Gay Marriage Amendment

[quote]ZEB wrote:
vroom wrote:
Psst, Zeb, if you are getting information from certain sources that are unsavory, you may want to be careful who you associate yourself with…

There seems to be quite a lot of sites that have the same or similar information. Now I know it’s not politically correct to post such data, but how is anyone to know if it is in fact true unless it is questioned?

[/quote]

every time someone calls you on your bigotry, cherry-picking of sources, and out right lies, you do one of the following things:

Accuse them of hatred.

Accuse them of being politically correct.

Accuse them of being “anti-christian.”

Please stop doing these things; none of them make sense.

I should probably shut my mouth, but I’m curious, if Zeb’s stats aren’t totally biased, what would be the cause and effect?

Perhaps the effect of hiding a gay lifestyle is that such a person has no outlets for safe expression of their sexuality, and predatory expression is thus an outlet.

Of course I don’t have any studies, but I think it is a fair question to ask. Is the oppression of gays forcing them to find secretive and less acceptable ways to express it?

Wouldn’t that be ironic, that our very bigotry causes worse than that which we are bigoted against?

Regardless, I don’t think you can argue that allowing people to express their gay sexuality in a safe environment would lead to increased criminal activity of any type.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
harris447 wrote:
ZEB wrote:
vroom wrote:
Psst, Zeb, if you are getting information from certain sources that are unsavory, you may want to be careful who you associate yourself with…

There seems to be quite a lot of sites that have the same or similar information. Now I know it’s not politically correct to post such data, but how is anyone to know if it is in fact true unless it is questioned?

every time someone calls you on your bigotry, cherry-picking of sources, and out right lies, you do one of the following things:

Accuse them of hatred.

Accuse them of being politically correct.

Accuse them of being “anti-christian.”

Please stop doing these things; none of them make sense.

[/quote]harris it’s difficult to have any discussion with you without wading through your usual antics which include all of the above.

But again, you have one more post to your credit on this thread. And you have yet to refute even ONE statistic that I have presented.

You like to complain- You don’t like to back it up with facts!

[/quote]

[quote]vroom wrote:
I should probably shut my mouth, but I’m curious, if Zeb’s stats aren’t totally biased, what would be the cause and effect?

Perhaps the effect of hiding a gay lifestyle is that such a person has no outlets for safe expression of their sexuality, and predatory expression is thus an outlet.

Of course I don’t have any studies, but I think it is a fair question to ask. Is the oppression of gays forcing them to find secretive and less acceptable ways to express it?

Wouldn’t that be ironic, that our very bigotry causes worse than that which we are bigoted against?[/quote]

Good point vroom!

I think that could be one possibility. I want to stay open minded about this.

Then again, you might be all wrong and “some” homosexual men(a higher percentage than heterosexuals) may very well be attracted to boys.

I don’t know for sure, but apparently no one else does either huh?

[quote]ZEB wrote:
vroom wrote:
I should probably shut my mouth, but I’m curious, if Zeb’s stats aren’t totally biased, what would be the cause and effect?

Perhaps the effect of hiding a gay lifestyle is that such a person has no outlets for safe expression of their sexuality, and predatory expression is thus an outlet.

Of course I don’t have any studies, but I think it is a fair question to ask. Is the oppression of gays forcing them to find secretive and less acceptable ways to express it?

Wouldn’t that be ironic, that our very bigotry causes worse than that which we are bigoted against?

Good point vroom!

I think that could be one possibility. I want to stay open minded about this.

Then again, you might be all wrong and “some” homosexual men(a higher percentage than heterosexuals) may very well be attracted to boys.

I don’t know for sure, but apparently no one else does either huh?

[/quote]

I think this is exactly the problem in the catholic priesthood.

Some hetero men (predators) are attracted to teenage girls but there are very few career choices that give them one on one oppurtunities like the priesthood gives gay predators.

Our society needs to loosen up about this stuff and try not to lump all gays together.

Most gay people are good people.

Wow… This thread has gone crazy apeshit. Stunned at some of the assertions about gay people I’ve read here.

I’m straight but have many gay friends but put that to one side. Ultimately who cares? Seriously, who the fuck cares?

If you’re not gay why do you give a fuck about how a gay someone else wants to spend their time?

How does it affect you if they want to have crazy gay loving or have crazy gay weddings?

There’s far too many people in the world so ready to jump in and try to stop other people enjoying themselves or living how they want to.

And on the religious front, okay some people think they’ll go to hell. You ain’t gonna fundamentality alter their sexuality so just leave them the fuck alone until they get the old fire and brimstone treatment, if such a thing is true. THEN you can say I told you so.

Far too many Mr Butinskis in the world…

BTW, get a gay man to tell your girlfriend how to give the perfect blowjob. Genius… I am forever in his debt.

[quote]vroom wrote:
The politics of this are pretty amazing… and let’s keep this thread to the POLITICS of the issue, not the religious viewpoint.

However, that said, the politics of mixing religion into the constitution if you feel that is what is taking place is appropriate.

Personally, I think there is a limit to the number of times you can raise the threat level and get people to care, if you know what I’m saying.[/quote]

it is impossible to discuss this on a whole without the stand point of religon. i say let em go at it… sexuality is a spectrum and every shade is as natural and perfect as the other… i think its retarded to ban it. its been going on since the dawn of time and only became taboo when the roman catholics knocked it…

[quote]amilewski3 wrote:
it is impossible to discuss this on a whole without the stand point of religon. i say let em go at it… sexuality is a spectrum and every shade is as natural and perfect as the other… i think its retarded to ban it. its been going on since the dawn of time and only became taboo when the roman catholics knocked it… [/quote]

The killjoys…

[quote]ZEB wrote:

But again, you have one more post to your credit on this thread. And you have yet to refute even ONE statistic that I have presented.

You like to complain- You don’t like to back it up with facts!

[/quote]

Ok, having stumbled across your idiot posts I will enlighten you.

You sir are a bigot, its ok, this is the internet and everyone is allowed to be who they are and i honestly do not mean that in a bad way. (read on)

It was 3 years ago this week that my father who raised me for 35 years came out.
I hope people like yourself experience what it is like to have someone you love and admire admit they are gay.

But, who the hell am i do judge someone on their beliefs? Much like I support my father being gay, I will support you being a bigot, fight on for what you believe in, for you are very much like a homosexual fighting for their rights. Again, I do not mean this in a bad way.

(I will post my story later as I am sure it will enlighten alot of readers)

Now, on to your stats and so called studies…

Family Research Institute*
www.familyresearchinst.org

Founded in 1987 by Paul Cameron, the Family Research Institute (FRI) claims to produce “cutting-edge research” on “family policy” issues. In truth, Cameron is the longtime house psychologist of the anti-gay movement and one of the most thoroughly discredited researchers in America.

After losing his job teaching psychology at the University of Nebraska in 1980, Cameron began to crank out “scientific” studies that bolstered the claims of Anita Bryant, Jerry Falwell and other early anti-gay crusaders that gay people were “diseased perverts” with a program to molest children and demolish America.

Cameron’s first organization, the Institute for the Scientific Investigation of Sexuality, distributed hysterical pamphlets falsely alleging that gay people were much more likely than others to be serial murderers, child molesters and intentional disease-spreaders.

Years later, Cameron’s FRI Web site was still singing the same tune: “The typical sexual practices of homosexuals are a medical horror story imagine exchanging saliva, feces, semen and/or blood with dozens of different men each year. Imagine drinking urine, ingesting feces and experiencing rectal trauma on a regular basis.”

That’s only the beginning. In a 1981 debate, Cameron claimed a 4-year-old boy had been sexually mutilated in a Lincoln, Neb., mall rest room as part of a “homosexual act” but police in Lincoln said no such crime had occurred.

He told the 1985 Conservative Political Action Committee conference that “extermination of homosexuals” might be needed in the next three to four years. He has advocated tattooing AIDS patients in the face, and banishment to a former leper colony for any patient who resisted. He has called for gay bars to be closed and gays to be registered with the government.

Cameron even has called AIDS a “godsend,” and it was for him: Though he was kicked out of the American Psychological Association for ethical violations in 1983 (he was alleged to have used unsound methods and misrepresented the work of others) and then, after pawning himself off as a sociologist, declared “not a sociologist” by the American Sociological Association his studies alleging that homosexuals were intentionally spreading AIDS have been frequently cited by anti-gay groups and commentators like Pat Buchanan.

In the late '90s, Education Secretary William Bennett was badly embarrassed after going on national television and citing Cameron’s unscientific study finding that gay men live only 43 years on average. (Cameron had based the finding on a sample of obituaries in gay newspapers.) Since then, anti-gay groups have continued to make frequent use of Cameron’s findings almost always without mentioning the source.

Incredibly, serving on Cameron’s board are former U.S. Rep. Robert Dornan (R-Calif.) and former U.S. Sen. Robert Smith (R-Calif.)

*** End Article ***

Nice website you found there.

Another EASILY identifiable problem with one of your great stats…

Without any other information given, it takes about 10 seconds to notice the faults in the above paragraph.

In 1970 there was not a single public figure that was supported for being gay. This resulted in most gays hiding in the shadows.
If you walked the streets of San Fran in 1970 and asked for gays to sign up for a study, I am pretty damned sure you will get the absolute freaks of the crop.
You WILL NOT get the fathers of 3 who continue to live a hurtful sheltered life. You WILL NOT get the Doctors or the Lawyers or ANY credited career person.

It is like walking into a current “legalise Marajuana” campaign and asking for established businessmen and woman to particpate in a study. You will get the most outlandish and rare percentage that are not concerned over the public correctness of what they are fighting for.

This would absolutely skew the results of this study (even if it actually took place).

You sir need to sit back, have a beer and think real fukin hard about what you would do if your wife, son, daughter, mom or dad ever sat you down and said. “son, im gay, do you still love me?”
If anything in this world will give you a real good look at life and religion, it would be that minute.

Regards,
mp

[quote]maxx power wrote:
ZEB wrote:

But again, you have one more post to your credit on this thread. And you have yet to refute even ONE statistic that I have presented.

You like to complain- You don’t like to back it up with facts!

Ok, having stumbled across your idiot posts I will enlighten you.[/quote]

Oh boy…I’m about to be enlightened by a Canadian lefty! How soon before the name calling begins?

Hey…that was quick.

:slight_smile:

[quote]It was 3 years ago this week that my father who raised me for 35 years came out.
I hope people like yourself experience what it is like to have someone you love and admire admit they are gay.[/quote]

Been there done that: two cousins. Because we love them does that make everything they do perfect?

And I support you being a moron. And I’ll even tell you why you are a moron.

Look up the definitionn of bigot moron.

I am quite tolerant of others. However, if you think that certain topics are off base because they are not “politically correct” your full of crap…and you are acting like a moron.

[quote] fight on for what you believe in, for you are very much like a homosexual fighting for their rights. Again, I do not mean this in a bad way.

(I will post my story later as I am sure it will enlighten alot of readers)[/quote]

Oh goody.

You really want to play the “my web site is better than your web site game?”

I can come up with more web sites than you…Na na na na na…

Your information came from a web site that is “tipped” in a different direction.

BIG DEAL.

[quote]In 1970 the Kinsey Institute interviewed 565 white gays in San Francisco: 25% of them admitted to having had sex with boys aged 16 or younger while they themselves were at least 21. (19)

Without any other information given, it takes about 10 seconds to notice the faults in the above paragraph.

In 1970 there was not a single public figure that was supported for being gay. This resulted in most gays hiding in the shadows.
If you walked the streets of San Fran in 1970 and asked for gays to sign up for a study, I am pretty damned sure you will get the absolute freaks of the crop.[/quote]

Oh I see, it’s just that the subjects were “freaks.”

If they only interviewed more upstanding homosexuals…well then we would get the REAL facts.

LOL

Quick…get an ashtray and put out whatever the hell you’re smoking!

I don’t hate anyone. I posted the material that I find interesting and thus far you have NOT refuted even one thing.

And…I think…You might just be…NUTS.

[quote]If anything in this world will give you a real good look at life and religion, it would be that minute.

Regards,
mp
[/quote]

Please post back when you actually have some data that refutes the data I posted. Otherwise, post back for entertainment purposes.

Regards,

Zeb

I just posted material that absolutely refutes your data.

You are quoting sources that have been proven to be skewed.
The agenda behind the studies you have posted are entirely politically/religously driven and carry no scientific weight.

You are quoting a society that is lead by someone that was fired for unethical studies, WTF more proof do you need?

Here is the nifty thing about “data”…
It is only as good as the source and none of your claims are from a reputable source.

Anyone can google or even make up their own sources, in the end, it all comes down to what you believe.

Like i said before, i only hope someone like you has to deal with someone close to you, YOUR IMMEDIATE family being gay.
I cant even name all my cousins, let along give a flying rats ass if they are gay or not.

Here is a question, what would you say to your dad if he told you he was gay?
Would you never talk to him again?
Would you have him take two antigay pills and call you when he is cured?
Would you beat him up?
Or would you support him?

please enlighten us with those answers.

regards,
mp

[quote]vroom wrote:
The politics of this are pretty amazing… and let’s keep this thread to the POLITICS of the issue, not the religious viewpoint.

However, that said, the politics of mixing religion into the constitution if you feel that is what is taking place is appropriate.

Personally, I think there is a limit to the number of times you can raise the threat level and get people to care, if you know what I’m saying.[/quote]

Vroom, thanks for bringing this to the attention of the forum. I had no idea Canada was considering a Gay Marraige Ammendment. Those fascists.

[quote]maxx power wrote:

Please post back when you actually have some data that refutes the data I posted. Otherwise, post back for entertainment purposes.

Regards,

Zeb

I just posted material that absolutely refutes your data.

You are quoting sources that have been proven to be skewed.
The agenda behind the studies you have posted are entirely politically/religously driven and carry no scientific weight.

You are quoting a society that is lead by someone that was fired for unethical studies, WTF more proof do you need?

Here is the nifty thing about “data”…
It is only as good as the source and none of your claims are from a reputable source.

Anyone can google or even make up their own sources, in the end, it all comes down to what you believe.

Like i said before, i only hope someone like you has to deal with someone close to you, YOUR IMMEDIATE family being gay.
I cant even name all my cousins, let along give a flying rats ass if they are gay or not.

Here is a question, what would you say to your dad if he told you he was gay?
Would you never talk to him again?
Would you have him take two antigay pills and call you when he is cured?
Would you beat him up?
Or would you support him?

please enlighten us with those answers.

regards,
mp
[/quote]

I’ll jump into this because this has happend to me with a very close member of my family.

My response was something like this:

“(__________) I love you very much, but I totally disagree with your CHOICE of lifesytle and cannot and will not support it. You are free of course to do what you wish, but please understand that my view is not based upon anything but God’s Word and you are aware of what His Word teaches about this type of thing.”

Of course our discussion was much longer and more involved, but this basically is what I said and though I don’t support my family member’s choice, we still speak and see each other occasionally (this member lives way out of state), but I do nothing to support what he is doing because I believe it is grevious sin. Why would I want to support sin?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
endgamer711 wrote:

But such intervention would be an unnatural manipulation of nature, because homosexuality occurs in very many animal species. I’m sure that means the religous element should come down against this, yes? Gee, it is all so confusing.

Many diseases are natural and found in many species. Perhaps we should just not treat them and celebrate nature.

And to Zap, who said “Maybe it would be better not to know the causes.”

Hey dude, the truth shall make you free.

The complications of knowing the cause and developing a “cure” will be massive.

Perhaps parents could have their children tested and treated at a young age.

How many parents do you think would chose homosexuality for their child?[/quote]

Or, add the test to the Triple Test (Trisomy 21, 18 and AFP, I believe)done at 24 weeks and then if the parents don’t want a gay fetus, they can abort it.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
ZEB:

Ok, I went ahead and looked for some information on such studies. I’ll provide the link and a relevant quote.

From: Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation

Cameron’s claims hinge on the fallacious assumption that all male-male molestations are committed by homosexuals.
[/quote]

Shouldn’t that be “fellatious”

[quote]vroom wrote:
I should probably shut my mouth…[/quote]

I think I can agree with that.

Cheers

[quote]maxx power wrote:

Please post back when you actually have some data that refutes the data I posted. Otherwise, post back for entertainment purposes.

Regards,

Zeb

I just posted material that absolutely refutes your data.

You are quoting sources that have been proven to be skewed.
The agenda behind the studies you have posted are entirely politically/religously driven and carry no scientific weight.[/quote]

I’ll give you credit for personally attacking the author of ONE of the studies. But what about the other 10 or so studies that I posted?

Go back and read through them. A blanket “they are all religiously based” attack will not do, as that’s not true. Some were performed by states, others by independent research.

Go back and read them all and let me know what you think. If you want a study by study debate that would be fine with me.

[quote]Like i said before, i only hope someone like you has to deal with someone close to you, YOUR IMMEDIATE family being gay.

I cant even name all my cousins, let along give a flying rats ass if they are gay or not.[/quote]

You don’t “give a flying rats ass about any of your cousins” huh? How compassionate you are. So…that means that no one else cares about their cousines either right?

LOL

[quote]Here is a question, what would you say to your dad if he told you he was gay?

Would you never talk to him again?
Would you have him take two antigay pills and call you when he is cured?
Would you beat him up?
Or would you support him?

please enlighten us with those answers.

regards,
mp
[/quote]

What’s wrong with you?

Where have I ever stated, or even implied that I would “beat up” someone because they were gay? That is a foolish statement and I am starting to wonder if you’re some 16 year old troll.

Now…if you really want to have a conversation click back to all of the studies that I posted and show me exactly where they are wrong. I’ll even give you Camerons, he’s out. And we’ll go from there.

If you post back to me wishing that my immediate family members be gay one more time, I’m going to have to assume that you are either a moron as I first suggested or a 16 year old troll as I now suspect.

Start refuting ALL OF THEM with some serious facts, or go away.

I really don’t see what the problem with two men or two women getting married is. It will affect me in no way whatsoever. The only arguments I have heard to justify this ammendement are based on the idea that allowing gay people to marry will “ruin the sacredness of the intstitution of marriage” when 50% of straight marriages end in divorce anyways. I believe that this is purely political. The politicians who legally do the right thing - and vote not to pass the ammendement- will have this used against them in upcoming elections by conservatives.

I never needed a Gay Marraige Ammendment. I appreciate the special kind of love that is to be found in another man’s hairy a*)%$#e.

And Vroom is not gay. He just likes the way it feels.

[quote]pitbull314 wrote:
I really don’t see what the problem with two men or two women getting married is. It will affect me in no way whatsoever. [/quote]

Then why not allow polygamists to marry?

Why not allow incestual marriage?

Why not allow all sorts of marriages other than one man and one woman?

It DOES directly effect you in someway in the long term. Pretty much everything that happens on a grand scale effects you in some way eventually.

Actually Boston posted some stats on this earlier in the year. Basically,the divorce rate is not actually 50% for everyone. Those who have married multiple times skew the average high for all.

He had posted a very good web page on this. And the actual chances for divorce for those married for the first time is rather low, somewhere between 15% & 20%.

And even if the real divorce rate was 50%, how does allowing one of the most promiscuous groups of people in the nation to marry help that?

It doesn’t.