[quote]forlife wrote:
Your constant spamming of selective statistics and blatant ignoring of points that don’t agree with your agenda win you nothing but a reputation for being a close-minded, loud-mouthed bigot. [/quote]
You pretty much summed zeb up in one concise sentence, good work.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Your constant spamming of selective statistics and blatant ignoring of points that don’t agree with your agenda win you nothing but a reputation for being a close-minded, loud-mouthed bigot.
tme wrote:
You pretty much summed zeb up in one concise sentence, good work.
[/quote]
Those who speak the truth unwaveringly are often criticized for it. Just because ZEB has annihilated every one of forlife’s posts, and you fail to refute them yourself, you perceive that ZEB’s a bigot?
If this didn’t turn into a debate on homosexuality, I’d say ZEB keeps tearing forlife a brand new @sshole with each and every post.
[quote]forlife wrote:
steveo5801 wrote:
Actually, Abram’s fornication with Hager was a manifestation of Abram’s unbelief or lack of complete faith in God.
You do realize that Abram’s wife, Sarah, gave Hagar to him as a second wife right? It wasn’t like Abram was having sex on the sly.
“Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.” Genesis 16:1
“And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.” Genesis 16:3
Apparently father Abraham continued challenging the “traditional” definition of marriage, since he took yet another plural wife:
“Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.” Genesis 25:1
You fundamentalists don’t even know your own bible. Your so-called “traditional marriage” was frequently challenged in the bible by men that had multiple wives. David, Solomon, and others had many wives.[/quote]
Really? How about the [b] words of Jesus: [i]
And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh. Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? ?He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. Matthew 19:3-9 [/i][/b]
When two people come together in the sight of God, they become ONE FLESH – to separate them would be like cutting a person in half and thus could not survive the way God wants them to.
Also, did you notice what Jesus said? “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife.”
Get it? Jesus did not say cleave to his husband or partner or dog or anything else. Marriage = 1 MAN + 1 WOMAN 4ever. [quote]
As a more general example:
Deuteronomy 21:15:
If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated…
It is not there, because the Bible calls sodomy (which is the word God uses) an ABOMINATION. It is not only sin, but ABOMINAL SIN!
The bible also says that eating lobster is an ABOMINATION. It is not only sin, but ABOMINABLE SIN!
Leviticus 11:10-12
"And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you:
They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination.
Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you."
Repent, ye that visit the den of iniquity known as Red Lobster! You shall be worthy of death by stoning![/quote]
So you quote from the Law of Moses which was given to the Jewish people in a theocracy. These are the laws of Kashrut (Kosher) and do not apply to Christians living today. I know this because these commands are NOT CARRIED OVER into the New Testament! However, if you look in Romans 1:26-32 the Abomination of Homosexuality IS CARRIED OVER and thus is INDEPENDENT of the Mosaic Law, and thus, according to God, is OPERATIVE TODAY.
Now you can reject God’s Word – which I know you will – and you can moan that I don’t know my Bible, but I have given you sound Biblical fact and doctrine and if you wish to refute this, please do so using the Bible and show where I am wrong.
If you go to the Bible wanting to prove some pre-conceived notion or an outcome that YOU want, then anyone can take verses and string them together to say anything. The Bible must be read in its grammatical (these are real words), and historical (these things were written to different groups of people during different periods), context (all things in the Bible must be taken in the context in which they were written).
I am certainly not a Biblical scholar by any means, but I have studied God’s Word for many years.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Are you actually claiming that people have never been married for a purpose other than having children? [/quote]
No, but ALL marriges have the POTENTIAL of raising children or at the very least, the GENDERS ARE THE CORRECT ONES FOR SUCH.
The problem with the way you think is that you allow for people to redefine what marriage is. Therefore, anything goes, right?
How about marriage between a man and a goat, or a 40 y/o woman and a 10 y/o boy? Why not? How can we “discriminate?”
Very slippery slope! [quote]
LOL!
My grandma remarried at 70 after my grandfather died. According to you, her marriage was a sham because it didn’t include procreation.
Nice try though.
As far as trends on acceptance of gay marriage, I’ll post this again since you conveniently missed it last time:
The Pew Research Center recently found in March, 2006:
"Public acceptance of homosexuality has increased in a number of ways in recent years, though it remains a deeply divisive issue. Half of Americans (51%) continue to oppose legalizing gay marriage, but this number has declined significantly from 63% in February 2004, when opposition spiked following the Massachusetts Supreme Court decision and remained high throughout the 2004 election season. Opposition to gay marriage has fallen across the board, with substantial declines even among Republicans.
These are among the results of the latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted among 1,405 adults from March 8-12. The poll also finds less opposition to gays serving openly in the military and a greater public willingness to allow gays to adopt children. A 60% majority now favors allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, up from 52% in 1994, and 46% support gay adoption, up from 38% in 1999.
"
Imagine that…
MORE Americans now favor gay marriage than ever before.
MORE Americans now favor gays serving openly in the military.
MORE Americans now favor allowing gays to adopt children.
Maybe there’s some hope for our country after all.
http://people-press.org/...p3?ReportID=273[/quote]
Ridiculous stats – if the American people were for all these “sodomite rights,” then the courts wouldn’t be making these decisions. No state legislature has allowed for sodomite marriage (period).
Americans are against this – you have a vocal “gay” minority who wish to have their sin (yes I said SIN with a capital “S”) legitimized. WE the people do not want this!
Forlife, Zeb,
Marriage has evolved as an institution especially in the past 50-100-200 years. Marriage was primarily based on procreation and economics (more efficient living; passing on private property to children) until 200 years ago. Since then marriage has been shifting to be love-based.
Yes, there were infertile couple back then, but their proportion was so small and they were viewed as very unfortunate. They also didn’t have kids to help around the house. At that time gay marriage didn’t make sense.
Was there gay marriage in Greece? No. There was openly gay men, but they didn’t marry. Why did couples started getting those special legal rights - health insurance, kids adoption, etc? Because family (in procreational sense) was viewed as a building block of society and those were economic insentives to form families/have kids and also, possibly, because that was viewed as a more stable construct.
However times have changed. Now kids are born out of wedlock, raised by single parents, divorces are rampant, infertility rate is up, birth rate is down, percent of childless couples is up and family is now based on LOVE. Given the above, why does government still grant those special rights to ALL couples?
Seems like simple old plain inertia unless we still try to incourage current marriage which is based on LOVE, not procreation. Rights are granted to people forming union based on LOVE must be extended to gays if their marriages strengthen the society the way childless marriages strengthen the society. This has NOTHING to do with dangers of single gays, etc., etc. A question is: WILL ALLOWING 2 GAYS WHO LOVE EACH OTHER TO MARRY BETTER THE SOCIETY given that our other laws suggest that any man-woman marriage based on love is beneficial to society. Based on logic, my answer to the above question is YES. Based on data presented by forlife for Denmark, the answer is yes. Also, I can’t see ANYTHING going worse by allowing gays to marry.
However, consevatives, fundies, etc. are not happy with recent dramatic changes in the institute of marriage and hence don’t want to change tradition not noticing that the tradition HAS changed!
On the other hand, forlife, I don’t think gays are completely frank when they say they want just legal rights. No, they want more - they want recognition that 2 men can love each other and that their union is good for society. Marriage is more than just legal rights that come with it. Those rights are icing on the cake.
Also, a while ago to LOVE and marry was a special right available to very few. Not anymore. Now we start to think of that as a natural, given right. Transition will take some more time.
But at least now I feel like I understand position of both sides. As time passes, marriage (in its old sense: man+woman living together and making kids) will weaken even more and gays will get full rights/recognition. Maybe with a different name.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
forlife wrote:
Are you actually claiming that people have never been married for a purpose other than having children?
No, but ALL marriges have the POTENTIAL of raising children or at the very least, the GENDERS ARE THE CORRECT ONES FOR SUCH.
The problem with the way you think is that you allow for people to redefine what marriage is. Therefore, anything goes, right?
How about marriage between a man and a goat, or a 40 y/o woman and a 10 y/o boy? Why not? How can we “discriminate?”
Very slippery slope!
[/quote]
Forlife has dodged this point since the thread’s inception. If really backed into a corner, I would bet that he would accept the legalization of marriage between a man and a goat if it would press the homosexual marriage agenda.
[quote]skor wrote:
Forlife, Zeb,
Marriage has evolved as an institution especially in the past 50-100-200 years. Marriage was primarily based on procreation and economics (more efficient living; passing on private property to children) until 200 years ago. Since then marriage has been shifting to be love-based.
Yes, there were infertile couple back then, but their proportion was so small and they were viewed as very unfortunate. They also didn’t have kids to help around the house. At that time gay marriage didn’t make sense.
Was there gay marriage in Greece? No. There was openly gay men, but they didn’t marry. Why did couples started getting those special legal rights - health insurance, kids adoption, etc? Because family (in procreational sense) was viewed as a building block of society and those were economic insentives to form families/have kids and also, possibly, because that was viewed as a more stable construct.
However times have changed. Now kids are born out of wedlock, raised by single parents, divorces are rampant, infertility rate is up, birth rate is down, percent of childless couples is up and family is now based on LOVE. Given the above, why does government still grant those special rights to ALL couples?
Seems like simple old plain inertia unless we still try to incourage current marriage which is based on LOVE, not procreation. Rights are granted to people forming union based on LOVE must be extended to gays if their marriages strengthen the society the way childless marriages strengthen the society. This has NOTHING to do with dangers of single gays, etc., etc. A question is: WILL ALLOWING 2 GAYS WHO LOVE EACH OTHER TO MARRY BETTER THE SOCIETY given that our other laws suggest that any man-woman marriage based on love is beneficial to society. Based on logic, my answer to the above question is YES. Based on data presented by forlife for Denmark, the answer is yes. Also, I can’t see ANYTHING going worse by allowing gays to marry.
However, consevatives, fundies, etc. are not happy with recent dramatic changes in the institute of marriage and hence don’t want to change tradition not noticing that the tradition HAS changed!
On the other hand, forlife, I don’t think gays are completely frank when they say they want just legal rights. No, they want more - they want recognition that 2 men can love each other and that their union is good for society. Marriage is more than just legal rights that come with it. Those rights are icing on the cake.
Also, a while ago to LOVE and marry was a special right available to very few. Not anymore. Now we start to think of that as a natural, given right. Transition will take some more time.
But at least now I feel like I understand position of both sides. As time passes, marriage (in its old sense: man+woman living together and making kids) will weaken even more and gays will get full rights/recognition. Maybe with a different name.[/quote]
LOL - let me sum this post up:
“As long as the morals of our country are going to deteriorate, we might as well marry who or whatever we want. And, since my dog and I have been so close for so long…”
You can finish the sentence however you would like 
[quote]tme wrote:
forlife wrote:
Your constant spamming of selective statistics and blatant ignoring of points that don’t agree with your agenda win you nothing but a reputation for being a close-minded, loud-mouthed bigot.
You pretty much summed yourself up, forlife, in one concise sentence, good work.
[/quote]
tme - I adjusted your quote so it would make more sense in relation to this thread.
[quote]tme wrote:
forlife wrote:
Your constant spamming of selective statistics and blatant ignoring of points that don’t agree with your agenda win you nothing but a reputation for being a close-minded, loud-mouthed bigot.
You pretty much summed zeb up in one concise sentence, good work.
[/quote]
You are as worthless on this thread as you are on most you grace.
Refute even ONE of the statistics that I have posted…
Can’t huh?
[quote]forlife wrote:
Zeb, I really have nothing to say to you any more. You are a broken record with nothing creative to contribute to the discussion. [/quote]
I just brought in some new information regarding gay marriage’s overwhelming defeat (81% against) in Alabama. I also brought up the fact that 20 states now have laws on the books forbidding gay marriage, and that 6 more states are likely to join them by years end.
That was all new…
Oh…you mean I have nothing YOU want to hear.
LOL
Article II section 4 page 12 of the gay lobby hate book:
“When you cannot find even one ray of hope in any argument supporting gay marriage begin name calling.”
By the way, you cannot refute even one of my statistics, if you could you would do it!
You don’t like the facts so you name call…We get it.
The definition of a bigot is “one who is intolerant of others.” I am very tolerant of others. What you want is “acceptance” not toleration.
You have called me and others bigots because we will not “embrace” gay marriage or your aberrant lifestyle. 81% of Alabama residents would not “accept” gay marriage. Are they bigots? The residents of Massachusetts signed a petition with tens of thousands of names on it to over turn (some liberal judges idea) gay marriage in that state, are they bigots too? What about the many other states that voted between 65% and 86% to NOT allow gay marriage in their states. Are they all bigots?
Or, are they simply protecting what they feel is proper?
Lack of acceptance is not bigotry!
Bigotry is simply one more name, not unlike “homophobic” which the politically correct use to lable anyone who opposes the gay agenda.
That won’t work anymore Bub! The silent majority is not so silent when it comes to voting against gay marriage. And I suspect that when it is all said and done almost every state in the country will have some sort of law prohibiting gay marriage.
You are the one who has turned your back on the facts. And you are also the one who has the personal agenda to promote, not me.
You refuse to even acknowledge government health statistics, poll numbers, referendums and the like.
For those who tuned in late, here’s what really happened:
I produced quality statistics from the governments own CDC web site regarding both the physical and emotional dangers of the primary homosexual sex act and the gay lifestyle.
You hated it.
I produced some of the latest polls and state laws. And pointed out that there will be about 26 states with laws on the books forbidding gay marriage by the end of this year.
You hated it.
I produced facts regarding the Bible and how not only the Old Testament but the New Testament as well speaks against homosexuality. And I also pointed out that not ONE major religion in the world promotes homosexuality.
You hated it.
I pointed out how ridiculous it would be to change a 5000+ year old tradition for about 1% of the population. And if we did where would it stop? How many other minor groups would want the right to marry? Polygamists, those who practice incest?
You hated it.
I gave you study after study which offered up solid evidence that homosexuals could in fact change to heterosexual. But because you tried to change and gave up.
You hated it.
You have nothing left to say in this debate other than to throw out a few of your hate words.
You and one or two of your comrades on this thread have few facts to back up all of your rhetoric, so you name call.
I understand and I accept it as being the logical end of your argument. And I predict that your cause will probably fold in the same fashion nationwide.
“If you can’t answer a man’s arguments all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.”
Elbert Hubbard
[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
Zeb, I really have nothing to say to you any more. You are a broken record with nothing creative to contribute to the discussion.
I just brought in some new information regarding gay marriage’s overwhelming defeat (81% against) in Alabama. I also brought up the fact that 20 states now have laws on the books forbidding gay marriage, and that 6 more states are likely to join them by years end.
That was all new…
Oh…you mean I have nothing YOU want to hear.
LOL
Your constant spamming of selective statistics and blatant ignoring of points that don’t agree with your agenda win you nothing but a reputation for being a close-minded, loud-mouthed bigot.
Article II section 4 page 12 of the gay lobby hate book:
“When you cannot find even one ray of hope in any argument supporting gay marriage begin name calling.”
By the way, you cannot refute even one of my statistics, if you could you would do it!
You don’t like the facts so you name call…We get it.
I know you don’t see yourself as such, but true bigots never do.
The definition of a bigot is “one who is intolerant of others.” I am very tolerant of others. What you want is “acceptance” not toleration.
You have called me and others bigots because we will not “embrace” gay marriage or your aberrant lifestyle. 81% of Alabama residents would not “accept” gay marriage. Are they bigots? The residents of Massachusetts signed a petition with tens of thousands of names on it to over turn (some liberal judges idea) gay marriage in that state, are they bigots too? What about the many other states that voted between 65% and 86% to NOT allow gay marriage in their states. Are they all bigots?
Or, are they simply protecting what they feel is proper?
Lack of acceptance is not bigotry!
Bigotry is simply one more name, not unlike “homophobic” which the politically correct use to lable anyone who opposes the gay agenda.
That won’t work anymore Bub! The silent majority is not so silent when it comes to voting against gay marriage. And I suspect that when it is all said and done almost every state in the country will have some sort of law prohibiting gay marriage.
Don’t bother addressing me in the future, as you’ve shown your true colors too many times for me to believe you were ever truly interested in objective facts.
You are the one who has turned your back on the facts. And you are also the one who has the personal agenda to promote, not me.
You refuse to even acknowledge government health statistics, poll numbers, referendums and the like.
For those who tuned in late, here’s what really happened:
I produced quality statistics from the governments own CDC web site regarding both the physical and emotional dangers of the primary homosexual sex act and the gay lifestyle.
You hated it.
I produced some of the latest polls and state laws. And pointed out that there will be about 26 states with laws on the books forbidding gay marriage by the end of this year.
You hated it.
I produced facts regarding the Bible and how not only the Old Testament but the New Testament as well speaks against homosexuality. And I also pointed out that not ONE major religion in the world promotes homosexuality.
You hated it.
I pointed out how ridiculous it would be to change a 5000+ year old tradition for about 1% of the population. And if we did where would it stop? How many other minor groups would want the right to marry? Polygamists, those who practice incest?
You hated it.
I gave you study after study which offered up solid evidence that homosexuals could in fact change to heterosexual. But because you tried to change and gave up.
You hated it.
You have nothing left to say in this debate other than to throw out a few of your hate words.
You and one or two of your comrades on this thread have few facts to back up all of your rhetoric, so you name call.
I understand and I accept it as being the logical end of your argument. And I predict that your cause will probably fold in the same fashion nationwide.
“If you can’t answer a man’s arguments all is not lost; you can still call him vile names.”
Elbert Hubbard
[/quote]
Great post Zeb! I for one and sick of being called names because I don’t think gay marriage is a good idea.
[quote]stellar_horizon wrote:
Just because ZEB has annihilated every one of forlife’s posts, and you fail to refute them yourself, you perceive that ZEB’s a bigot?[/quote]
Do you really believe this? In all sincerity, it blows me away how people that claim to be Christian can be so blatantly dishonest when it serves their purpose.
If you’re being serious, tell me the single best point that you believe has “annihilated” my position. I’m genuinely curious.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
So you quote from the Law of Moses which was given to the Jewish people in a theocracy. These are the laws of Kashrut (Kosher) and do not apply to Christians living today. I know this because these commands are NOT CARRIED OVER into the New Testament![/quote]
Where in the new testament does it say that you are now allowed to eat lobster? Or are you just assuming that unless something is specifically repeated in the new testament, it no longer has any bearing? For example, the fifth commandment is to “Honor thy father and thy mother.” Unless this is specifically repeated in the new testament, does that mean the commandment was just part of the law of moses and no longer applies? Your logic is inconsistent and flawed.
More to the point, I have shown you how “traditional marriage” is not the 10,000 year old sacred institution that you claim, since numerous prophets and commoners in the old testament practiced polygamy. Even if you buy the line that all of that went away with Jesus, you are now talking about a 2,000 year old sacred institution. Get your facts straight.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Gay marriage defeated overwhelmingly!
Hey forlife, while you and your buddy harris have been playing pretend on the Internet grown up people who are fed up with your nonsense have decided act.
On June 6th while we were right here on this site making believe that things were going your way., 81% of Alabama residents voted to ban gay marriage.
81%
WOW.
"Only Mississippi – which passed an amendment in 2004 with 86 percent of the vote – surpassed Alabama’s tally.
86% of the vote! If you are not going to concede until you see 100% that might not happen. As I stated on another post there will always be the fringe left, homosexuals and 18 year olds pretty much ready to accept anything. But when the adults start voting…
"The amendment prevents Alabama courts from forcing the state to recognize “gay marriages,” civil unions or domestic partnerships from other states. It also prevents Alabama courts from legalizing those unions in the state.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23414
But Alabama isn’t alone. Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin also are scheduled to vote on similar amendments this year."
When you total up the 6 states that will be banning gay marriage this year that will be a total of 26 states that have said NO to gay marriage.
[/quote]
Wow. Alabama and Mississippi. Paragons of intelligence and progressive thinking.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
No, but ALL marriges have the POTENTIAL of raising children or at the very least, the GENDERS ARE THE CORRECT ONES FOR SUCH.[/quote]
Explain to me how the marriage between two octagenarians has an iota more POTENTIAL of producing children compared to the marriage between two gay men.
You’re just repeating lame arguments that have already been disproven in this thread.
In a nutshell: the slippery slope argument is SOPHISTRY unless you can show a direct and unavoidable connection between A and B.
You fail on that point. Allowing black men and white women to marry didn’t prove to be a slippery slope, because the merits of that decision were independent of other issues related to who should be allowed to marry.
The same is true for gay marriage, polygamy, and incest. To be fair, each case should be judged based on objective data regarding the potential for harm and benefits caused by a government sanctioned union. Your example of an adult marrying a minor is pretty clear cut, since children don’t have the maturity to make a decision regarding marriage.
Have fun riding on that slippery slope of yours.
[quote]steveo5801 wrote:
Ridiculous stats – if the American people were for all these “sodomite rights,” then the courts wouldn’t be making these decisions. No state legislature has allowed for sodomite marriage (period).
[/quote]
Calling the stats ridiculous doesn’t invalidate them. Are you accusing the Pew research group of fudging the data? Did you read the reams of other poll stats provided by the major polling organizations, all of which have shown a similar trend of increasing acceptance for gay rights over time?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
This is the second post by me that you ignored. I would not have brought either of them up again. But I’m not going to allow you to give your usual two or three sentence drive by “hating”
and leave.
"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."
[b]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.[/b]
[/quote]
Ah, right: people become fags because something went wrong.
So, let’s assume it is a choice.
Answer this question: when did you choose to be a heterosexual?
(Assuming you are one.)
[quote]skor wrote:
Yes, there were infertile couple back then, but their proportion was so small and they were viewed as very unfortunate. They also didn’t have kids to help around the house. At that time gay marriage didn’t make sense. [/quote]
If marriage made sense for an infertile couple back then, it made sense for a gay couple as well. Just because infertile couples were a minority (just like gay couples) doesn’t mean marriage made any less “sense” for them than it does today.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
You are as worthless on this thread as you are on most you grace.
Refute even ONE of the statistics that I have posted…
Can’t huh?
[/quote]
Thanks, zeb. I’m not going to read any of the statistics that you posted because they are meaningless to anyone but you (and maybe your little sycophant tit-mouse ivan). You, God and that preacher in Kansas hate fags. Good for you. Nothing you’ve posted explains why you are so deathly afraid of civil unions. Are you just scared you’ll catch the gay?
[quote]harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Gay marriage defeated overwhelmingly!
Hey forlife, while you and your buddy harris have been playing pretend on the Internet grown up people who are fed up with your nonsense have decided act.
On June 6th while we were right here on this site making believe that things were going your way., 81% of Alabama residents voted to ban gay marriage.
81%
WOW.
"Only Mississippi – which passed an amendment in 2004 with 86 percent of the vote – surpassed Alabama’s tally.
86% of the vote! If you are not going to concede until you see 100% that might not happen. As I stated on another post there will always be the fringe left, homosexuals and 18 year olds pretty much ready to accept anything. But when the adults start voting…
"The amendment prevents Alabama courts from forcing the state to recognize “gay marriages,” civil unions or domestic partnerships from other states. It also prevents Alabama courts from legalizing those unions in the state.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23414
But Alabama isn’t alone. Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia and Wisconsin also are scheduled to vote on similar amendments this year."
When you total up the 6 states that will be banning gay marriage this year that will be a total of 26 states that have said NO to gay marriage.
Wow. Alabama and Mississippi. Paragons of intelligence and progressive thinking.
[/quote]
That’s more like it!
You’re back to your drive by hate postings.
This time you show your brand of ignorance by the practice of stereotyping.
Tell me why is it wrong to stereotype homosexuals but not wrong to stereotype southern folks?
Southern folks are not quite as intelligent as you and your politically correct northern brothers huh?
Do you believe this?
Funny how the politically correct liberals stereotype…and think it’s okay.
By the way, are they also behind the times in Massachusetts where the people rose up in droves and signed a petition to turn back gay marriage?
“Petition vs. gay marriage advances
Number of signers breaks state record”.
"The people have not just spoken, they have shouted to let the people vote on the definition of marriage…
The petition drew the signatures of Governor Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann; former House speaker Thomas M. Finneran, now the president of the Massachusetts Biotechnology Council; and former Boston mayor Raymond L. Flynn. If the petition receives the support of at least 25 percent of the Legislature in two successive sessions, it would appear on the ballot in November 2008."
Governor Mitt Romney signed the petition. And former DEMOCRATIC mayor Ray Flynn also signed the petition.
Are they also closed minded bigots?
harris everytime you post you make yourself out to be a bigger joke.
And while I have you here how come you have not gotten back to me regarding the other two issues that I addressed to you?
You have no answers huh?
One was on gay domestic violence (gay on gay violence).
And the other was on the incredible amount of evidence which points to homosexuals becoming that way because of events that happened in childhood. As opposed to the politically correct who want badly for everyone to believe that “they are born that way” and then offer zero proof to back up their propaganda.
Would you like me to repost these for the third time? Or do you want to just scroll back and answer?
No…probably neither. You’re better off just sticking to your drive by hate postings. Because as soon as you debate the facts you lose!