather I’m talking about, when I know I’ve scored a point. You just ignore the point, and make an innocuous comment because you don’t have a compelling response.
Nice try…but I’m onto you.[/quote]
I didn’t see any points in your original post. But then again, I obviously don’t know Jesus the way you do
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Jesus changed all that. That is one reason why I mentioned that Jesus supported one man and one woman when he walked the earth 2000 years ago.
So it was ok for Abraham to have a lot of wives, but it’s no longer ok? Abraham clearly doesn’t fit your definition of “traditional marriage”. He blatantly attempted to “change the definition of a 5,000 year old institution”. Imagine!
[/quote]
Stop playing the part of the villiage idiot.
Every single time I ever stated: “Why should we change a 5000+ year old institution for about 1% of the population” I was OBVIOUSLY referring to homosexuals marrying.
You rate another Zeb eye roll!
[quote]terribleivan wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
I am looking at homsexual singles period.
Bingo! And that is where your statistics are flawed. You are not looking at the health statistics for gays that are married, so your statistics are useless in determining the efficacy of government sanctioned gay unions. As I showed earlier:
We also found that partnership recognition contributed to the success of Scandinavian programs to prevent AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases.
I see. So the cure for AIDS is homosexual unions. Hmmmm. I have another cure that would work - castration.[/quote]
Yes terribleivan don’t you know that the cure for something is actually doing more of it?
If you want to stop being an alcoholic all you have to do is drink more beer.
And of course somehow get the government to sanction your drinking.
It’s almost gotten to the point where it’s difficult to take any of forlifes posts seriously.
But I do have a goal of 100 pages…
[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Again, your biblcal interpreations lack credibility.
You mean the interpretation that Jesus told his followers to love others? I would love to see your evidence that Jesus didn’t make that one of his commandments.[/quote]
Again Mr twisted logic messes things up.
Yes…love others.
No…do not accept sin as the norm.
Go to the story of Jesus and the whore for a good reference.
He loved HER so he prevented HER from being stoned.
But he hated her SIN so he told her to “go and sin no more.”
[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
I see. So the cure for AIDS is homosexual unions. Hmmmm. I have another cure that would work - castration.
Back to the mocking, disrespectful comments I see. You remind me a lot of the pharisees in the bible. They saw themselves as righteous, but they were so concerned with the letter of the law that they missed the real message of what Jesus was all about.[/quote]
You like to tear into terribleivan…
But have you caught the real message of what Jesus is all about?
[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
I spent about 50 pages of this thread discussing it with you and presenting great support.
Presenting your version of the bible as “great support” doesn’t win you many points in an objective debate. The misogynists and black-haters also used the bible to support their bigotry.[/quote]
But so have many many good Christian men and women.
Again your logic sucks!
[quote]forlife wrote:
terribleivan wrote:
Please tell us, what was Jesus’ real measage? I would like to hear it from you.
He said the two great commandments were to love god and to love your fellow men. The core of his teachings was about love.
[/quote]
I guess we can easily disagree with the meaning of the word “love.”
I would never help anyone that I love hurt themselves.
Love is a double edged sword. Not at all like the sort of thing that passes for love in a Hollywood movie.
It’s real love.
[quote]forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
A Meth addict has a different brain structure than a non addict. Does that mean Meth heads get special rights now as well?
Keep reading. Did you get to the part about twin studies and direct genetic differences? I’ll be here when you get back (and your foot has been removed from said mouth):
Twin studies
In 1991, Bailey and Pillard studied three all male groups: identical twins, fraternal twins, and men with adoptive brothers.Of the 170 relatives examined, 52% of the identical twins were both gay, 22% of fraternal twins were both gay, and 11% of the adoptive brothers were both gay.
In 1992, Bailey and Pillard followed-up their experiment on homosexual men by studying identical twin, fraternal twin, and nongenetically related adopted sisters. As expected, their results mirrored those found in their gay brother study. Whereas only six percent of adopted sisters were both lesbian, sixteen percent of fraternal twin sisters and forty-eight percent of identical twin sisters were both lesbian . Clearly, the basis for a similar argument for predetermined homosexuality in women has been laid.
In 1993, Whitam, Diamond, & Martin found that 65% of identical twins were both gay, whereas only 29% of fraternal twins were gay.
Genetic differences
In 2004, Camperio-Ciani studied 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives, which included more than 4,600 people overall. The female relatives on the mother’s side of the homosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father’s side. This suggests that women who pass on the gay trait to their male offspring are also more fertile. In comparison, the female relatives on both the mother’s and the father’s side of the heterosexual men did not appear to be as fertile, having fewer offspring.
In 2006, research published in the journal ?Human Genetics? found that the genetics of mothers of multiple gay sons act differently than those of other women. Scientists looked at 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers without gay sons to see if there was any difference in how they handled their X chromosomes. They found that almost one fourth of the mothers who had more than one gay son processed X chromosomes in their bodies in the same way. Normally, women randomly process the chromosomes in one of two ways – half go one way, half go the other. The research “confirms that there is a strong genetic basis for sexual orientation, and that for some gay men, genes on the X chromosome are involved,” said study co-author Sven Bocklandt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles. “When we looked at women who have gay kids, in those with more than one gay son, we saw a quarter of them inactivate the same X in virtually every cell we checked,” Bocklandt said. “That’s extremely unusual.”
[/quote]
I read the studies. They were not worth a reply. Nothing has been proven, other than gay twins enjoy diddling each other when they are young.
The studies established absolutely no genetic link. These studies are 13-15 years old - with the advances we have made in the human genome - surely they could find the “gay” gene, if it actually existed in the last 15 years.
But if makes you feel better and more validated to drag out old studies - Knock yourself out.
Your choice is not genetic. You want sex with other men, you chose to have it. You get no rights, no attaboys, no “he’s so brave” from me. If you want to be gay - be the best damn queer in the state - but don’t tell me you deserve special rights because of it.
The funny thing about this whole painfully drawn out debate is that you lose. Period. States pass gay marraige bans in landslides every election.
Your lifestyle choice is not wanted, nor is it condoned by the vast, vast majority of America.
Mass. just broke a state record for petition signatures with people wanting to sign on to the state’s gay marraige ban.
So to recap:
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You keep rambling and I’ll keep giving people the facts.
Like the fact that government sanctioned unions will decrease the incidence of AIDS and other STDs in gays? Sounds like a worthy cause to me!
We also found that partnership recognition contributed to the success of Scandinavian programs to prevent AIDS and sexually transmitted diseases. [/quote]
Promoting an unhealthy action will NEVER get rid of the disease created by that unhealthy action.
If nothing else it sends the wrong message to children who may go down the same road that you did and end up even worse off than you have…so far that is.
Again, your logic sucks.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You really must apologize before you can go on.
Are you claiming that gay marriage would have negative consequences for the country or not? [/quote]
You stated various things that I did not say.
You attributed those comments to me when I never said them.
Stop the games…And apologize… LIKE A MAN.
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
He used the word “homophobic.”
That just makes me smile.
This is the kind of blather I’m talking about, when I know I’ve scored a point. You just ignore the point, and make an innocuous comment because you don’t have a compelling response.
Nice try…but I’m onto you.[/quote]
Your point?
That Jesus was not “homophobic?”
Yea…that’s a great point you scored there.
Honestly I wonder about you.
I’m content with the new points I’ve scored in our recent round of debates.
At this point, the fundamentalists are back to their typical Henny Penny antics and name calling rather than actually addressing the facts.
If you boys ever feel like having a mature debate based on logic and objective evidence, look me up. I’m not going to continue repeating the same facts ad nauseum when you refuse to acknowledge or address them in a meaningful way.
In the meantime, continue to feel self-righteous in your cause to discriminate against gays. You are no different than the bigots that genuinely felt their cause against blacks and women was supported by the bible decades ago. Is it any coincidence that every one of you has a religious agenda? Of course not. Like your predecessors, you will eventually be replaced by younger generations that are more enlightened, and your bigotry will be a footnote in the history books.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a date with a hot guy to get ready for
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m content with the new points I’ve scored in our recent round of debates.
At this point, the fundamentalists are back to their typical Henny Penny antics and name calling rather than actually addressing the facts.
If you boys ever feel like having a mature debate based on logic and objective evidence, look me up. I’m not going to continue repeating the same facts ad nauseum when you refuse to acknowledge or address them in a meaningful way.
In the meantime, continue to feel self-righteous in your cause to discriminate against gays. You are no different than the bigots that genuinely felt their cause against blacks and women was supported by the bible decades ago. Is it any coincidence that every one of you has a religious agenda? Of course not. Like your predecessors, you will eventually be replaced by younger generations that are more enlightened, and your bigotry will be a footnote in the history books.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have a date with a hot guy to get ready for
[/quote]
I for one am glad it is over forlife. It got old quick this time. If you ever want a hard dose of reality, read the first 50 or 60 pages of this thread. Past that, everyone got pretty tired of your weak arguments.
Remember - the only reason you got your feelings hurt this time around is that your revived this debate only to take another loss. And I’m sure you will do it again sometime. After all, ignorance dies a slow death.
God bless America - home of the free and land of the brave!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
forlife wrote:
rainjack wrote:
A Meth addict has a different brain structure than a non addict. Does that mean Meth heads get special rights now as well?
Keep reading. Did you get to the part about twin studies and direct genetic differences? I’ll be here when you get back (and your foot has been removed from said mouth):
Twin studies
In 1991, Bailey and Pillard studied three all male groups: identical twins, fraternal twins, and men with adoptive brothers.Of the 170 relatives examined, 52% of the identical twins were both gay, 22% of fraternal twins were both gay, and 11% of the adoptive brothers were both gay.
In 1992, Bailey and Pillard followed-up their experiment on homosexual men by studying identical twin, fraternal twin, and nongenetically related adopted sisters. As expected, their results mirrored those found in their gay brother study. Whereas only six percent of adopted sisters were both lesbian, sixteen percent of fraternal twin sisters and forty-eight percent of identical twin sisters were both lesbian . Clearly, the basis for a similar argument for predetermined homosexuality in women has been laid.
In 1993, Whitam, Diamond, & Martin found that 65% of identical twins were both gay, whereas only 29% of fraternal twins were gay.
Genetic differences
In 2004, Camperio-Ciani studied 98 homosexual and 100 heterosexual men and their relatives, which included more than 4,600 people overall. The female relatives on the mother’s side of the homosexual men tended to have more offspring than the female relatives on the father’s side. This suggests that women who pass on the gay trait to their male offspring are also more fertile. In comparison, the female relatives on both the mother’s and the father’s side of the heterosexual men did not appear to be as fertile, having fewer offspring.
In 2006, research published in the journal ?Human Genetics? found that the genetics of mothers of multiple gay sons act differently than those of other women. Scientists looked at 97 mothers of gay sons and 103 mothers without gay sons to see if there was any difference in how they handled their X chromosomes. They found that almost one fourth of the mothers who had more than one gay son processed X chromosomes in their bodies in the same way. Normally, women randomly process the chromosomes in one of two ways – half go one way, half go the other. The research “confirms that there is a strong genetic basis for sexual orientation, and that for some gay men, genes on the X chromosome are involved,” said study co-author Sven Bocklandt, a postdoctoral researcher at the University of California at Los Angeles. “When we looked at women who have gay kids, in those with more than one gay son, we saw a quarter of them inactivate the same X in virtually every cell we checked,” Bocklandt said. “That’s extremely unusual.”
I read the studies. They were not worth a reply. Nothing has been proven, other than gay twins enjoy diddling each other when they are young.
The studies established absolutely no genetic link. These studies are 13-15 years old - with the advances we have made in the human genome - surely they could find the “gay” gene, if it actually existed in the last 15 years.
But if makes you feel better and more validated to drag out old studies - Knock yourself out.
Your choice is not genetic. You want sex with other men, you chose to have it. You get no rights, no attaboys, no “he’s so brave” from me. If you want to be gay - be the best damn queer in the state - but don’t tell me you deserve special rights because of it.
The funny thing about this whole painfully drawn out debate is that you lose. Period. States pass gay marraige bans in landslides every election.
Your lifestyle choice is not wanted, nor is it condoned by the vast, vast majority of America.
Mass. just broke a state record for petition signatures with people wanting to sign on to the state’s gay marraige ban.
So to recap:
It will be legal. There’s not one kid I teach who wouldn’t votefor it.
The next generation has not, luckily, inherited the prejudices of our’s.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I’m content with the new points I’ve scored in our recent round of debates.[/quote]
Honestly in all sincerity I thought you were less emotional and did better last Spring.
I don’t think there has been a lot of name calling given the subject matter. But I will say that YOU were calling me names (Bible Thumper, bigot etc.) long before others joined the fray. I protested once, but then let it go as I considered that I was dealing with someone who was overly emotional to begin with.
Yes, look him up, as long as you do not site any evidence which demonstrates that homosexuals lead very unhealthy lives and are responsible for 65% of all new HIV cases in the USA. And a host of other communicable diseases.
Don’t talk about that stuff because it will simply be ignored.
I’m sorry for you, in all sincerity.
No amount of words on a message board can convey how badly I feel for the pain that you will eventually bring into your life by your lack of discipline regarding the unhealthy lifestyle that you lead, and the abandonment of your family.
ZEB,
You seem to be dodging my most important and relevant questions and analogies, so let me streamline it.
Now please tell me how difference between gay/straight sex is different from driving a car/riding a motorbike and why bikers are allowed to gain rights of civil unions through marriage (from now on I will not use the word marriage as applied to guys, yet will require state-granted benefits/obligations of marriage equal to those of civic unions).
2.[quote]ZEB wrote:
I don’t think it really matters why people are gay.
Oh but it matters a great deal. I have never spoken to even ONE homosexual who stated that they did not “choose” to be like this…they just are. That says a lot to me. First, it says that this is something that occurs to them either by nature or nurture. In other words, something happens in their childhood which turns them this way. Some studies indicate that many have been molested at an early age. Other studies show that they grew up with a dominant mother figure and a weak father figure. And yes, it could be a combination of certain genetic traits combined with various things that happen in their childhood.
However, you and I don’t know that raising children in this environment will lead to them being gay as well. It is the politically correct line to say “they are born that way.” Yet there is ZERO proof that this is the case, and in fact more evidence which leads one to think it may in fact be the way they are raised.
If this is the case we should NOT be rushing to sanction gay marriage for this and many other reasons!
[/quote]
Should I assume that the above is an answer to
“Please describe what you think will be a likely scenario in case the following will be set on a federal level: civil unions (for ANY two humans) grant all rights that are available to married couples. Also describe worst-case realistic scenario. If possible, compare to the outcome if civic unions are not allowed” which you avoided answering by saying that the premise will not be true?
If so, than is do you fear that by just allowing gays to form more stable gay unions we will a rise in gay population?
You are not allowed in Marines because other people will depend on you in the combat. I guess it is believed that being over a certain age disqualifies you as more factors than physical preparedness come into play. Very different from gay civil union issue where nobody depends on those 2 particular people.
[quote]By the way, both homosexual marriage and abortion would be voted down if there were national referendums!
[/quote]
Irrelevant as forlife showed you many times.
Please describe what you think will be a likely scenario in case the following will be set on a federal level: civil unions (for ANY two humans) grant all rights that are available to married couples. Also describe worst-case realistic scenario. If possible, compare to the outcome if civic unions are not allowed.
Legalizing polygamy. There are possible problems? It will be to easy to abuse the system to get real benefits, such as health care for an extra wife. Women might be more abused in polygamist relationships and be treated unfairly. I haven’t heard of many women advocatiing polygamy. I’ve heard gays advocating gay civil unions.
Don’t forget - most gays would be OK with just having rights that state grants to man/woman unions.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
It will be legal. There’s not one kid I teach who wouldn’t votefor it.
The next generation has not, luckily, inherited the prejudices of our’s.[/quote]
Agreed. It had taken blacks 100 years to go from being slaves to having all legal rights. Homosexualism stopped being a part of DSM in 1970s[?]. In less than 60 years, when those over 20 today will no longer vote, gay civil unions will be legal in US.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
It will be legal. There’s not one kid I teach who wouldn’t votefor it.
The next generation has not, luckily, inherited the prejudices of our’s.[/quote]
I knew we should have started paying our teachers more. Second rate pay = second rate teachers = second rate education and knowledge.
[quote]skor wrote:
harris447 wrote:
It will be legal. There’s not one kid I teach who wouldn’t votefor it.
The next generation has not, luckily, inherited the prejudices of our’s.
Agreed. It had taken blacks 100 years to go from being slaves to having all legal rights. Homosexualism stopped being a part of DSM in 1970s[?]. In less than 60 years, when those over 20 today will no longer vote, gay civil unions will be legal in US.[/quote]
And shortly after civil unions are legalized, I want to see the same rights imparted to pedophiles. After all, they are born that way - It has nothing to do with choice, right?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
…
…
…
But I do have a goal of 100 pages…
[/quote]
Such a mediocre goal. Why not 1,000 pages?
Here, let me help you:
The majority of the public in the USA is still against gay marriage. But a much larger minority is in favor of it than would have been the case 80 or 90 years ago. One of the root causes of ever-increasing public symnpathy for laws favorable to homosexual actions is public acceptance of artificial contraception for heterosexual married couples.
Acceptance of artificial contraception makes people less inclined to believe that the link between human sexuality and human procreation is sacred and more inclined to believe that it is incidental. It also creates more of an impression that sexual gratification is a necessity of life.
Both of those factors then lead to ever-increasing license among heterosexuals. That eventually leads to a social milieu where it seems that just about everybody past puberty is obtaining sexual gratification (which is seen as touching nothing sacred, and also a necessity of life or close to it), which eventually makes it seem cruel to deny or stigmatize those whose inclinations require that they engage in certain unusual practices in order to obtain that gratification for themselves; and it also makes those who have such inclinations feel unjustly put upon if they are told that the practices necessary for them to obtain sexual gratification are less worthy than the practices of the majority.