Oohhh, I see. So you’ve raised one or multiple children partnered with their mother?
Oh, right, no you haven’t. Therefore you’re talking out of your ass.
I knew this would happen. Your too busy being defensive and looking for reasons to be offended to actually pay attention to what is being said.
You most certainly implied the former to try and enforce the idea of the latter.
You don’t need to do so, and you are foolishly doing it. With comments like “what does a mother do other than breastfeed” you’ve already lost your own argument that you should win.
[quote] No two couples, straight or otherwise, will raise their kids the same; I don’t think anyone would say otherwise.
[/quote]
I think that your entire position can be summed up by the above sentence, yes?
[/quote]
That is my position on the institution of marriage yes. Pretty simple. Husband + wife; bride + groom = marriage. I know that’s “hateful” and everything but that’s my position.
Where are you going with this? I don’t know why I’m bothering to respond when you’re showing such disrespect by posting pages of infantile anti-Christianity stuff.
You’re a liberal. Stop pretending otherwise.
You forget. I don’t live in some blue state fucking hell hole. There is no “gay” marriage where I come from. Not in any state in the country. A federal act was passed in 1961 and reaffirmed in 2004 stating:
“Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others…”
That’s the “reality” here.
FABULOUS! Keep it over there.
Depends how you define “most”. Southern States don’t have majority support.
Yeah, and yours is devolving.
Give me a break. You’re boring me.
Why are you so invested in this? Why do you care so much? Many gays don’t support gay marriage. Yet you feel the need to involve yourself in activism on behalf of the tiny number of people who are gay and want to get married.
This is some of the most idiotic shit I’ve seen around here. Hosexuals are being “systematically disenfranchised?” Even gay activists don’t argue that. They say they’ve been very successful and that the exact opposite has occurred. As I said, there’s something odd here. You’re more invested in this than the most radical of gay activists. Got a gay brother or sister or something? Is that it? I suggest you work on the party line because you’ve got it wrong.
You’re mistaking your own strawman for something I said. As I’ve said several times in this thread:
The normalisation of homosexuality is not the cause of society’s problems. It’s a symptom of them.
And I’m not looking to “blame” anyone. I told you this is not about enmity or hatred. It’s about my fundamental beliefs about what’s normal and what’s not; what’s healthy and what’s not; what’s good for society and what’s not.
And so all the unfair laws that favour homosexuals are good right? Like “hate crimes” legislation: punch someone and call them a “nerd” and you get two months community service; punch someone and call them a “fag” and get ten years for a “hate crime”. Because gays are more valuable human beings than everyone else aren’t they? Equality before the law is not good enough is it?
Maybe if you spent some time actually reading other people’s posts instead of ranting about how unethical the bible is I wouldn’t have to keep repeating myself. Gays are not disenfranchised. They have all the same rights as straight people and more. Read my previous posts if you don’t understand why. If you disagree then address what I said instead of just ignoring it.
Why not address some of the arguments against adoption instead of ignoring them or brushing them off? One of the reasons Russia banned Americans from adopting Russian children is due to this:
The gay couple who molested this boy were hailed by the liberal media at the time. One particular lib went and did a big pro-gay adoption story and went and interviewed the parents. She thought they were wonderful at the time and she was a big supporter of gay adoption. When the truth came out she wrote a story saying she’d completely changed her mind about gay adoption. So not everyone is “evolving” in the way you mean.
Only it won’t be as small. It will be considerably larger.
They’re not equal numbers though and you can’t pretend otherwise. There is a much higher percentage of child molesters in the gay community.
[/quote]
Please provide a reference to your last statement.
I think that your entire position can be summed up by the above sentence, yes?
[/quote]
That is my position on the institution of marriage yes. Pretty simple. Husband + wife; bride + groom = marriage. I know that’s “hateful” and everything but that’s my position.
[/quote]I have never called you hateful, I just don’t agree that such a narrow definition is appropriate WHEN THE STATE IS INVOLVED.[quote]
Where are you going with this? I don’t know why I’m bothering to respond when you’re showing such disrespect by posting pages of infantile anti-Christianity stuff.
You’re a liberal. Stop pretending otherwise.
You forget. I don’t live in some blue state fucking hell hole. There is no “gay” marriage where I come from. Not in any state in the country. A federal act was passed in 1961 and reaffirmed in 2004 stating:
“Marriage means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others…”
That’s the “reality” here.
FABULOUS! Keep it over there.
Depends how you define “most”. Southern States don’t have majority support.
[/quote]YET[quote]
Yeah, and yours is devolving.
[/quote]In many ways you are correct.[quote]
Give me a break. You’re boring me.
[/quote]I’m sure that while those historical milestones might bore you, they were rather important to the people they affected[quote]
Why are you so invested in this?
[/quote]Because I have a twisted sense of justice[quote]
Why do you care so much?
[/quote]Because I believe in equality under the law. That concept is important to me.[quote]
Many gays don’t support gay marriage. Yet you feel the need to involve yourself in activism on behalf of the tiny number of people who are gay and want to get married.
[/quote]If by “activism” you mean typing on keyboard in my free time, I guess that makes me an “activist”. That’s about the extent of my involvement.[quote]
This is some of the most idiotic shit I’ve seen around here.
[/quote]How is what I wrote idiotic? The feminist movement started WAY before the gay marriage movement… That’s what started the downward spiral of political correctness and the decline of morality in our society[quote]
Homosexuals are being “systematically disenfranchised?”
[/quote]“Systematically” as in the existing SYSTEM of marriage between a man and a woman and those cultural stereotypes. “Disenfranchised” as in married heterosexual couples have rights granted to them BY THE STATE that homosexual couples do NOT have. Classic definition of each word… What’s the problem?[quote]
Even gay activists don’t argue that. They say they’ve been very successful and that the exact opposite has occurred. As I said, there’s something odd here. You’re more invested in this than the most radical of gay activists.
[/quote]I don’t listen to gay activists or what they say. In fact, I’ve not sought another homosexual’s opinion on this matter at all. I see the facts and I’m offering MY opinion. That’s it.[quote]
Got a gay brother or sister or something? Is that it? [/quote]No, but if I did, what would that matter? Right is right, wrong is wrong and fair is fair…[quote]
I suggest you work on the party line because you’ve got it wrong.
[/quote]Who’s party line?[quote]
You’re mistaking your own strawman for something I said. As I’ve said several times in this thread:
The normalisation of homosexuality is not the cause of society’s problems. It’s a symptom of them.
[/quote]Society is changing in many negative ways, but becoming more accepting of people and their differences is a POSITIVE change.[quote]
And I’m not looking to “blame” anyone. I told you this is not about enmity or hatred. It’s about my fundamental beliefs about what’s normal and what’s not; what’s healthy and what’s not; what’s good for society and what’s not.
[/quote]I never called you a hater. I just have a different position than you do on THIS subject. I agree with you on 90% of other subjects.[quote]
And so all the unfair laws that favour homosexuals are good right? Like “hate crimes” legislation: punch someone and call them a “nerd” and you get two months community service; punch someone and call them a “fag” and get ten years for a “hate crime”. Because gays are more valuable human beings than everyone else aren’t they? Equality before the law is not good enough is it?
[/quote]Now, who’s building the strawman? I have always maintained that you don’t need MORE laws to enforce EXISTING laws. If assault is assault, I don’t think that the motivation for that assault matters - punish the assault. I think “hate crime” legislation is bullshit.[quote]
Maybe if you spent some time actually reading other people’s posts instead of ranting about how unethical the bible is I wouldn’t have to keep repeating myself. Gays are not disenfranchised. They have all the same rights as straight people and more. Read my previous posts if you don’t understand why. If you disagree then address what I said instead of just ignoring it.
[/quote]The FUNDAMENTAL problem is that the GOVERNMENT got involved in what is essentially a RELIGIOUS matter. I would be perfectly fine if the government regulated that ALL unions that wish to have fiduciary rights and responsibilities be labeled as “civil unions”. And let whatever churches want to do what they want regarding their policy of who “marries”. I think many people get hung up on the word. But the word is misleading. What gay couples WANT and should be ALLOWED TO HAVE is the rights of inheritance, the right to pull the plug, the right to be privy to medical information and all those INHERENT rights that the STATE grants married couples. It isn’t about RELIGION at that point, it’s about respect and equality under the LAW. If a hetero couple is together for 30 years, and can not produce offspring and a gay couple is together for 30 years and do not produce offspring, why on earth should the surviving member of the hetero couple be entitled to an inheritance, while the surviving member of the homosexual couple get to take a back seat the decieced member’s surviving family? They put in the same time, melded their finances, had their ups and downs, but at the end of the day their commitment to one another kept them together… WHY SHOULD THAT NOT BE HONORED?[quote]
Why not address some of the arguments against adoption instead of ignoring them or brushing them off? One of the reasons Russia banned Americans from adopting Russian children is due to this:
The gay couple who molested this boy were hailed by the liberal media at the time. One particular lib went and did a big pro-gay adoption story and went and interviewed the parents. She thought they were wonderful at the time and she was a big supporter of gay adoption. When the truth came out she wrote a story saying she’d completely changed her mind about gay adoption. So not everyone is “evolving” in the way you mean.
[/quote]This is an example of how the MEDIA is fucked up by sensationalizing anything gay. I’m not “for” that. I detailed MY position on the matter pretty clearly up there. As for couples adopting foreign children for the purposes of abusing them, that’s not a problem that is isolated to homosexuals. In fact I would submit for your consideration that the market for underage GIRLS is far higher. Sexual trafficking is a crime. Just like with hate crime legislation, ENFORCE THE LAW - don’t prevent a certain class of people from raising children when the vast majority of them are NOT pedophiles[quote]
Only it won’t be as small. It will be considerably larger.
[/quote]Statistically, young black men are likelier to commit crimes than any other race. Should be preemptively curtail any of their civil rights? OF COURSE NOT!!! You are succumbing to the logical fallacy of generalizing from the particular to the general. YOU ARE BETTER THAN THAT…[quote]
They’re not equal numbers though and you can’t pretend otherwise. There is a much higher percentage of child molesters in the gay community.
You are trying to have it both ways. You think “hate crime” legislation is wrong, but you think that because “statistically” MORE gay couples MIGHT abuse children that they ALL be denied access to adoption rights. Last time I checked, abusing children is AGAINST THE LAW. There’s a real easy way to solve both issues: ENFORCE THE LAW.
If a child is abused, either by a straight or a gay person, LOCK THAT FUCKER UP!
If drunk hits another drunk at a bar OR a skin head jumps a minority, an assault has occurred, LOCK THAT FUCKER UP!
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
^^ I already have. Read through my posts.[/quote]
I find it very interesting that you don’t think religion is necessary to this discussion yet you post this reference:
to back up your claim that the majority of homosexuals are pedophiles. This reference clearly has a christian bias.
this is the the Author’s info:
“Please allow me to introduce myself. I am James R. (Jim) Aist, and I am a Professor Emeritus at Cornell University. My professional training and experience and peer-reviewed, scientific publications are in the area of biological research. I also have formal training in Pastoral Theology and have been a pastor at First Assembly of God Church in Ithaca, NY. Most importantly, I am a born-again Christian. In my spiritual journey, I have been United Methodist, Roman Catholic, Conservative Baptist, Christian and Missionary Alliance, Independent Pentecostal, Assemblies of God and (presently) Church of God-Cleveland. I started this website to share with you some of the results and conclusions from my independent library/internet research and personal biblical studies on matters of biblical theology and morality, but I am expanding the scope of it to include personal revelations, teachings and short stories. Iâ??m glad you found me, and I hope you will find something interesting and useful on my website from time to time”
but it’s ok you can continue to deny that religion has anything to do with your argument.
I find it very interesting that you don’t think religion is necessary to this discussion yet you post this reference:
to back up your claim that the majority of homosexuals are pedophiles. This reference clearly has a christian bias.
[/quote]
Remember I told you to read my posts? When you jump into a thread and start blabbing without any idea of what’s going on you make yourself look stupid, you waste people’s time and you are unable to contribute to the discussion.
READ MY POSTS. I have already specifically addressed this. I said, I’m not referencing the article. I haven’t even read the article. I’m referencing a particular study that was mentioned by the author of the article.
Understand? This is the second time I’ve had to tell you to read my posts because you are asking things I’ve already answered and now you’re making an erroneous assertion that has already been asserted by someone else and corrected by me. READ MY POSTS before you comment. Okay?
No it’s not. The study is by:
Nothing to do with religion. It just happens that when I searched for the study this was the first webpage I could find that mentioned it.
See above. And when you change a post after it’s been posted you should type “Edited” at the bottom.
[quote]
but it’s ok you can continue to deny that religion has anything to do with your argument.[/quote]
You must feel silly after making a fool of yourself twice. Remember, read the thread and make sure you know what’s going on and that what you’re about to say hasn’t already been addressed.
I find it very interesting that you don’t think religion is necessary to this discussion yet you post this reference:
to back up your claim that the majority of homosexuals are pedophiles. This reference clearly has a christian bias.
[/quote]
Remember I told you to read my posts? When you jump into a thread and start blabbing without any idea of what’s going on you make yourself look stupid, you waste people’s time and you are unable to contribute to the discussion.
READ MY POSTS. I have already specifically addressed this. I said, I’m not referencing the article. I haven’t even read the article. I’m referencing a particular study that was mentioned by the author of the article.
Understand? This is the second time I’ve had to tell you to read my posts because you are asking things I’ve already answered and now you’re making an erroneous assertion that has already been asserted by someone else and corrected by me. READ MY POSTS before you comment. Okay?
No it’s not. The study is by:
Nothing to do with religion. It just happens that when I searched for the study this was the first webpage I could find that mentioned it.
See above. And when you change a post after it’s been posted you should type “Edited” at the bottom.
[quote]
but it’s ok you can continue to deny that religion has anything to do with your argument.[/quote]
You must feel silly after making a fool of yourself twice. Remember, read the thread and make sure you know what’s going on and that what you’re about to say hasn’t already been addressed.[/quote]
You took a direct quote out of that article from the author. that particular study was highly criticized because these offenders self identified as homosexuals and did not identify themselves as pedophiles because they would rather not be identified ad pedophiles.
The study below claims that only 2% of accused pedophiles are homosexuals
Jenny, C., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41â??44.
I find it very interesting that you don’t think religion is necessary to this discussion yet you post this reference:
to back up your claim that the majority of homosexuals are pedophiles. This reference clearly has a christian bias.
[/quote]
Remember I told you to read my posts? When you jump into a thread and start blabbing without any idea of what’s going on you make yourself look stupid, you waste people’s time and you are unable to contribute to the discussion.
READ MY POSTS. I have already specifically addressed this. I said, I’m not referencing the article. I haven’t even read the article. I’m referencing a particular study that was mentioned by the author of the article.
Understand? This is the second time I’ve had to tell you to read my posts because you are asking things I’ve already answered and now you’re making an erroneous assertion that has already been asserted by someone else and corrected by me. READ MY POSTS before you comment. Okay?
No it’s not. The study is by:
Nothing to do with religion. It just happens that when I searched for the study this was the first webpage I could find that mentioned it.
See above. And when you change a post after it’s been posted you should type “Edited” at the bottom.
[quote]
but it’s ok you can continue to deny that religion has anything to do with your argument.[/quote]
You must feel silly after making a fool of yourself twice. Remember, read the thread and make sure you know what’s going on and that what you’re about to say hasn’t already been addressed.[/quote]
You took a direct quote out of that article from the author. that particular study was highly criticized because these offenders self identified as homosexuals and did not identify themselves as pedophiles because they would rather not be identified ad pedophiles.
The study below claims that only 2% of accused pedophiles are homosexuals
Jenny, C., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41â??44.[/quote]
The study is obviously bogus otherwise 98% of children being sexually assaulted would be girls. They’re playing with the definition of homosexual. My definition of homosexual is someone who engages in sex with someone of the same sex. Not surprised to see the author of that study is a kook:
I find it very interesting that you don’t think religion is necessary to this discussion yet you post this reference:
to back up your claim that the majority of homosexuals are pedophiles. This reference clearly has a christian bias.
[/quote]
Remember I told you to read my posts? When you jump into a thread and start blabbing without any idea of what’s going on you make yourself look stupid, you waste people’s time and you are unable to contribute to the discussion.
READ MY POSTS. I have already specifically addressed this. I said, I’m not referencing the article. I haven’t even read the article. I’m referencing a particular study that was mentioned by the author of the article.
Understand? This is the second time I’ve had to tell you to read my posts because you are asking things I’ve already answered and now you’re making an erroneous assertion that has already been asserted by someone else and corrected by me. READ MY POSTS before you comment. Okay?
No it’s not. The study is by:
Nothing to do with religion. It just happens that when I searched for the study this was the first webpage I could find that mentioned it.
See above. And when you change a post after it’s been posted you should type “Edited” at the bottom.
[quote]
but it’s ok you can continue to deny that religion has anything to do with your argument.[/quote]
You must feel silly after making a fool of yourself twice. Remember, read the thread and make sure you know what’s going on and that what you’re about to say hasn’t already been addressed.[/quote]
You took a direct quote out of that article from the author. that particular study was highly criticized because these offenders self identified as homosexuals and did not identify themselves as pedophiles because they would rather not be identified ad pedophiles.
The study below claims that only 2% of accused pedophiles are homosexuals
Jenny, C., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41�¢??44.[/quote]
The study is obviously bogus otherwise 98% of children being sexually assaulted would be girls. They’re playing with the definition of homosexual. My definition of homosexual is someone who engages in sex with someone of the same sex. Not surprised to see the author of that study is a kook:
Did you think you had the market cornered or something?
For all of your long-winded diatribes against “active nihilism” and quotes by Edmond Burke, you seem genuinely oblivious to the actual nature of society. Society is never stagnant; it’s constantly evolving, and usually for the better. If you want strict traditionalism, put down your computer and go be Amish.
It would certainly not go against previous iterations of marriage throughout history. Polygamy used to be the norm, but then someone changed the definition of marriage.
Marriage has never been just “man + woman, bride + groom = marriage”.
You have this amazing ability to go on and on without saying anything, and you still didn’t answer my question. I’ll ask again: what would you be doing differently in a world where gay marriage is legal?
Marriage is not a zero-sum game. Gay marriages do not take the place of straight marriages, and straight marriages would continue in the same way with the same rights they do now. Nothing is being taken away from them. Saying that gay marriage “radically transforms” traditional marriage is like saying that a restaurant “radically transformed” its menu by adding an appetizer 3% of the population is interested in eating. You can still order your usual, buddy, don’t let an extra option freak you out.
Stop speaking in fatalistic bullshit.
There is no “special treatment”. If I had the option to marry a man, so would you. Don’t want to marry a man? No one is forcing you to.
Gay people. This seems to be a concept you refuse to understand.
And betcha I know a lot more members of the gay community. Not everyone wants to get married, no, but most of us want the option.
I do respect marriage. It means something to me, and I want it to be part of my life. That’s the exact opposite of nihilism. Stop using terms you don’t understand because you think big words make you sound smarter.
It’s literally the only way gay marriage would, theoretically, cause you undue harm. The issue isn’t about forcing anyone to do anything, and yet you think that tax benefits for a couple with matching genitals is a direct threat to your way of life.
So when, during marriage’s tumultuous history, did it finally reach the definition of “un-redefinable”?
You’re making the same point you did earlier, only it sounds even less based in reality.
If something is being destroyed, you should be able to point out concrete examples. Show me how a man and woman suffer in their union if I marry my boyfriend. Are they no longer allowed to file for joint adoption, because the gays took them all? Will the wife have no claim to the husband’s affairs in the event of his passing because we only let gay couples do that now?
I’ll ask again, what rights are being taken away from straight couples when gays are allowed to marry?
You think that a mother is incapable of teaching the value of accepting responsibility and protecting your family?
Your claim that you can only learn certain things from a father assumes that all men have the same innate masculine characteristics, and women have completely separate feminine characteristics. They don’t. That’s not how humans work. I have complimentary characteristics to my boyfriend: I’m more “feminine” in some ways, more “masculine” in others.
You can learn how to be tough from your mom, and how to be empathetic from your dad. Deal with it.
Well there it is. It’s not a “declining” of western society, then, but a “darkening”. Way to show your true colors, pun totally intended.
An entire paragraph devoted to describing Japan’s crisis of identity following their defeat in World War II.
It’s amazing what you do and do not deem relevant to this topic of gay marriage.
Spoken like a true honest intellectual. Don’t ask you for evidence, because you’re not interested in scientific consensus.
It has absolutely not been around for a millenia, especially as the “institution” you describe as traditional.
Tradition is not a good enough reason to keep something as is. It must be constantly questioned and revised when presented with new information. That’s how society evolves.
Tradition wasn’t good enough when blacks weren’t full human beings, it wasn’t good enough when a woman’s place was silent in the kitchen, and it isn’t good enough now.
You seem to have a hard time finding studies outside of blatantly anti-gay Christian blogs.
So you quote the high end of a statistic “in which homosexual acts are involved” in…a study. What study? You didn’t cite, and neither did the article.
You’re not intellectually honest, you don’t even bother to cite your sources.
The vast majority of rapists in prison identify as heterosexual, and engage in exclusively heterosexual acts outside of prison.
You need look no farther for proof that rape can about power over an individual rather than physical attraction.
You’ve discovered a preference for different body types in the gay community. Are you saying that youth is not a very common and valued aspect of physical attraction for straight men?
I announced I’m gay. You consider that sexual deviancy. But of course, you’re not homophobic.
God forbid you expose children to different viewpoints and teach them not to physically or verbally harm other children.
And weren’t you just chastising other posters for using Christianity as a defense against gay marriage? I thought religion didn’t matter in this debate, so who cares if homosexuality goes against the Bible?
And, though it wasn’t addressed to me, I want to point out this one:
You’re flagrantly bringing this guy’s lack of gayness as a reason he shouldn’t care about gay marriage, when you’ve repeatedly told me not to bring up my sexuality because it doesn’t pertain to this discussion.
I can accept a certain level of hypocrisy. We’re only human, after all. But this is ridiculous.
I find it very interesting that you don’t think religion is necessary to this discussion yet you post this reference:
to back up your claim that the majority of homosexuals are pedophiles. This reference clearly has a christian bias.
[/quote]
Remember I told you to read my posts? When you jump into a thread and start blabbing without any idea of what’s going on you make yourself look stupid, you waste people’s time and you are unable to contribute to the discussion.
READ MY POSTS. I have already specifically addressed this. I said, I’m not referencing the article. I haven’t even read the article. I’m referencing a particular study that was mentioned by the author of the article.
Understand? This is the second time I’ve had to tell you to read my posts because you are asking things I’ve already answered and now you’re making an erroneous assertion that has already been asserted by someone else and corrected by me. READ MY POSTS before you comment. Okay?
No it’s not. The study is by:
Nothing to do with religion. It just happens that when I searched for the study this was the first webpage I could find that mentioned it.
See above. And when you change a post after it’s been posted you should type “Edited” at the bottom.
[quote]
but it’s ok you can continue to deny that religion has anything to do with your argument.[/quote]
You must feel silly after making a fool of yourself twice. Remember, read the thread and make sure you know what’s going on and that what you’re about to say hasn’t already been addressed.[/quote]
You took a direct quote out of that article from the author. that particular study was highly criticized because these offenders self identified as homosexuals and did not identify themselves as pedophiles because they would rather not be identified ad pedophiles.
The study below claims that only 2% of accused pedophiles are homosexuals
Jenny, C., Roesler, T. A., & Poyer, K. L. (1994). Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals? Pediatrics, 94, 41�¢??44.[/quote]
The study is obviously bogus otherwise 98% of children being sexually assaulted would be girls. They’re playing with the definition of homosexual. My definition of homosexual is someone who engages in sex with someone of the same sex. Not surprised to see the author of that study is a kook:
I find it very interesting that you don’t think religion is necessary to this discussion yet you post this reference:
to back up your claim that the majority of homosexuals are pedophiles. This reference clearly has a christian bias.
[/quote]
Remember I told you to read my posts? When you jump into a thread and start blabbing without any idea of what’s going on you make yourself look stupid, you waste people’s time and you are unable to contribute to the discussion.
READ MY POSTS. I have already specifically addressed this. I said, I’m not referencing the article. I haven’t even read the article. I’m referencing a particular study that was mentioned by the author of the article.
Understand? This is the second time I’ve had to tell you to read my posts because you are asking things I’ve already answered and now you’re making an erroneous assertion that has already been asserted by someone else and corrected by me. READ MY POSTS before you comment. Okay?
No it’s not. The study is by:
Nothing to do with religion. It just happens that when I searched for the study this was the first webpage I could find that mentioned it.
See above. And when you change a post after it’s been posted you should type “Edited” at the bottom.
From the link:
"Youthful Male Homosexuality: Homosexual Experience and the Process of Developing Homosexual Identity in Males Aged 16 to 22 Years
Thomas Roesler; Robert W. Deisher, MD
Interviews with young men ages 16 to 22 who had had at least one homosexual experience to orgasm revealed that certain significant events over a period of time usually preceded the individual’s self-designation, “I am a homosexual.” These events include (1) early sex play (whether prepuberty or postpuberty) the individual recalled as homosexual in nature, (2) actually seeking persons for homosexual contact (as adolescents), and (3) “coming out” (participating in the gay world). Four years separated the mean ages of first homosexual experience to orgasm14 and self-designation as a homosexual.
I find it very interesting that you don’t think religion is necessary to this discussion yet you post this reference:
to back up your claim that the majority of homosexuals are pedophiles. This reference clearly has a christian bias.
[/quote]
Remember I told you to read my posts? When you jump into a thread and start blabbing without any idea of what’s going on you make yourself look stupid, you waste people’s time and you are unable to contribute to the discussion.
READ MY POSTS. I have already specifically addressed this. I said, I’m not referencing the article. I haven’t even read the article. I’m referencing a particular study that was mentioned by the author of the article.
Understand? This is the second time I’ve had to tell you to read my posts because you are asking things I’ve already answered and now you’re making an erroneous assertion that has already been asserted by someone else and corrected by me. READ MY POSTS before you comment. Okay?
No it’s not. The study is by:
Nothing to do with religion. It just happens that when I searched for the study this was the first webpage I could find that mentioned it.
See above. And when you change a post after it’s been posted you should type “Edited” at the bottom.
From the link:
"Youthful Male Homosexuality: Homosexual Experience and the Process of Developing Homosexual Identity in Males Aged 16 to 22 Years
Thomas Roesler; Robert W. Deisher, MD
Interviews with young men ages 16 to 22 who had had at least one homosexual experience to orgasm revealed that certain significant events over a period of time usually preceded the individual’s self-designation, “I am a homosexual.” These events include (1) early sex play (whether prepuberty or postpuberty) the individual recalled as homosexual in nature, (2) actually seeking persons for homosexual contact (as adolescents), and (3) “coming out” (participating in the gay world). Four years separated the mean ages of first homosexual experience to orgasm14 and self-designation as a homosexual.
[/quote]
really not understanding the point you’re trying to make here.
I bowed out of the discussion a few pages ago, but I wanted to pop in and let you all know that I did some homework, and nobody in Maine has petitioned the state to allow man/dog marriages since gay marriage was legalized by referendum. I checked with a friend who works for the state in Augusta.
Someone is, however, trying to repeal the law that requires you to bring a shotgun to church in the event of a Native American attack. I don’t get why these lousy activists can’t leave well enough alone.
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Someone is, however, trying to repeal the law that requires you to bring a shotgun to church in the event of a Native American attack. I don’t get why these lousy activists can’t leave well enough alone.
Peace!
[/quote]
Dude what the fuck? Why is this not a law in MD? Seriously, the NRA is slippin.
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Someone is, however, trying to repeal the law that requires you to bring a shotgun to church in the event of a Native American attack. I don’t get why these lousy activists can’t leave well enough alone.
[/quote]
This seems risky. What if some crazy terrorist decided to shoot up a church? If the people had guns they could take out the terrorist before they could do any harm. Same as with all these other shootings - they always happen where guns aren’t allowed.
[quote]twojarslave wrote:
Someone is, however, trying to repeal the law that requires you to bring a shotgun to church in the event of a Native American attack. I don’t get why these lousy activists can’t leave well enough alone.
Peace!
[/quote]
Dude what the fuck? Why is this not a law in MD? Seriously, the NRA is slippin.[/quote]
Maine has a pretty rockin’ set of gun laws. Most people think we’re some bleeding-heart bastion of liberalism. We’ve been able to carry loaded guns in bars, drunk off our asses, for quite some time. Not that I do, but I am a man who likes to have options.
Back on topic, some more research has shed light on the slippery slope of gay acceptance that leads straight to bestiality.
There was absolutely no outrage over this wanton public display of moral decay, so perhaps the dire predictions of social collapse are not too far off the mark.