Well, the gays raised hell in West Hollywood and Westwood all day. They shut down traffic and caused congestion all over the west side while the protested the Mormon church on Santa Monica blvd. One of them decided to attack a carload of Mexicans in a new truck. Unwise. The driver got out and served him.
The gay militants appear to be PR geniuses. Don’t like the outcome of peaceful elections? Just raise hell. That’ll get everyone on your side.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Well, the gays raised hell in West Hollywood and Westwood all day. They shut down traffic and caused congestion all over the west side while the protested the Mormon church on Santa Monica blvd. One of them decided to attack a carload of Mexicans in a new truck. Unwise. The driver got out and served him.
The gay militants appear to be PR geniuses. Don’t like the outcome of peaceful elections? Just raise hell. That’ll get everyone on your side. [/quote]
When you look at the coverage, you read that out of 1000 gay marriage supporters (not all of us are ‘the gays’) went out to protest - in my view always a bit of a pointless exercise, but well within their rights - and seven got arrested.
Wow, that’s real anarchy. We had a higher percentage (sorry promilleage) people arrested here when our mayor in London forbade consuming alcohol on public transport.
Yes, there’ll always be idiots - even among gay marriage supporters - and if they broke the law, they’ll be punished. This is hardly representative of the LGBT rights movement.
I’m really interested what they are now going to do with all the newly wed couples and their rights - so legally, as far as I understand, pandora’s box has been opened. This’ll be interesting.
Makkun
PS: I liked your comment earlier that you were to the right of Ghengis Khan. That was some funny shit. 
I voted on the presidential election (for the libertarian choice) and I did put my voice in on almost all things. I did not however vote either way on gay marriage. I left it blank. It is the only thing I left blank. I am not part of any religious movement. I am not part of any anti-religious movement. Something in my guts told me this is not my fight, I’ve got so many battles to pick… and this is simply not one of them.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
What is up with the “lifestyle choice” drivel I keep reading. That is utter bullshit. If you’re a straight male, you know just how overpowering the allure of an attractive female is. Could YOU overturn that desire and sleep with men?
It’s not a lifestyle choice. Gay men have the same urges when the see a male that we do when we see a female.[/quote]
I was reading this thread and just couldn’t let this one go unanswered. During my very long debate with forlife, a while back, I uncovered some interesting data that very much disagrees with your point. It seems that in many studies over 85% of “gay” men have had sex with women before and after declaring themselves to be “gay”.
That would indicate a “lifestyle choice” wouldn’t it? While most gay men obviously “prefer” other men, they seem to be able to have sex with women as well, at least most of them can and have.
[quote]Journeyman wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
The real issue is not whether gays should marry, or be allowed to marry. The issue is that the State should have no say in it all. Marriage has been a religious institution for thousands of years and it should stay that way.
…
Is this why a wedding ceremony holds no legal standing, or that two people can get married without any religious service or churches consent whatsoever?
Legal marriage has nothing to do with any religion…
A question follows, then.
Lets presume the fact that in 900 years of common law, there is absolutely no understanding of something called “same sex marriage.”
Lets also understand that I am completely disinterested in who “marries” whom and why anyone would do something so extrovert and foolish.
The question:
In California, Adam marries Steve in a same-sex marriage. It is a beautiful ceremony.
But one becomes disabled, and they move to Nevada, a low-tax state.
Even in an ideal society free of bias, why would something so important have been so poorly thought-out?
This has been thought out over centuries of common law. If a couple is recognized in one state as being legally married, they are legally married if they move. This has been tested in courts as it related to anti-miscegenation (prohibitions against mixed race marriages) laws and marriages to minors. In the famous Loving vs. Virginia, Virginia did not state the the Loving marriage was invalid, they simply said that the Lovings could not live in Virginia. This was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court when it struck down the Virginia law as unconstitutional.
I’m sure that we are going to see the Supreme Court rule on these issues as they related to Gay Marriage. I’m sure that the Loving vs. Virginia will be referenced. There are obvious differences, but this is often regarded as a useful precedent.
[/quote]
This is patently untrue under the law. First of all, the DOMA explicitly allows the Feds to not recognize gay marriage and extends the right to the states. Nor does this violate the full faith and credit clause. For anything but a court judgment, there is a public policy exception to FF&C. States don’t have to recognize the actions of other states that are void against public policy of the states.
And the Supreme Court has already spoken on the issue or otherwise declined to. In Lawrence v. Texas, it struck down criminal sodomy laws as unconstitutional, although carefully staying clear of making any pronouncements about same sex marriage. Therefore, states cannot criminalize private consensual sexual acts, but neither federal law nor the constitution yet requires them to be sanctioned. Many states have challenged the constitutionality of the DOMA, and the Supreme Court has refused to hear every one. It doesn’t wnat to be the one to decide such a polarizing issue. That may change, but that’s where it is now.
Here’s what an appelate court had to say about the distinctions between the current issue and Loving:
“T]he historical background of Loving is different from the history underlying this case. Racism has been recognized for centuries ? at first by a few people, and later by many more ? as a revolting moral evil. This country fought a civil war to eliminate racism’s worst manifestation, slavery, and passed three constitutional amendments to eliminate that curse and its vestiges. Loving was part of the civil rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s, the triumph of a cause for which many heroes and many ordinary people had struggled since our nation began. It is true that there has been serious injustice in the treatment of homosexuals also, a wrong that has been widely recognized only in the relatively recent past, and one our Legislature tried to address when it enacted the Sexual Orientation Non-Discrimination Act four years ago (L 2002, ch 2). But the traditional definition of marriage is not merely a by-product of historical injustice. Its history is of a different kind. The idea that same-sex marriage is even possible is a relatively new one. Until a few decades ago, it was an accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriages only between participants of different sex. A court should not lightly conclude that everyone who held this belief was irrational, ignorant or bigoted. We do not so conclude.”
There are grounds SCOTUS could say bans on gay marriage are unconstituional or that failure to recognize gay unions valid in other states is. But it would require several things.
To actually say that bans themselves violate equal protection, the Supreme Court must make the definitive pronouncement that marriage is NOT definitionally between a man and a women.
Instead, to say other states MUST recognize a gay union that is valid elsewhere, it must overhaul centuries of FF&C jurisprudence recongnizing no exceptions for judgments of other states but RECOGNIZING exceptions for Public Acts of other states.
I can see #1 happening some day. Not today.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Makavali wrote:
What is up with the “lifestyle choice” drivel I keep reading. That is utter bullshit. If you’re a straight male, you know just how overpowering the allure of an attractive female is. Could YOU overturn that desire and sleep with men?
It’s not a lifestyle choice. Gay men have the same urges when the see a male that we do when we see a female.
I was reading this thread and just couldn’t let this one go unanswered. During my very long debate with forlife, a while back, I uncovered some interesting data that very much disagrees with your point. It seems that in many studies over 85% of “gay” men have had sex with women before and after declaring themselves to be “gay”.
That would indicate a “lifestyle choice” wouldn’t it? While most gay men obviously “prefer” other men, they seem to be able to have sex with women as well, at least most of them can and have.[/quote]
And so,since many self declared ‘straight’ men have sex with other men in situations where access to women is limited or non existent(prison,etc),does that also make heterosexuality a ‘lifestyle choice’?
Just looking for some clarification on the definitions being used,and how they apply across the board.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Makavali wrote:
What is up with the “lifestyle choice” drivel I keep reading. That is utter bullshit. If you’re a straight male, you know just how overpowering the allure of an attractive female is. Could YOU overturn that desire and sleep with men?
It’s not a lifestyle choice. Gay men have the same urges when the see a male that we do when we see a female.
I was reading this thread and just couldn’t let this one go unanswered. During my very long debate with forlife, a while back, I uncovered some interesting data that very much disagrees with your point. It seems that in many studies over 85% of “gay” men have had sex with women before and after declaring themselves to be “gay”.
That would indicate a “lifestyle choice” wouldn’t it? While most gay men obviously “prefer” other men, they seem to be able to have sex with women as well, at least most of them can and have.[/quote]
You might ‘prefer’ women but you might still manage to stick in some guy’s spincter, fantasizing about a woman the whole time, after ingesting massive quantities of tequila or stronger drugs. Why don’t you try this experiement and let us know if you are succesful?
Are we really going to say that they’ve made a lifestyle choice because a gay man can complete the physical act of intercourse with a woman? Come on
Hell, if someone put a gun to my head and said they’d shoot me if I didn’t have sex with that goat over there, I’d probably manage to do it and successfully ejaculate.
But I guess I’ve made a ‘lifestyle choice’ to sleep with human women instead.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Makavali wrote:
What is up with the “lifestyle choice” drivel I keep reading. That is utter bullshit. If you’re a straight male, you know just how overpowering the allure of an attractive female is. Could YOU overturn that desire and sleep with men?
It’s not a lifestyle choice. Gay men have the same urges when the see a male that we do when we see a female.
I was reading this thread and just couldn’t let this one go unanswered. During my very long debate with forlife, a while back, I uncovered some interesting data that very much disagrees with your point. It seems that in many studies over 85% of “gay” men have had sex with women before and after declaring themselves to be “gay”.
That would indicate a “lifestyle choice” wouldn’t it? While most gay men obviously “prefer” other men, they seem to be able to have sex with women as well, at least most of them can and have.
And so,since many self declared ‘straight’ men have sex with other men in situations where access to women is limited or non existent(prison,etc),does that also make heterosexuality a ‘lifestyle choice’?
Just looking for some clarification on the definitions being used,and how they apply across the board.
[/quote]
I do wish that those who get involved in these discussions at least peruse previous gay marriage threads, this has all been discussed.
Yes, we all know that some men when jailed for long periods of time have sex with other men, but that is not germane to the point.
The obvious matter here is that the “gay” men who had sex with women were not forced or even bribed to do it. They did it because they thought it would feel good.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Are we really going to say that they’ve made a lifestyle choice because a gay man can complete the physical act of intercourse with a woman? Come on[/quote]
Yes, for the very simple reason that “straight men” do not under normal circumstances have sex with other men. the previous posters “jail scenario” and your “alcoholic stupor” scenario aside. Can you honestly claim that those two scenarios comprise more than a minuscule percentage, barely measurable in fact?
However, when approximately 85% of all “gay” men choose (minus imprisonment and alchol) to have sex with women before and after they have declared themselves “gay” means that it is in fact a lifestyle choice. Keep in mind I am not claiming that they do not prefer men over women over all. I certainly concede that there is a sexual preference.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Makavali wrote:
What is up with the “lifestyle choice” drivel I keep reading. That is utter bullshit. If you’re a straight male, you know just how overpowering the allure of an attractive female is. Could YOU overturn that desire and sleep with men?
It’s not a lifestyle choice. Gay men have the same urges when the see a male that we do when we see a female.
I was reading this thread and just couldn’t let this one go unanswered. During my very long debate with forlife, a while back, I uncovered some interesting data that very much disagrees with your point. It seems that in many studies over 85% of “gay” men have had sex with women before and after declaring themselves to be “gay”.
That would indicate a “lifestyle choice” wouldn’t it? While most gay men obviously “prefer” other men, they seem to be able to have sex with women as well, at least most of them can and have.
And so,since many self declared ‘straight’ men have sex with other men in situations where access to women is limited or non existent(prison,etc),does that also make heterosexuality a ‘lifestyle choice’?
Just looking for some clarification on the definitions being used,and how they apply across the board.
I do wish that those who get involved in these discussions at least peruse previous gay marriage threads, this has all been discussed.
Yes, we all know that some men when jailed for long periods of time have sex with other men, but that is not germane to the point.
The obvious matter here is that the “gay” men who had sex with women were not forced or even bribed to do it. They did it because they thought it would feel good. [/quote]
Doubtful. Doing it because they think it SHOULD feel good and out of desire to be an accepted member of society is different than enjoying the actual physical act. Or feeling physical attraction to the person.
I have gay friends who’ve had sex with women. For these reasons. They didn’t enjoy the actual act like they do with men but managed to get through it by fantasizing about men.
Anyone can choose to have sex with anyone. What gay people can’t choose is for it to be enjoyable and natural with women anymore than we could with men.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Are we really going to say that they’ve made a lifestyle choice because a gay man can complete the physical act of intercourse with a woman? Come on
Yes, for the very simple reason that “straight men” do not under normal circumstances have sex with other men. the previous posters “jail scenario” and your “alcoholic stupor” scenario aside. Can you honestly claim that those two scenarios comprise more than a minuscule percentage, barely measurable in fact? However, when approximately 85% of all “gay” men choose (minus imprisonment and alchol) to have sex with women before and after they have declared themselves “gay” means that it is in fact a lifestyle choice. Keep in mind I am not claiming that they do not prefer men over women over all. I certainly concede that there is a sexual preference.[/quote]
85% of gay men don’t have sex with women. 85% of gay men may have had sex with a woman. One time. Two times. Some maybe repeatedly in the context of a marriage they were miserable in.
If you accept that they prefer men, what is the argument? Anyone CAN choose to do acts that feel wrong and unnatural for a host of reasons. Acts that are sexual or otherwise. The question is whether that is something we as soceity should condemn them to doing day in, day out for the rest of their lives because we view it as ‘the right thing.’ I say no.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Makavali wrote:
What is up with the “lifestyle choice” drivel I keep reading. That is utter bullshit. If you’re a straight male, you know just how overpowering the allure of an attractive female is. Could YOU overturn that desire and sleep with men?
It’s not a lifestyle choice. Gay men have the same urges when the see a male that we do when we see a female.
I was reading this thread and just couldn’t let this one go unanswered. During my very long debate with forlife, a while back, I uncovered some interesting data that very much disagrees with your point. It seems that in many studies over 85% of “gay” men have had sex with women before and after declaring themselves to be “gay”.
That would indicate a “lifestyle choice” wouldn’t it? While most gay men obviously “prefer” other men, they seem to be able to have sex with women as well, at least most of them can and have.
And so,since many self declared ‘straight’ men have sex with other men in situations where access to women is limited or non existent(prison,etc),does that also make heterosexuality a ‘lifestyle choice’?
Just looking for some clarification on the definitions being used,and how they apply across the board.
I do wish that those who get involved in these discussions at least peruse previous gay marriage threads, this has all been discussed.
Yes, we all know that some men when jailed for long periods of time have sex with other men, but that is not germane to the point.
The obvious matter here is that the “gay” men who had sex with women were not forced or even bribed to do it. They did it because they thought it would feel good.
Doubtful. Doing it because they think it SHOULD feel good and out of desire to be an accepted member of society is different than enjoying the actual physical act. Or feeling physical attraction to the person.
I have gay friends who’ve had sex with women. For these reasons. They didn’t enjoy the actual act like they do with men but managed to get through it by fantasizing about men.
Anyone can choose to have sex with anyone. What gay people can’t choose is for it to be enjoyable and natural with women anymore than we could with men.[/quote]
I understand that there is pressure on gay men to not be gay. But your argument does not hold water. Why would gay men actively seek sex and then be able to perform (with no gun to the head) on a regular basis if there was zero attraction? They wouldn’t.
You can continue to believe the politically correct talking points, I have no problem with that. However, until you can come up with data that indicates that approximately 85% of straight men enjoy sex with other straight men on a regular basis there is no argument for your case.
Finally, If I recall correctly you were a regular poster on at least one of the gay marriage threads. That means that we’ve been all through this. I won’t bore you with any more of my arguments as that will just perpetuate an unwinnable debate (I’ve learned something) which I have neither the time nor inclination to continue.
All the best to you,
Zeb
Does anyone else find it ironic how people vote for Mr. Super-Liberal Obama, yet vote along conservative lines in state/local issues?
Bipolar society?
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Makavali wrote:
What is up with the “lifestyle choice” drivel I keep reading. That is utter bullshit. If you’re a straight male, you know just how overpowering the allure of an attractive female is. Could YOU overturn that desire and sleep with men?
It’s not a lifestyle choice. Gay men have the same urges when the see a male that we do when we see a female.
I was reading this thread and just couldn’t let this one go unanswered. During my very long debate with forlife, a while back, I uncovered some interesting data that very much disagrees with your point. It seems that in many studies over 85% of “gay” men have had sex with women before and after declaring themselves to be “gay”.
That would indicate a “lifestyle choice” wouldn’t it? While most gay men obviously “prefer” other men, they seem to be able to have sex with women as well, at least most of them can and have.
And so,since many self declared ‘straight’ men have sex with other men in situations where access to women is limited or non existent(prison,etc),does that also make heterosexuality a ‘lifestyle choice’?
Just looking for some clarification on the definitions being used,and how they apply across the board.
I do wish that those who get involved in these discussions at least peruse previous gay marriage threads, this has all been discussed.
Yes, we all know that some men when jailed for long periods of time have sex with other men, but that is not germane to the point.
The obvious matter here is that the “gay” men who had sex with women were not forced or even bribed to do it. They did it because they thought it would feel good.
Doubtful. Doing it because they think it SHOULD feel good and out of desire to be an accepted member of society is different than enjoying the actual physical act. Or feeling physical attraction to the person.
I have gay friends who’ve had sex with women. For these reasons. They didn’t enjoy the actual act like they do with men but managed to get through it by fantasizing about men.
Anyone can choose to have sex with anyone. What gay people can’t choose is for it to be enjoyable and natural with women anymore than we could with men.
I understand that there is pressure on gay men to not be gay. But your argument does not hold water. Why would gay men actively seek sex and then be able to perform (with no gun to the head) on a regular basis if there was zero attraction? They wouldn’t.
You can continue to believe the politically correct talking points, I have no problem with that. However, until you can come up with data that indicates that approximately 85% of straight men enjoy sex with other straight men on a regular basis there is no argument for your case.
Finally, If I recall correctly you were a regular poster on at least one of the gay marriage threads. That means that we’ve been all through this. I won’t bore you with any more of my arguments as that will just perpetuate an unwinnable debate (I’ve learned something) which I have neither the time nor inclination to continue.
All the best to you,
Zeb[/quote]
Some me the data that 85% of gay men have sex with women on a REGULAR basis. Beyond that, show me the data that these 85% enjoy it. Then we can talk. How would a study be designed to even determine that? I don’t believe such data exits.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Makavali wrote:
What is up with the “lifestyle choice” drivel I keep reading. That is utter bullshit. If you’re a straight male, you know just how overpowering the allure of an attractive female is. Could YOU overturn that desire and sleep with men?
It’s not a lifestyle choice. Gay men have the same urges when the see a male that we do when we see a female.
I was reading this thread and just couldn’t let this one go unanswered. During my very long debate with forlife, a while back, I uncovered some interesting data that very much disagrees with your point. It seems that in many studies over 85% of “gay” men have had sex with women before and after declaring themselves to be “gay”.
That would indicate a “lifestyle choice” wouldn’t it? While most gay men obviously “prefer” other men, they seem to be able to have sex with women as well, at least most of them can and have.
And so,since many self declared ‘straight’ men have sex with other men in situations where access to women is limited or non existent(prison,etc),does that also make heterosexuality a ‘lifestyle choice’?
Just looking for some clarification on the definitions being used,and how they apply across the board.
I do wish that those who get involved in these discussions at least peruse previous gay marriage threads, this has all been discussed.
Yes, we all know that some men when jailed for long periods of time have sex with other men, but that is not germane to the point.
The obvious matter here is that the “gay” men who had sex with women were not forced or even bribed to do it. They did it because they thought it would feel good.
Doubtful. Doing it because they think it SHOULD feel good and out of desire to be an accepted member of society is different than enjoying the actual physical act. Or feeling physical attraction to the person.
I have gay friends who’ve had sex with women. For these reasons. They didn’t enjoy the actual act like they do with men but managed to get through it by fantasizing about men.
Anyone can choose to have sex with anyone. What gay people can’t choose is for it to be enjoyable and natural with women anymore than we could with men.
I understand that there is pressure on gay men to not be gay. But your argument does not hold water. Why would gay men actively seek sex and then be able to perform (with no gun to the head) on a regular basis if there was zero attraction? They wouldn’t.
You can continue to believe the politically correct talking points, I have no problem with that. However, until you can come up with data that indicates that approximately 85% of straight men enjoy sex with other straight men on a regular basis there is no argument for your case.
Finally, If I recall correctly you were a regular poster on at least one of the gay marriage threads. That means that we’ve been all through this. I won’t bore you with any more of my arguments as that will just perpetuate an unwinnable debate (I’ve learned something) which I have neither the time nor inclination to continue.
All the best to you,
Zeb[/quote]
Fair enough. I agree there’s no point in continuing the argument. We are in agreement that gay men can have heterosexual sex. Where we disagree is that it’d be enjoyable to most, and I’ve seen no data to support that.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Some me the data that 85% of gay men have sex with women on a REGULAR basis. Beyond that, show me the data that these 85% enjoy it. Then we can talk. How would a study be designed to even determine that? I don’t believe such data exits. [/quote]
Where is the data proving that homosexuality is genetic? There are a ton of people saying there is no choice - that homosexuals are “born gay”. If so, there is a genetic marker that uniquely distinguishes a gay man from a straight man. Show me the proof of the genetic marker. Short of that, all you have is a bunch of really smart people talking and agreeing with the militant gay crowd.
But like ZEB said - this argument has been had to death, and even then, you cannot come up with the proof required to make your argument winnable.
Facts are facts. And you don’t have the one you need.
[quote]makkun wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Well, the gays raised hell in West Hollywood and Westwood all day. They shut down traffic and caused congestion all over the west side while the protested the Mormon church on Santa Monica blvd. One of them decided to attack a carload of Mexicans in a new truck. Unwise. The driver got out and served him.
The gay militants appear to be PR geniuses. Don’t like the outcome of peaceful elections? Just raise hell. That’ll get everyone on your side.
When you look at the coverage, you read that out of 1000 gay marriage supporters (not all of us are ‘the gays’) went out to protest - in my view always a bit of a pointless exercise, but well within their rights - and seven got arrested.
Wow, that’s real anarchy. We had a higher percentage (sorry promilleage) people arrested here when our mayor in London forbade consuming alcohol on public transport.
Yes, there’ll always be idiots - even among gay marriage supporters - and if they broke the law, they’ll be punished. This is hardly representative of the LGBT rights movement.
[/quote]
There were 2000 in Westwood alone, let alone West Hollywood. The counterprotesters were assaulted. Traffic was blocked for miles. The only reason things didn’t get worse is because everyone else decided to drive around the protestors rather than drive through them while they blocked traffic. It’s not “representative of the LGBT movement,” it IS the LGBT movment.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
And since over 90% of all religions do not allow or support homosexually, that would be a real concern for most.
Elaborate on this gem, please.[/quote]
Uh… I didn’t write that… I just quoted the guy who wrote that…
Generally, men enjoy blowing their load. It’s pretty much a function of the relevant anatomy to cause pleasure during male orgasm. In other words, orgasm = pleasure.
On the previous thread, we saw data that showed that gay men have, on average, 3 times the number of female partners as straight men. Forlife’s explanation was that gay men were trying, rather unsuccessfully, to straighten themselves out by doing this.