Brokeback Propaganda

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
2068

[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]

Refusing to change the rules because of one’s choice is not prejudice. It is not bigotry. But I can see that, when void of a real argument, names must be called, and your own prejudices exposed.

I think you over estimate the desire of your students to actually make an effort to go the the polls and cast the votes they promise.

2069

[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]

A very foolish statement.

As people grow and mature they change their minds on important issues. And it is also a fact that many become more conservative. Not everyone of course. But expecting some 15 or 16 year old kid to think the same way 10 or 20 years down the road is ludicrous!

2070

[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]

“Homosexualism?”

2071

[quote]ZEB wrote:
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.

“Homosexualism?”
[/quote]

The fact that, for political purposes, Homosexual behavior was taken out of the DSM, doesn’t make it any less of a disorder. It is not normal, period.

Now, if people want to practice insane behavior, I guess that is up to them, but once again, don’t keep telling me that I have to accept it and make it part of the “norm” of our society. That is unacceptable to the vast – I mean vast – majority of Americans.

We don’t want this sin legalized. Live where and with whom you wish, but don’t ask us to make you feel that it is OK. It is not…

And oh, by the way, it may be out of the DSM as a mental disorder, but it is still in God’s Holy Word as ABOMINABLE SIN!

2072

[quote]skor wrote:
ZEB,

  1. Let’s not argue about dangers of anal sex. Let’s assume that it’s considerably more dangerous than straight sex and that 60% of gay men have sex and 50% of gays are men, making it 30% of gays having anal sex.[/quote]

You are mistaken.

60% of all gay MEN are having anal sex according to the survey which I quoted.

Well when you have sex you need two or more people. When you drive a motorbike you can do it alone.

Did I pass?

Seriously, there are so many problems with your analogy.

First of all riding a motorcycle is not a (or perhaps THE) major social institution such as marriage is.

And while it’s dangerous compared to driving a car, it is no where near as dangerous as the homosexal’s primary act and their lifestyle.

Go google motorcycle injuries and deaths. Now compare that number to the amount of people who have AIDS, STD’s anal cancer, Gay bowel syndrome, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis, HPV and a virtually endless list of communicable diseases.

In addition to that there is also the mental side of the equation. The suicide, depression and anxiety rate are sometimes up to 600% higher than the average. And finally, (which should come as no surprise) “A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy.”

After researching this topic over the last several months I can safely say that there is almost nothing more dangerous to a human being than participating in the various homosexal acts and the lifestyle!

I dare say even alcoholics have a far happier and healthier life than the typical homosexual.

Facts suck I know…Those darn things fly right in the face of all the politically correct crap that you are fed in college.

Keep mentioning these silly analogies and I’ll keep giving you the cold hard facts…And they’re not pretty.

Promoting an act and a lifestyle which is highly dangerous is not a good idea. Will it cause more to become gay? Could be. It certainly sends the wrong message to impressionable kids. And since we have no idea how or why people become gay who knows?

Wow…you’re a bigot, huh? :slight_smile:

I already stated that I can meet the requirements, so why not change the standards?

Granted there are probably not many over 40 guys like myself who want to join the Marines. Let’s say it’s about 1% of all guys over 40. So why not change the rules for us?

Why discriminate?

You have to come up with a better answer than “more factors than physical preparedness come into play.”

Come on…factors like what?

Why can’t I have the same rights as someone who is 25 years younger?

[quote]By the way, both homosexual marriage and abortion would be voted down if there were national referendums!

Irrelevant as forlife showed you many times.[/quote]

Not at all, in fact it’s quite relevant!

If the people are not determining the direction of the country then who is?

Liberal judges?

Point out all of the elected officials who are pro gay marriage?

I don’t have to describe it, as it will not be happening.

Wrong my friend.

It is not a slippery slope argument. It is an argument of “fairness.”

And the problem you describe can be gotten around through making sure that both people are sterile. Naturally, they have to offer up proof from a reliable physician.

There you go POOF, your argument is disolved. Now why would you want to keep two people who really love each other apart?

Don’t they deserve the same rights as a gay couple?

Why would you discriminate?

Bigot!

You are worried about abuse in relationships? Oh my…

You don’t care about danger…what with people driving around those dangerous motorcycles and all…lol

Maybe you better read about the abuse that lesbian and gay relationships are fraught with:

Violence in Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships.

A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.[69]

In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.”[70]

In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence,D. Island and P. Letellier report that “the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.”[71]"

Now I know the media has not spoon fed you the above. Hence, it may come as a shocker that homosexual relationships (lesbians too) are not what Hollywood or the liberal media would have you believe.

You think polygamists are worse than this?

Prove it!

Otherwise, how can you deny marriage to three people who really really (one more for effect) really love each other?

BIGOT!

Oh so when you hear them advocating it you will then change your postition?

Well…all you have to do is wait until just after gay marriage is legalized (which will thankfully be never in reality) and you will be hearing all about it. Of course you will only hear of the poor souls who just want equal treatment under the law…You know like the kind given homosexuals.

Your college prof’s will be all over this issue. The politically correct will be out in the streets crying for the poor polygamists equal treatment under the law.

Yea…they would be “okay” with it as a first step. But fortunately it’s not happening.

2073

[quote]rainjack 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.

Refusing to change the rules because of one’s choice is not prejudice. It is not bigotry. But I can see that, when void of a real argument, names must be called, and your own prejudices exposed.

I think you over estimate the desire of your students to actually make an effort to go the the polls and cast the votes they promise.

[/quote]

It’s not about students making promises. It’s about the next generation–en masse–not caring whether or not two people who choose to love one another ansd start a family do with their lives.

And, you’re right: I am very prejudiced against bigotry and hatred masquerading as “traditionalism” and in Zeb’s utterly see-through bullshit, “concern for the sinners.”

2074

[quote]ZEB 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.

A very foolish statement.

As people grow and mature they change their minds on important issues. And it is also a fact that many become more conservative. Not everyone of course. But expecting some 15 or 16 year old kid to think the same way 10 or 20 years down the road is ludicrous![/quote]

You are correct: people do change their minds on important issues. Gay marriage, however, isn’t one of them.

The coming generation will see gay marriage, and the fuss made over it, in the same light we look back at the woman’s suffrage movement and the civil rights protests: as self-evident issues that shouldn’t have even happened if not for ugly hatred disguised as paternalistic care.

2075

[quote]ZEB wrote:
skor wrote:
ZEB,

  1. Let’s not argue about dangers of anal sex. Let’s assume that it’s considerably more dangerous than straight sex and that 60% of gay men have sex and 50% of gays are men, making it 30% of gays having anal sex.

You are mistaken.

60% of all gay MEN are having anal sex according to the survey which I quoted.

Now please tell me how difference between gay/straight sex is different from driving a car/riding a motorbike.

Well when you have sex you need two or more people. When you drive a motorbike you can do it alone.

Did I pass?

Seriously, there are so many problems with your analogy.

First of all riding a motorcycle is not a (or perhaps THE) major social institution such as marriage is.

And while it’s dangerous compared to driving a car, it is no where near as dangerous as the homosexal’s primary act and their lifestyle.

Go google motorcycle injuries and deaths. Now compare that number to the amount of people who have AIDS, STD’s anal cancer, Gay bowel syndrome, Syphilis, Gonorrhea, Hepatitis, HPV and a virtually endless list of communicable diseases.

In addition to that there is also the mental side of the equation. The suicide, depression and anxiety rate are sometimes up to 600% higher than the average. And finally, (which should come as no surprise) “A study published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the mortality rates of homosexuals concluded that they have a significantly reduced life expectancy.”

After researching this topic over the last several months I can safely say that there is almost nothing more dangerous to a human being than participating in the various homosexal acts and the lifestyle!

I dare say even alcoholics have a far happier and healthier life than the typical homosexual.

Facts suck I know…Those darn things fly right in the face of all the politically correct crap that you are fed in college.

Keep mentioning these silly analogies and I’ll keep giving you the cold hard facts…And they’re not pretty.

do you fear that by just allowing gays to form more stable gay unions we will a rise in gay population?

Promoting an act and a lifestyle which is highly dangerous is not a good idea. Will it cause more to become gay? Could be. It certainly sends the wrong message to impressionable kids. And since we have no idea how or why people become gay who knows?

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.

Wow…you’re a bigot, huh? :slight_smile:

I already stated that I can meet the requirements, so why not change the standards?

Granted there are probably not many over 40 guys like myself who want to join the Marines. Let’s say it’s about 1% of all guys over 40. So why not change the rules for us?

Why discriminate?

You have to come up with a better answer than “more factors than physical preparedness come into play.”

Come on…factors like what?

Why can’t I have the same rights as someone who is 25 years younger?

By the way, both homosexual marriage and abortion would be voted down if there were national referendums!

Irrelevant as forlife showed you many times.

Not at all, in fact it’s quite relevant!

If the people are not determining the direction of the country then who is?

Liberal judges?

Point out all of the elected officials who are pro gay marriage?

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.

I don’t have to describe it, as it will not be happening.

  1. Polygamy/incest argument IS a slippery slope argument. Incest is prohobited because there is a high chance of genetic syndroms in a baby. I probably wouldn’t have anything against 2 brothers or sisters getting married.

Wrong my friend.

It is not a slippery slope argument. It is an argument of “fairness.”

And the problem you describe can be gotten around through making sure that both people are sterile. Naturally, they have to offer up proof from a reliable physician.

There you go POOF, your argument is disolved. Now why would you want to keep two people who really love each other apart?

Don’t they deserve the same rights as a gay couple?

Why would you discriminate?

Bigot!

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.

You are worried about abuse in relationships? Oh my…

You don’t care about danger…what with people driving around those dangerous motorcycles and all…lol

Maybe you better read about the abuse that lesbian and gay relationships are fraught with:

Violence in Lesbian and Homosexual Relationships.

A study in the Journal of Interpersonal Violence examined conflict and violence in lesbian relationships. The researchers found that 90 percent of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31 percent reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse.[69]

In a survey of 1,099 lesbians, the Journal of Social Service Research found that “slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner. The most frequently indicated forms of abuse were verbal/emotional/psychological abuse and combined physical-psychological abuse.”[70]

In their book Men Who Beat the Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence,D. Island and P. Letellier report that “the incidence of domestic violence among gay men is nearly double that in the heterosexual population.”[71]"

Now I know the media has not spoon fed you the above. Hence, it may come as a shocker that homosexual relationships (lesbians too) are not what Hollywood or the liberal media would have you believe.

You think polygamists are worse than this?

Prove it!

Otherwise, how can you deny marriage to three people who really really (one more for effect) really love each other?

BIGOT!

I haven’t heard of many women advocatiing polygamy. I’ve heard gays advocating gay civil unions.

Oh so when you hear them advocating it you will then change your postition?

Well…all you have to do is wait until just after gay marriage is legalized (which will thankfully be never in reality) and you will be hearing all about it. Of course you will only hear of the poor souls who just want equal treatment under the law…You know like the kind given homosexuals.

Your college prof’s will be all over this issue. The politically correct will be out in the streets crying for the poor polygamists equal treatment under the law.

Don’t forget - most gays would be OK with just having rights that state grants to man/woman unions.

Yea…they would be “okay” with it as a first step. But fortunately it’s not happening.

[/quote]

WOW! Zeb’s using bullshit sources again:

[b]In March 2001, Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan declared that upwards of 50 percent of gay relationships are beset by domestic violence – and that, each year, 650,000 incidents of same-sex domestic violence occur.

In order to find that statistic, Glenn had to overlook 12 years of developing research that suggests a gay domestic violence rate not much higher than among heterosexuals.

Instead, Glenn cited a 1991 book, “Men Who Beat The Men Who Love Them: Battered Gay Men and Domestic Violence,” by Patrick Letellier and David Island. The book was written before any substantive research on the subject had been done. The authors conjectured that, since men might be more prone to violence than women, putting two men together might result in a higher rate of domestic violence. Island and Letellier extrapolated from data on heterosexuals and took a wild guess that there might be as many as 350,000 to 650,000 incidents per year.[/b]

http://www.exgaywatch.com/blog/archives/2003/08/groups_cook_the.html

2076

[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB 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.

A very foolish statement.

As people grow and mature they change their minds on important issues. And it is also a fact that many become more conservative. Not everyone of course. But expecting some 15 or 16 year old kid to think the same way 10 or 20 years down the road is ludicrous!

You are correct: people do change their minds on important issues. Gay marriage, however, isn’t one of them.

The coming generation will see gay marriage, and the fuss made over it, in the same light we look back at the woman’s suffrage movement and the civil rights protests: as self-evident issues that shouldn’t have even happened if not for ugly hatred disguised as paternalistic care.
[/quote]

You have that wrong as usual. The gay marriage issue has NOTHING to do with black rights or womens sufferage.

How can you compare someone declaring minority status (for marriage) based on a Choice or action to those with absolute genetic differences?

And furthermore black groups are not crazy about the comparison either. Scroll back several posts and read the link I dropped in if you care to get in touch with reality.

Now I will pose the same question to you as I did forlife.

Do you have the guts to give me a “straight” answer?

Do you think that polygamists and those who practice incest should have the right to marry?

If not why not?

Don’t they deserve the chance to live in wedded bliss with the person(s) of their choice?

Or is it just the rights of homosexuals that you are concerned with, and everyone else takes a back seat?

2077

harris,

Glad you brought up the statistics again. It gives me one more opportunity to state the truth to those who have been brain washed by the politically correct, and powerful gay lobby.

Let’ start here:

Violence

"Greenwood, G.L. et al. (2002, December). Battering Victimization Among a Probability-Based Sample of Men Who Have Sex With Men. American Journal of Public Health. 92 (12): 1964-1969.
Intimate partner battering victimization to be 39.2% among men who had sex with men during the last 5 years.

Groth, A.N., Burgess, A.W. (1980, July). Male Rape: Offenders and Victims. American Journal of Psychiatry. 137 (7): 806-810.
This study analyzes 22 cases of male rape and the impact it had on the rapists and their male victims.
Lie, G.Y., Gentlewarrier, S. (1991). Intimate Violence in Lesbian Relationships: Discussion of Survey Findings and Practice Implications. Journal of Social Service Research. 15: 41-59.

?Slightly more than half of the [lesbians] reported that they had been abused by a female lover/partner.?
Lockhart, L., et al. (1994, December). Letting out the Secret: Violence in Lesbian Relationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 9: 469-492.
90% of the lesbians surveyed had been recipients of one or more acts of verbal aggression from their intimate partners during the year prior to this study, with 31% reporting one or more incidents of physical abuse."

If you see anything you don’t like I want you to point to it specifically and tell me what’s wrong with it by using actual facts from reputable sources.

2078

harris,

Care to debate the facts as to why people become homosexual?

Let’s start here:

Looks less like genetics and more like something gone wrong in childhood.

But of course the jury is still out on this.

"1995) Child Sexual Abuse Prevention: What Offenders Tell Us. Child Abuse and Neglect. 19: 582.
59% of male child sex offenders had been ?victim of contact sexual abuse as a child.?
Byne, W., (1994). The Biological Evidence Challenged. Scientific American, 54.
“The incidence of homosexuality in the adopted brothers of homosexuals (11%) was much higher than recent estimates for the rate of homosexuality in the population (1 to 5%).”
“Indeed, perhaps the major finding of these heritability studies is that despite having all of their genes in common and having prenatal and postnatal environments as close to identical as possible, approximately half of the identical twins were nonetheless discordant for orientation. This finding underscores just how little is known about the origins of sexual orientation.”
Byne, W., Parsons, B. (1993, March). Human Sexual Orientation: The Biologic Theories Reappraised. Archives of General Psychiatry. 50: 228-39 (228).
?It is imperative that clinicians and behavioral scientists begin to appreciate the complexities of sexual orientation and resist the urge to search for simplistic explanations, either psychosocial or biologic.?
?Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking.?
“Although identical twins have the same genetic code, non-identical twins and regular siblings share the same proportion of genetic material. Therefore, the genetic theories should show a similar amount of homosexual concordance between non-identical twins and regular siblings.”

“First, they point out the fact that the study rests on the assumption that the relevant environment is the same for identical twins and non-identical twins. Then, the effects of potential bias in the sample is called into question, as Bailey and Pillard recruited their homosexual research subjects by advertising in various homosexually-oriented publications.”
“Third, there was no way to separate the intermingling of environmental and genetic effects, since all sets of twins in the study had been raised together and presumably subject to most, if not all, of the same environmental effects.”

“The most interesting question, however, is that if there is something in the genetic code that makes a person homosexual, why did not all of the identical twins become homosexual, since they have the exact same genetic code?”

“While all behavior must have an ultimate biologic substrate, the appeal of current biologic explanations for sexual orientation may derive more from a dissatisfaction with the current status of psychosocial explanations than from a substantiating body of experimental data. Critical review shows the evidence favoring a biologic theory to be lacking. In an alternative model, temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieus and the individual’s sexuality emerges.”

Chapman, B., Brannock, J. (1987) Proposed model of lesbian identity development. An empirical examination. Journal of Homosexuality. 14:69-80.
63% of lesbians surveyed stated that they had chosen to be lesbians, 28% felt they had no choice, and 11% did not know why they were lesbians.
Elliott, D.M., Brier, J. (1992, February). The Sexually Abused Boy: Problems in Manhood. Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality. 26 (2): 68-71.
Boys who were sexually molested have subsequently ?a higher incidence of homosexuality.?

Friedman, Richard, Downey, Jennifer. (1993) Neurobiology and Sexual Orientation: Current Relationships, 5. J. Neuropsychiatry & Clinical Neurosciences 131, 139.
“Some typical childhood factors related to homosexuality are: feeling of being different from other children; parent, sibling, peer relationships; perception of father as being distant, uninvolved, unapproving; perception of parental perfection required; perception of mother as being too close, too involved; premature introduction to sexuality (such as child abuse or incest); gender confusion; defensive detachment, reparative drive, same-sex ambivalence; unmet affection needs; diminished/distorted masculinity, femininity.”

“?homosexual men are more likely to become sexually active at much younger ages than heterosexual men. The average age of homosexual males at their first sexual encounter was 12.7, versus 15.7 for heterosexual males.”
“This evidence may suggest that abuse and early sexual experiences can contribute to homosexuality, perhaps because of familiarity with sexual acts, and in some cases because of an initial sexual experience with someone of the same gender.”
Golwyn, D., Sevlie, C. (1993) Adventitious change in homosexual behavior during treatment of social phobia with phenelzine. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 54, 1:39-40.
?We conclude that social phobia may be a hidden contributing factor in some instances of homosexual behavior.? (p. 40)
Harry, J. (1989) Parental physical abuse and sexual orientation in males. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 18, 3:251-261.
?These data suggest that some history of childhood femininity is almost always a precursor of adolescent homosexual behavior.? (p. 259)
Herrell, R., et al. (1999, October). Sexual Orientation and Suicidality: a Co-Twin Control Study in Adult Men. Archives of General Psychiatry. 56 (10): 867-874.
This study of male twins who were Vietnam veterans found that male homosexuals were 5.1 times more likely to experience suicidal thoughts and behaviors than were their heterosexual twins.
Hockenberry, S., Billingham, R. (1987) Sexual orientation and boyhood gender conformity: Development of the boyhood gender conformity scales (BGCS) Archives of Sexual Behavior. 16, 6:475-492.

??the absence of masculine behaviors and traits appeared to be a more powerful predictor of later homosexual orientation than the traditionally feminine or cross-sexed traits and behaviors.? (p. 475)
Horgan, J., (1995) Gay genes, revisited: Doubts arise over research on the biology of homosexuality. Scientific American. Nov.: 28. Hubbard, Ruth, Wald, Elijah (1993). Exploring the Gene Myth 6.
“The myth of the all-powerful gene is based on flawed science that discounts the environmental context in which we and our genes exist.”
“A gene does not determine a phenotype [noticeable trait] by acting alone; a gene cannot act by itself?Each gene simply specifies one of the proteins involved in the process.”
Jefferson, D.J., (1993, August 12). Studying the Biology of Sexual Orientation Has Political Fallout. Wall Street Journal. 1A.

Lisak, D., Luster, L. Educational, occupational, and relationship histories of men who were sexually and/or physically abused as children. J Trauma Stress. 1994 Oct; 7(4): 507-23.
Nearly one in four young men report sexual abuse as a child resulting in significant life difficulties (as compared to non-abused males).
McGuire, T., (1995) Is homosexuality genetic? A critical review and some suggestions. Journal of Homosexuality. 28, 1/2: 115-145.
?Even if we knew absolutely everything about genes and absolutely everything about environment, we still could not predict the final phenotype of any individual." (p. 142)
Nimmons, David. (March 1994). Sex and the Brain, Discover, 64-71.
“It is important to stress what I didn’t find. I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn’t show that gay men are born that way, the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain. INAH 3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than a part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women’s sexual behavior?. Since I looked at adult brains, we don’t know if the differences I found were there at birth, or if they appeared later.”
Pollak, M. Male Homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), 124-125.

Tomeo, M.E., et al. (2001, October). Comparative data of childhood and adolescence molestation in heterosexual and homosexual persons. Archives of Sexual Behavior. 30 (5): 535-541.
942 nonclinical adult participants, gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation that did heterosexual men and women. Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation. Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation.
Whitehead, Neil, Whitehead, Brian. (1999) My Genes Made Me Do It! A Scientific Look at Sexual Orientation, 158-159.

"Neil Whitehead tabulated other twin studies on other topics and those traits’ heritability: lying–43%, anorexia nervosa–44%, fear of the unknown–46%, psychological inpatient care–47%, extroversion–50%, depression–50%, altruism–50%, divorce–52%, racial prejudice, bigotry–70%.

“(Dean) Hamer’s genetic sequences have been calculated to affect about 5% of the homosexual population, so even if he is correct, there must be some other explanation for what causes the vast majority of homosexuality.”
“If a hormonal imbalance was responsible for homosexuality, then perhaps a simple dose of hormones to an adult would cure homosexuality. This is not the case, as has been demonstrated several times.”
Wolf, C. Homosexuality and American Public Life, Spence Publishing Co., Dallas, 1999, p. 70-71.

Homosexually-assaulted males identified themselves as subsequently becoming practicing homosexuals almost 7 times as often as bisexuals and almost 6 times as often as the non-assaulted control group. 58% of adolescents reporting sexual abuse by a man prior to puberty revealed either homosexual or bisexual orientation (control group 90% heterosexual). Age of molestation was 4-14 years. ?Nearly half of men who have reported a childhood experience with an older man were currently involved in homosexual activity.? A disproportionately high number of male homosexuals were incestuously molested by a homosexual parent. Conclusion was that the experience led the boy to perceive himself as homosexual based on his having been found sexually attractive by an older man."

When you are through looking at this and the previous post I have some startling statistics on how many have left the homosexual lifestyle to become happy well adjusted heterosexuals.

Get back to me soon…>We have a great deal to talk about.

Glad you jumped in with more than your usual drive by hate filled one liner.

2079

ZEB,

I’ll write a more complete response soon. Answer me these questions:
1.WHO should be allowed to gain the rights that marriage presently gives to a couple?

2.WHY do we grant those rights to any man and any woman these days?

I, frankly, don’t know all the rights that come with being married (other than taxes, health insurance and death). Could you fill me in on which ones give the most benefits?

2080

[quote]skor wrote:
ZEB,

I’ll write a more complete response soon. Answer me these questions:[/quote]

While I am not Zeb, I wish to weigh in on your excellent questions:[quote]

1.WHO should be allowed to gain the rights that marriage presently gives to a couple? [/quote]

Only couples who are eligible for marriage – to wit, one man + one women. That is the way it has been defined for 10,000 years. There are no other eligible “couples,” unless you wish to also inculde one man + one goat; one woman + one dog; one child + one whatever…remember if your position is “not to discriminate,” then 'anything goes…"[quote]

2.WHY do we grant those rights to any man and any woman these days?[/quote]

Answered already: Marriage has ALWAYS been defined this way. I cannot even beleive we have to debate this.[quote]

I, frankly, don’t know all the rights that come with being married (other than taxes, health insurance and death). Could you fill me in on which ones give the most benefits?[/quote]

It doesn’t matter – it is not about ‘rights,’ it is about what constitutes the instituion of marriage. The institution of marriage in all cultures for all time has been one man + one woman. Everything else has been recognized as deviant behavior.

The slippery slope here is that if you redefine marriage so as not to “discriminate” against gays, then you have to allow marriage for other people who might define it yet again differently, lest we discriminate against them. That would be obsurd and therefore so is the notion that gays can be “married.”

This is the U.S. – if two men wish to do whatever, well I might not like it or agree, but it is there business. However, that doesn’t mean that the rest of us must give the U.S. seal of approval either…ugh…

2081

[quote]harris447 wrote:
It’s not about students making promises. It’s about the next generation–en masse–not caring whether or not two people who choose to love one another ansd start a family do with their lives.[/quote]

I think “Not caring” are the key word here. You assume they don’t care. I assume they don’t care. But you asume they care enough to go to the polls. I assume their apathy extends at least to the polls, and probably further.

[quote]And, you’re right: I am very prejudiced against bigotry and hatred masquerading as “traditionalism” and in Zeb’s utterly see-through bullshit, “concern for the sinners.”
[/quote]

Not wanting to extend rights to lifestyle choices is not bigotry. It is conservatism at the least, and a desire to preserve the integrity of the constitution at the most.

Don’t you miss the days when we hated each other?

I’m from Texas for pete’s sake. You are a guido’d, Jersey haired yankee. There’s a natural hatred right there.

2082

Steveo,
I’ll comment on your answers, even though I find it incredibly unrewarding to argue with anyone who calls homosexuality a sin as well hard to take seriously.

[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
1.WHO should be allowed to gain the rights that marriage presently gives to a couple?

Only couples who are eligible for marriage – to wit, one man + one women. That is the way it has been defined for 10,000 years.
[/quote]
While your answer is clear, your support for it uses circular logic: those are allowed to get married who are eligible. The only support you claim for man+woman is tradition. Strong argument, but traditions change as time passes. Answe accepted.

[/quote]2.WHY do we grant those rights to any man and any woman these days?

Answered already: Marriage has ALWAYS been defined this way. I cannot even beleive we have to debate this.
[/quote]
Dude, I asked two questions in this form for a reason. You did NOT answer the second question. Not always did married couples had the rigths I mentioned below. Explain the rational of granting those rights to married man and women.:
I, frankly, don’t know all the rights that come with being married (other than taxes, health insurance and death). Could you fill me in on which ones give the most benefits?

[quote]It doesn’t matter – it is not about ‘rights,’ it is about what constitutes the instituion of marriage. The institution of marriage in all cultures for all time has been one man + one woman. Everything else has been recognized as deviant behavior.
[/quote]
This is the meat of the issue. But what if gays just want the legal rights of a couple. They don’t want to get married, they are not attacking the tradition.

2083

Forlife,

What are the demand/goals of the majority of gays in relation to gay marrige/civil union: legal rights or more? Would most gays be satisfied with civil unions? Not as an intermidiate point, but as a final goal.

Clearly marriage is more than just legal rights, at least in the eyes of society at the present moment. Here is an excerpt from 02/26/2004 issue of Economist supporting gay marriage:

[i]Civil unions are not enough

The reason, according to Mr Bush, is that this would damage an important social institution. Yet the reverse is surely true. Gays want to marry precisely because they see marriage as important: they want the symbolism that marriage brings, the extra sense of obligation and commitment, as well as the social recognition. Allowing gays to marry would, if anything, add to social stability, for it would increase the number of couples that take on real, rather than simply passing, commitments. The weakening of marriage has been heterosexuals’ doing, not gays’, for it is their infidelity, divorce rates and single-parent families that have wrought social damage.

But marriage is about children, say some: to which the answer is, it often is, but not always, and permitting gay marriage would not alter that. Or it is a religious act, say others: to which the answer is, yes, you may believe that, but if so it is no business of the state to impose a religious choice. Indeed, in America the constitution expressly bans the involvement of the state in religious matters, so it would be especially outrageous if the constitution were now to be used for religious ends.

The importance of marriage for society’s general health and stability also explains why the commonly mooted alternative to gay marriage?a so-called civil union?is not enough. Vermont has created this notion, of a legally registered contract between a couple that cannot, however, be called a ?marriage?. Some European countries, by legislating for equal legal rights for gay partnerships, have moved in the same direction (Britain is contemplating just such a move, and even the opposition Conservative leader, Michael Howard, says he would support it). Some gays think it would be better to limit their ambitions to that, rather than seeking full social equality, for fear of provoking a backlash?of the sort perhaps epitomised by Mr Bush this week.

Yet that would be both wrong in principle and damaging for society. Marriage, as it is commonly viewed in society, is more than just a legal contract. Moreover, to establish something short of real marriage for some adults would tend to undermine the notion for all. Why shouldn’t everyone, in time, downgrade to civil unions? Now that really would threaten a fundamental institution of civilisation.[/i]

Legal rights should be granted immediately and will be granted in the next 70 years. The rest might or might not come with more time.

2084

Not fun posting at this late stage, and not really feeling like engaging in the debate, either. I just spotted the Wikipedia article and noted the following excerpt:

Quote

The ceremony in which a marriage is enacted and announced to the community is called a wedding. A wedding in which a couple marry in the “eyes of the law” is called a civil marriage. Religions also facilitate weddings, in the “eyes of God”. In many European and some Latin American countries, where someone chooses a religious ceremony, they must also hold that ceremony separate from the civil ceremony. Certain countries, like Belgium, Bulgaria and the Netherlands even legally demand that the civil marriage has to take place before any religious marriage. In some countries, notably the United States, the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Spain both ceremonies can be held together; the officiant at the religious and community ceremony also serves as an agent of the state to enact the civil marriage. That does not mean that the state is “recognizing” religious marriages; the “civil” ceremony just takes place at the same time as the religious ceremony. Often this involves simply signing a register during the religious ceremony. If that civil element of the full ceremony is left out for any reason, in the eyes of the law no marriage took place, irrespective of the holding of the religious ceremony.

Unquote.

Isn’t it easier to note the two functions of marriage, the civil contract and the religious blessing of the union? The first could not be rejected on a religious basis and no one could be asked to perform the second against their will. In, Belgium, where I live now, well over 90% of the population is Catholic, while homosexual marriages are legal. Obviously the Church does not sanction these marriages. The separation solves the conflict, except of course for those homosexual practicing Catholics,who do not think they themselves should be allowed to marry.

2085

[quote]skor wrote:
Forlife,

What are the demand/goals of the majority of gays in relation to gay marrige/civil union: legal rights or more? Would most gays be satisfied with civil unions? Not as an intermidiate point, but as a final goal. [/quote]

I’m not aware of any formal polls, but I can tell you what I want and what my friends have expressed.

Personally, I don’t care if they call it a marriage or a civil union. There is an important caveat, though. Whatever they call it, it -must- be recognized at the federal level. There are numerous important benefits (social security, tax benefits, survivor benefits, etc.) which are federally recognized and would not be available to a gay union that is only recognized at the state level.

The religious right sometimes gets confused and thinks that gays want their approval. We don’t (at least I don’t). I couldn’t care less what they think about my sexual orientation. If they want to consider me a heathen bound for hell, more power to them. I think their world view is fundamentally flawed, and their moral opinions carry no weight with me.

I don’t care if their religion recognizes my union. All I’m asking for is equal treatment on the civil level.

P.S. Steve0, you need to educate yourself. If marriage has always been between a man and a woman, how do you explain Abraham’s multiple wives (and the other numerous examples of divine-sanctioned polygamy in the bible)?

2086

[quote]rainjack wrote:
harris447 wrote:
It’s not about students making promises. It’s about the next generation–en masse–not caring whether or not two people who choose to love one another ansd start a family do with their lives.

I think “Not caring” are the key word here. You assume they don’t care. I assume they don’t care. But you asume they care enough to go to the polls. I assume their apathy extends at least to the polls, and probably further.

And, you’re right: I am very prejudiced against bigotry and hatred masquerading as “traditionalism” and in Zeb’s utterly see-through bullshit, “concern for the sinners.”

Not wanting to extend rights to lifestyle choices is not bigotry. It is conservatism at the least, and a desire to preserve the integrity of the constitution at the most.

Don’t you miss the days when we hated each other?

I’m from Texas for pete’s sake. You are a guido’d, Jersey haired yankee. There’s a natural hatred right there.

[/quote]

Jersey-haired: yes, indubitably. My poodle-fro rocked out with its cock out in 7-11 parking lots all through Bon Jovi-land.

I demand, however, you recant you claim of ‘guido’. I have never worn a wife-beater, necklace outside my shirt, spiked my hair or sculpted my eyebrows.

As to your points: we have already defended lifestyle choices (though I will only believe that homosexuality is a “choice” when you can tell me when you “chose” to be heterosexual.)

A person’s religion is a choice. Interracial marriage is a choice. Being a fatty-boombalatty is a choice. Disriminating against these groups is illegal.

As for the Constitution…where does it mention marriage?

2087

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Jersey-haired: yes, indubitably. My poodle-fro rocked out with its cock out in 7-11 parking lots all through Bon Jovi-land.

I demand, however, you recant you claim of ‘guido’. I have never worn a wife-beater, necklace outside my shirt, spiked my hair or sculpted my eyebrows.[/quote]

I can’t. I won’t. I will not change the sterotype I have created in my mind. You will forever be just as I described you.

[quote]As to your points: we have already defended lifestyle choices (though I will only believe that homosexuality is a “choice” when you can tell me when you “chose” to be heterosexual.)

A person’s religion is a choice. Interracial marriage is a choice. Being a fatty-boombalatty is a choice. Disriminating against these groups is illegal.[/quote]

I will believe homosexuality is not a choice as soon as I am presented the genetic proof. Until then, homosexuality is as much a choice as “original or extra-crispy”.

I agree that discrimination is wrong. We are not talking about discrimination. We are talking about affording special rights to a group of people who have made a lifestyle choice. Fat people do not get special rights afforded them. Alcoholics don’t. Bodybuilders don’t. Why gays then?

I think it has more to do with the way certain judges have interpreted the constitution that harms its integrity than it does with the actual verbage.