Really? What is illogical about the FACT that if two same gender people hook up they can not produce children, and thus not perpetuate the species? If you don’t think that is fact then I don’t think we have anything else to discuss as you need some remedial education on procreation.
In addition, suicide is also observed in some animals as well. Should we then conclude that it is natural and make suicide in humans legal?
The fact that deviant behaviors in animals and humans is observed at times does not make it something to normalize.
Also, as for God, he did torch Sadam and Gamorah for engaging in all kinds of crap, including gay behavior. So he has done it in the past.
But my point is that gay behavior is against the natural order without bring religion into it.
This is the last I’m going to speak on this particular aspect of the subject, but your conclusion doesn’t follow from the evidence. If something exists that a theory said should not exist, there are only two possibilites. 1. The theory is wrong. 2. The theory encompasses the thing in question in a way we don’t understand.
Homosexuality and the theory of evolution are not inconsistent. It obviously exists and yet has not derailed the survival of any species it has been seen in. And there are many. There very well could be a purpose in the evolutionary scheme since it only affects small segments of population’s species. People misinterpret and misunderstand evolution as having some grand design too.
Evolution occurs because of a random mutation that allows the organism who posseses it to survive better. Over time more of these survive and pass the same mutation onto their offspring. Small segments of populations being homosexual does not affect this advantageous random mutation that result in evolution over the millenia. And for whatever reason it keeps being perpetuated in numerous species over the eons. You don’t know why. No one does.
So you believe being gay is genetic? If so, is child molesting genetic as well?
[/quote]
Yes. There’s a fine line between sick and evil. And it’s not all genetic. But there’s a heavy genetic component. Most child molesters have something seriously wrong with them. It’s not normal to be sexually aroused by children. There is some serious brain abnormality in those who are attracted to 5-year old boys or girls. Men who have sex with 14 year-old girls on the other hand are immoral and wrong.
Here is the study that I have mentioned in earlier posts. Keep in mind I am not claiming that reparative therapy is the answer for everyone who exhibits same sex attraction. As I have stated numerous times I do not know why some people have an attraction to the same sex.
What the social liberals are going to have to admit is that they don’t know either!
If it were totally genetic as claimed by the social liberals then there would be ZERO people able to leave the gay lifestyle and become attracted to the opposite sex!
66% of males and 44% of females reported “good heterosexual functioning.” (after therapy) According to Cnn.com, that term is defined as having been “in a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year…”
How could the above be true if it were genetic?
One cannot change a genetic factor such as skin color or gender. How is it that anyone can in fact change from homosexual to heterosexual? But they seem to be able to do just that!
Here is the complete article:
"Dr. Robert Spitzer (2001)
Dr Spitzer is a psychiatry professor at Columbia University. He conducted a study of 143 ex-gays and 57 ex-lesbians who reported that they have become “straight.” 2 He reported his findings at a meeting of the American Psychiatric Association on 2001-MAY-9. He concluded, as a result of 45 minute interviews with each subject, that 66% of the males and 44% of the females had arrived at “good heterosexual functioning.”
According to Cnn.com, that term is defined as having been “in a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year, getting enough satisfaction from the emotional relationship with their partner to rate at least seven on a 10-point scale, having satisfying heterosexual sex at least monthly and never or rarely thinking of somebody of the same sex during heterosexual sex.”
The following is about "Gay-affirmative therapy. This is apparently a different approach than "reparative therapy. However, the same objective is desired.
"Gay-affirmative therapy is supposed to be the “cure” for unwanted homosexual desires, according to gay activists and the major therapeutic associations (whose professional motto seems to be, “If we can’t figure out how to fix it, it must not be broken”). The problem, they say, is not with the desires, but with the fact that they are unwanted.
But we didn’t want to be affirmed as gay. We wanted to be affirmed as MEN. We needed to heal lifelong feelings of being different from other guys.
We needed to heal our “father wounds” and “father hunger.” We needed to heal our sense of estrangement from men and our own masculinity. Affirming our “gayness” could never accomplish that. Only affirming our manhood - affirming our place in the world of men – could bring us the healing we needed.
After all, our wounds, at their root, were not about sex. They were about a little boy’s deepest needs to feel loved and wanted and to feel okay as a male. Sex could never heal them. Only brotherly love could heal them: the love of God, the love of other men, of mentors, of fathers and father figures, and especially love of ourselves, as men.
Call it “gender-affirmative” therapy: learning to experience at last, in non-sexual ways, the masculine love and affirmation we had secretly longed for all our lives. In many ways, that is what those of us who sought out reparative therapy or inner-child therapy experienced.
As David writes:
“My therapeutic work wasn’t about switching the gender of my sexual preference. It was about escaping the problems underlying them - anxiety, shame and fear… I worked with (my therapist) for two years, focusing on building relationships with other men, getting past my incapacitating shame, and developing a strong masculine identity. The ‘great divide’ in my life between me and other men began to close… And yes, my sexual orientation changed too.”
Gay activists have lambasted and politicized reparative or sexual re-orientation therapy and persuaded the major therapeutic professional associations, out of political correctness, to vilify and condemn it. Deliberate mis-characterizations of reparative therapy abound.
But those of us who went through reparative therapy found it to be a deeply healing experience. It helped bring us out of shame. It helped us release anger. It helped us heal lifelong hurts and emotional wounds. It taught us how to “repair” childhood yearnings for male affirmation and acceptance by fulfilling them, often with new heterosexual male friends and mentor-father figures, instead of repressing them. Instead of focusing on our sexual orientation, reparative therapy focused on healing with other men (especially our fathers and peers) and with ourselves as men.
As the client, we directed the therapy. We were never coerced. We were never shamed. (And we certainly never received electric shocks, as some claim!) And because good reparative therapists act more as a compassionate mentor than an aloof, disinterested professional, we began to learn to trust men and overcome our defensive detachment from them, sometimes for the first time in our lives.
Almost as a byproduct of our inner work and our relationship work with men, our sexual desire for men began to subside. The stronger we felt in our own masculine, the less desire for men and the more interest in women we began to feel.
One successful client writes of his experience:
“With my eyes closed and the music playing softly, I heard the strong, deep voice of my trusted therapist affirming, ‘You are a man. You are strong. You have broken the power that once tied you to your mother’s identity. You have proven yourself as a man among men. You are whole. Not perfect, but you’re okay not being perfect. You are whole.’ " Tears rolled down my face. I believed him! It was true, and I finally knew it. I was whole! I no longer desired men sexually. I was one of them, not their opposite. I didn’t need a man to complete me. Yet the irony is, I felt more bonded and connected to men and manhood than I had all of my life. THIS is what I had been seeking all those years from all those men. THIS is what I had really wanted all along – this REAL connection, not the fantasy one. Connection to men. Connection to my own manhood. A real connection to God. Wholeness within myself. I felt my heart almost burst out of my chest with joy.”
So what could be so wrong with such healing reparative therapy? Only that it is political incorrect in today’s society for someone who experiences homosexual urges to not want to be gay.
But we are not talking about politics. We are talking about our very lives, and our freedom to heal. “Going straight” is not a hate crime. For us, it is an affirmation of our true identity as men."
The following survey lists some interesting “reasons” that the male respondents developed attraction for the same sex. interestingly enough number one:
“Relationship with or feelings about their father: 97% said this was a contributing factor in their development of same-sex attractions, and 71% said it was one of the three most significant factors.”
Finally, keep in mind that I am not claiming that I know exactly how anyone develops a same sex attraction. The finest experts in the world (who are not social liberals attempting to be politically correct) don’t even know this. It may very well be some sort of a combination of nurture and nature. Who knows, it may be nurture alone! However, until we do know the government should not be sanctioning gay marriage!
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Yes. There’s a fine line between sick and evil. And it’s not all genetic. But there’s a heavy genetic component. Most child molesters have something seriously wrong with them. It’s not normal to be sexually aroused by children. There is some serious brain abnormality in those who are attracted to 5-year old boys or girls. Men who have sex with 14 year-old girls on the other hand are immoral and wrong.[/quote]
So, sex with kids is abnormal; sex with teenagers is immoral?
Why are these behaviors abnormal and immoral and treating another guy like a girl, using whatever orifice is handy as a substitute for the real thing, not immoral or at least abnormal?
Does the fact that both guys are adult and consenting make the behavior less immoral or more normal?
So we say, let them do whatever they want, it’s their life. True enough. But don’t ask society to normalize this clearly abnormal and immoral behavior.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Yes. There’s a fine line between sick and evil. And it’s not all genetic. But there’s a heavy genetic component. Most child molesters have something seriously wrong with them. It’s not normal to be sexually aroused by children. There is some serious brain abnormality in those who are attracted to 5-year old boys or girls. Men who have sex with 14 year-old girls on the other hand are immoral and wrong.
So, sex with kids is abnormal; sex with teenagers is immoral?
Why are these behaviors abnormal and immoral and treating another guy like a girl, using whatever orifice is handy as a substitute for the real thing, not immoral or at least abnormal?
Does the fact that both guys are adult and consenting make the behavior less immoral or more normal?
So we say, let them do whatever they want, it’s their life. True enough. But don’t ask society to normalize this clearly abnormal and immoral behavior.
[/quote]
I don’t consider homosexuality normal. I do think it’s an abonormality. But I don’t think it’s evil and I don’t hold homosexuals at fault. Sexual desire is not something you can control. Yes, you can control if you act on it or not. But two consenting adults who feel heat or even love for each other giving into their desires is not harming anyone, even though those desires may deviate from the vast majority of the population. You would not like it if you were told you could never act on your own sexual desire. You can’t say that it’s clearly an immoral behavior. It’s not clear since so many disagree with your pronouncement.
And yes-being aroused by a 14-year old girl is very different than being aroused by a 5-year old. Have you seen some of these 14-year old girls? Their bodies are fully developed and every bit as appealing as of-age women. And many look and dress the part and could easily pass for early 20s. It is still wrong for for anyone more than a few years older to have sex with them, but physically, they are mature women.
Zeb, there’s a lot of words in that article. But nothing about whether those supposedly ‘cured’ individuals get physically aroused by people of the same sex or still fantasize about the.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Zeb, there’s a lot of words in that article. But nothing about whether those supposedly ‘cured’ individuals get physically aroused by people of the same sex or still fantasize about them.[/quote]
I gave all of the information that I had relative to the original question by Soup. I think that is a good question that you bring up. However, judging by the following it seems that they are fairly satisfied with their new situation. Note the final sentence. That speaks a bit to the issue you raise.
What is most important about this study is:
These people actually stopped having sex with people of the same sex. And in addition to that they now enjoy sex with people of the opposite sex. This is no small feat considering that those on the left claim that gays are “born that way.” There is strong evidence that this is not the case.
The question remains: will the politically correct on the left note the results of this 200 person study? Or, like anything that flys in the face of their beliefs will it be attacked?
Is this issue now too politically charged for people on either side of the fence to give a fair and open assessment?
[quote] He concluded, as a result of 45 minute interviews with each subject, that 66% of the males and 44% of the females had arrived at “good heterosexual functioning.”
According to Cnn.com, that term is defined as having been “in a sustained, loving heterosexual relationship within the past year, getting enough satisfaction from the emotional relationship with their partner to rate at least seven on a 10-point scale, having satisfying heterosexual sex at least monthly
and never or rarely thinking of somebody of the same sex during heterosexual sex.”[/quote]
What is the definition of heterosexual? It seems that even if some of these folks are having occasional thoughts of sex with the same gender (not that they are), that does not mean that they are homosexuals. Especially in light of the fact that they are happily involved with someone of the opposite sex!
I don’t know Zeb. The study is interesting but doesn’t say enough for me. I think the issue is whether a gay person can stop thinking about sex with the same sex and get aroused and enjoy sex with their opposite sex spouse without fantasizing.
Otherwise, it’s possible to have a close relationship with your spouse and have deep respect and love for them. That’s probably what a lot of closeted men and women have. Like you said, homosexual activity is a behavior that can be stopped at anytime. And I guess replaced with the behavior of heterosexual activity.
But the deeper question is if the desires and arousal underneath the that behavior can in fact be changed once they come about (however they do). I don’t think we know that, and I don’t think that study addresses it. My teachers, with a lot more knowledge on the subject than I have, (though admittedly not any of their areas of expertise) did think otherwise, though.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I don’t know Zeb. The study is interesting but doesn’t say enough for me. I think the issue is whether a gay person can stop thinking about sex with the same sex and get aroused and enjoy sex with their opposite sex spouse without fantasizing. [/quote]
“…and never or rarely thinking of somebody of the same sex during heterosexual sex.”
I’m as gay as it gets and did it with a girl I worked with two months ago.
She was aware of the fact that I had a boyfriend from 19-25 yrs of age and had recently quit a job because I got tired of people fucking with me after I told someone I was gay. She asked if I had ever done it with a girl. I told I had when I was 16-17 yrs old (I’m 28 now) but I really didn’t enjoy it at all.
To make a long story short we got beer and 2 hours later we went at it. I had to concentrate to keep it up but I still “did it with a girl”.
That situation made me realize how easy it is for right wing Breeders to think a Gay guy can “stop being gay” or become “ex-gay”.
It’s too hard to meet other gay guys and even harder to be a couple and have a reasonably happy life like the Breeders do. Breeders make me not want to be gay. I tried to become an “ex-gay” but it doesn’t work.
After reading these posts I thing there should be a “Gay Guy” thread for only gay guys.
Did you notice no one is discussing how repulsive and sinful it is for lesbians wanting to muff dive? Are THEY born that way? Gay guys are freaks but girl on girl action is hot. That double standard drive me insane.
It is really insulting, patronizing and infuriating to be told over and over that I don’t know anything about how I came to be gay. It is rather a lot like being told I wasn’t having extremely painful menstrual cramps, that it was all in my mind. I did know and I do know. I’ve been this way since I can remember. It is not a phase. I came out when I was sixteen. I am in my forties. My mother knew I was gay when I was a kid.
Would that also be like a young boy who molests his sister who is only 6 years old? He was a child molester from a boy, so it’s genetic?
Or maybe like a boy with hemophilia from a child? Should we say then, “oh, it’s just a his choice and we should respect that” and not treat him as being ill?
You can’t have it both ways sister. Either it is a learned behavior, in which case, you can change (like many have). Or it is genetic, in which case treatment would be in order.
You choose?
[/quote]
First of all, don’t ever call me sister. The only thing you and I have in common is Carbon.
Thank you for once again comparing gay people to child molesters. Try reading something on how often children who have been molested commit the same act. What in hell does that have to do with what I wrote?
Let’s see…hemophilia is genetic and it is a physical illness. Again, what has that to do with what I wrote?
Who do you reckon I learned to be a lesbian from as I was growing up, my hetero parents? Those you claim have changed, haven’t. Every single one of those gay-change programs has been discredited. What treatment do you suggest? Perhaps you think I should be confined in an institution and forcibly lobotomized or electrocuted? What makes you think I even want to change? The person who has the problem with my sexual preference is you, not me, so maybe you are the one who needs treatment.
I wonder if stupidity is genetic? Did you get it from your parents? I think we should research it some more before we allow stupid people to continue breeding. Do you have a wife? Does stupidity fit into Darwin’s survival of the fittest? If not, why are you still alive?
ZEB and WMD have a lengthy, though less vitiolic exchange than usual.
ZEB,
It is really insulting, patronizing and infuriating to be told over and over that I don’t know anything about how I came to be gay. It is rather a lot like being told I wasn’t having extremely painful menstrual cramps, that it was all in my mind. I did know and I do know. I’ve been this way since I can remember. It is not a phase. I came out when I was sixteen. I am in my forties. My mother knew I was gay when I was a kid.
I’m not trying to offend you. Please try separate “knowing” you are gay, from “understanding” how you got that way. I recognize and fully believe that you were cognizant of the fact that you were gay. However, YOU don’t know why or how you got that way. Again, no one does, not even the experts. Not yet anyway, and that’s one reason we need more research into this area before we rush off and sanction gay marriage![/quote]
I appreciate that you are not trying to offend me. Whether you believe me or not, I knew I was not going to be involved with boys/men in relationships from the time I was a little girl. The other little girls played house and did all the adult rehearsal games little girls do. Not me. And my parents were not to excited about it, even though they let me go my own way.
[quote]What is your theory of what could turn an otherwise straight person gay? Solar flares? Demonic possession? Voodoo? What? Seriously, I think it would be interesting to hear some theories on this.
I am not in the field of “gay research.” From what I have read however, “reparative therapy” has worked for many gays. In one study almost every one of the 200 participants reverted to heterosexuality. How does this happen if it is genetic? [/quote]
How long did they stay “reverted”? How many of them stayed reverted? That would be some proof of the pudding.
Maybe us gay girls are getting bathed with a bit more T than normal and the gay boys aren’t getting enough. Then again, what about gay football players, bodybuilders and powerlifters? Like I said, I’m all for more research, especially if it’ll help people get the hell over it.
[quote]2. Please stop taking things I say out of context when you quote and respond. This practice in particular misrepresents my position. For instance, my comment about children being raised by multiple men and women. The context was commentary on the extended family arrangement of the majority of human history. If you wanted I suppose you could call that communal living. The point I was making is that children can thrive in a variety of environments, as long as stability and love are present. If we want to talk about Biblical tradition, polygamy is a big one.
Um…you just chastised me for implying that you were referencing Polygamy and communal living in a prior post. Then, in the second part of your paragraph (above) you state: “If you wanted I suppose you could call that communal living.” And further state: “If we want to talk about Biblical tradition, polygamy is a big one.”
Can you see how a reader would be confused by your position? [/quote]
I never said you had to see extended families as communal living arrangements, but they are, strictly speaking. And they were the norm for most of human existence. Polygamy is a Biblical tradition. Not my fault. What I was taking you to task for was quoting me out of context.
[quote]Why don’t you simply clear it up right now and respond directly to the following:
Do you think that Polygamists should have the right to marry multiple partners. And that marriage be sanctioned by the government?
Do you think that adult incestuous marriage should be sanctioned by the government (under any conditions)?
Please explain why the rights of these two groups are any less important than the rights of homosexuals to marry (if you are against either).
I’m sure once you clear this up there will be no more confusion. And I thank you![/quote]
I think consenting adults from different genentic lineages should be able to marry whoever they want in whatever quantities they want. Since the number is so small, I don’t see the issue. Again, polygamous marriage was pretty common throughout human history. Part of the tradition, you could say.
Incest is pretty bad no matter what age is involved. If they are incestuous as adults it is pretty certain they were incestuous as children and their parents should be prosecuted. However, incestuous marriage was practiced by most royal families of most major cultures, including the ancient Hebrews, so again with the tradition. I’m not too keen on allowing marriage in these cases without sterilization.
[quote]3. I do not have the same rights as you. If I did, I could marry my girlfriend.
You do have the same rights as me. I canot marry a man and you cannot marry a woman. See how that works? What you want are special rights.[/quote]
Do you want to marry a man? The point is I cannot marry the person of my choosing. Did you marry a person of your choosing or did you have that person dictated to you? Were you denied the right to choose your partner? I think not.
[quote]I think you missed my point regarding my status as a citizen. I pointed out voting, military service, paying taxes, etc. to show that if I am expected to take care of these responsibilities, then I expect to have the same rights as other citizens.
For the umpteenth (I know that’s not a number) time, you do have the same rights as other citizens. What you want are “speical rights.”[/quote]
The rights I want are no more special than the ones you assume you have: The right to choose one’s partner.
[quote]We are not talking about polygamy, incest or criminal behavior. Those are not the issues.
Oh but they are still important issues! Nothing occurrs in a vacume. Homosexuality was in fact "criminal behavior in most states up to about 1973! As social mores change the law follows. As I have already reported there has not been a prosecution for Polygamy in the US since the mid 1950’s. [/quote]
Incest, polygamy and criminal behavior are important issues. They have nothing to do with whether or not I can marry my girlfriend.
I see where you are trying to go but the analogies do not fit. And I say thank God for progress. Now I can have a private life without fearing a home invasion by the police. I am neither a criminal nor am I mentally ill.
[quote]Take a look at Professor Martha Ertmans view. Ertman happens to be on your side:
"Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether.
Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and “polyamory” (group marriage) “morally neutral.”
(note to readers: “morally neutral” is what the social liberals want for our entire country. Then anything and everything is acceptable. Use your imagination.)
She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy).
University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be “more receptive to [marital] units of three or more” (1996 Michigan Law Review). [/quote]
Okay.
I have not advocated any of Ertmans positions. However, being an outsider in this society, I see its traditions and culturally defined mores from a very different perspective. Marriage means something different to me than it does you and I certainly don’t see it as sacred. The dominant cultural group has not treated marriage as sacred and most of them don’t even recognize my right to exist. The boundaries of marriage have changed many times over the millennia, this would just be another iteration.
[quote]Legal recognition of gay relationships would add stability and protection to those relationships and any children in the households. Seems to me you’d want that for the children. I mean children are already being adopted, fostered and born to gay couples, so legal protections seem in order.
I’m not yet sure that children will grow up to be productive members of society if raised by two homosexuals. Then again, I’m not sure that they won’t be even better and more productive members of society if raised by two homosexuals. The long term studies needed to establish this, one way or the other, have not been done. Until then there should be no gay marriage! Why gamble with our childrens lives? Don’t we owe them more than this?[/quote]
I think we owe children more than they ever get. The way this society treats kids is beyond deplorable. Half a million are in foster care or child welfare systems in this country. They carry their meager possessions from one home to another in garbage bags. Nobody wants them, except for gay people, who adopt and foster many more of the “unadoptable” kids than straight couples, who usually want infants. Plenty more kids are in abusive situations they can’t escape from. But some folks think the hot issue is gay marriage, like that is the real problem.
[quote]4. Children of gay families are growing up and telling their stories. There is research on the subject (do a google search, it’s what i did). There is data. It is pretty uniform in it’s conclusions. Do more research, acquire more data. Do as much as you like. Balance your search of Christian biased sites with liberal biased sites. Find some neutral sites. Encourage social researchers to do more work on it. I am all for it.
Yes, there are anecdotal reports. And quite honestly I have read reports that lean both ways. Some children are fine, others are not as fine (I won’t go into the details but it’s not pretty).[/quote]
You keep calling it anecdotal, like that’s a bad thing. Not all of the reports are purely anecdotal. Plenty of kids from traditional man/woman relationships are truly screwed up. MOre even. That’s been going on forever. I’d be interested in readin more about these not so fine kids from gay homes.
Well, I didn’t push the gay marriage issue. It was thrust upon me by Christian conservatives. For me it is a civil rights issue. I happen to know that kids will be just fine in gay homes. Certainly no worse off than in a lot of straight homes.
[quote]5. Religious faith is the most anecdotal thing there is. You cannot emprically prove that you have faith. It cannot be proven that there is a God. It cannot be proven that one version of a faith is the right one. It cannot be proven that the Bible is the word of God. It is all a matter of personal, anecdotal, subjective experience. And that’s a fact. ;p
I think you know by now (or should) that I am not basing my anti-gay marriage position solely on my religious beliefs. And in fact usually do not even debate the topic on that level unless someone brings it up. [/quote]
The point I was making here is that you want your anecdotal experience of religious experience accepted as fact. Yet you do not want to give gay people the same benefit of the doubt regarding their experience.
[quote]6. Please don’t make me point out that most people are stupid, lazy, ignorant, etc. There is already another thread on the subject.
Wow, that’s a pretty harsh world you live in…[/quote]
Just experience and observation.
The founders were the intellectual elites of their time. They were not the lowest common denominator. That is why they framed the Bill of Rights and constitution the way they did. They knew most people are lazy and stupid and slaves to their emotions. That is why this is a democratic republic and not a pure democracy. The idea was that the majority will rule, but minorities have their rights protected at the same time. Gay marriage ballots will continue to go down in defeat for a while longer. That is because the lowest common denominator tends to vote based on ignorance and emotion.
Obviously.
[quote] So as dismaying as those 70 percent figures are, I have to take it with a grain of salt. Most people are as misinformed about homosexuality as they are steroids.
On every post you always seem to write
one thing that makes me chuckle. This is that moment! The liberal media (80% registered democrats) has done nothing but give homosexuality a free ride. Don’t think so?
How many movies or television programs have depicted homosexuality in a negative light? Now think of how many have shown it in a positive light.
How many articles are written by major Newspapers and magazines which depict homosexuality in a negative light? Barely any at all. But how many show it in a positive light? In fact, Time Magazine just did a fluff piece on “Teen Gays.”
How many news reports do you see which involve violence to gays? Many! How many times do you ever read or see news reports about violence perpetrated on straights from gays? This does happen, why isn’t it reported? After all violence is wrong, no matter who the perpetrator is, right? [/quote]
Most of what you refer to above are very recent phenomena. Please tell me more about this gay on hetero violence. I would like to join a queer gang.
I am afraid my experience is not that the media is pro-gay. They have gotten less anti-gay. Some media outlets have positive gay stars, like Ellen. The vast majority of shows do not have any gay characters. What is it that you think people are learning about homosexuality from TV or the media?
Frankly I think any movement has a backlash, in this country it is coming in the form of a mobilized Christian right against gay people. This will go on for a while.
Not right now, anyway.
[quote]I wonder what Zogby would find if they did a poll about steroids? As far as emotionality and hope goes, what is wrong with either one?
In the case of steroids the media has always been very much “con.” Just the opposite with homosexuality. And the public still rejects it! I find that amazing at times. I attribute this to the fact that even with all the pro gay news reported by a biased media the general public has still not been given any valid reasons to change the institution of marriage (not unlike this thread).[/quote]
Again, I think this is a difference in perspective. I do not find the American media all that gay friendly. A little less gay hostile than in previous years. My point was that people are ignorant about alot of things. If they are getting their info from only one source, well, that just shows how lazy they are. If i had not realized that the media are ignorant, I would never have bothered to get more info on steroids and I would never have found T-Nation. Most people don’t want to make the extra effort. The trust what they hear on TV, or what they hear from friends or from their Pastor at church.
[quote]Are those of us directly affected by these polls and votes to be impassive? Should we have no feelings about being treated as lesser citizens?
You have the exact same rights as I do! However, special rights for marriage have not been granted.[/quote]
I already adressed this above.
[quote]BTW, I am from Texas so I know what the vote was here. I also know that Prop 2 not only took gay marriage away, but also civil unions for gay and straight people, as well as nullifying a long tradition recognizing common law marriages in the state.
Texas grows more conservative. Do you think that this is an anomaly? [/quote]
No anomaly, just more human ignorance. Texas has been conservative for a while. I bet the people who were common law married are now wishing they’d read the prop a little more closely.
[quote]Once again (for our readers) look at the state of Massachusetts. Liberal Judges passed gay marriage and the people are now going to over turn it:
BOSTON, November 28, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) ? A family advocacy coalition has submitted double the required number of signatures necessary to ensure voters have an opportunity to overturn a 2003 activist court decision by voting on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex “marriage” during the 2008 general election.
A Zogby International poll conducted in 2004 found that 69% of likely voters in Massachusetts want to vote on a constitutional amendment to keep Massachusetts a traditional marriage state."
There is that 70% figure popping up again! I think that 70% figure will grow as the general public gets even more accurate information.[/quote]
What accurate information is that?
[quote]Again with the lazy, misinformed people voting based upon their visceral reactions, rather than actually reading the wording of the prop and getting the facts. So yes, that many people can be misinformed and wrong.
You have it backwards! When the people knew less about homosexuality they were more in favor of gay marriage. Polls showed that people objected to gay marriage by about 59% 5 to 10 years ago. As the militant homosexual lobby has pursued the right to marry and people have seen even more information regarding this hot topic they have grown to object it at a higher rate![/quote]
It couldn’t be that conservative Christians have been aggressively campaigning against gay rights, spreading misinformation or fanning the coals of hatred that were starting to die. Bush made this a big deal as part of his 2004 campaign and used it to mobilise his Christian conservative base. People are no more informed about homosexuality now than they were 10 years ago. They’re just more up in arms about it now.
[quote]Bottom line is that there is data on children from gay homes. I would like to see lots more of it. That would take some of the steam out of the anti-gay folks. I would love to see as big a study as could be conducted on the matter.
We can agree that we need more long term studies![/quote]
Never said I didn’t.
[quote]I think the findings would show gay homes are as safe as healthy, stable straight homes. So I am all for more research.
You are once again projecting what you would like the findings to show. And you might be correct. But then again you might be completely wrong. Either way, we should not risk placing children in any situation that even has a chance of harming them until we find out.[/quote]
I am projecting regarding what I do know. Gay people are decent, loving human beings with good jobs. At least most of them are. The ones that aren’t don’t want to be parents or married anyway. Kids are already in the situation, so why don’t we study that?
[quote]I agree that people on both sides have gone to extremes. I agree there should be more cooperation. However, I am not going to agree to be treated as a lesser being by any one just because I am gay.
This is where we also agree. I think there needs to be love shown on both sides. The homosexual lobby’s need to stop the militant hate speech. Anyone who is against gay marriage is evil and denounced as “hateful” by these people. How do you think that makes my side feel? Do you think that it wins them over? NO! It may silence some who oppose gay marriage, (just as it has done on this thread). No one wants to be called “homophobic.”[/quote]
No one wants to be compared to child molesters or called sick or evil or immoral. Yet it happens all the time for gay people. I do not think it is an accident that gay people get compared to child molesters all the time. You think that has a negative impact? Do you think I or any other gay person might be offended by the position taken by many Christians on this issue or by the propaganda being spread about us? It is a given that all humans commit sin, but somehow us queers are placed at the bottom of the totem pole, as the lowest of the low, by conservative Christians. How do you think that has made millions of people feel? You think that could have anything at all to do with the high rate of suicide among gay teenagers? This has gone on for a long time in this country, so forgive me if i have a hard time finding sympathy for the “downtrodden” majority in this country.
If we were militant, queers would own guns and be willing to use them. GLAAD and other organizations are trying to stand up for gay rights. Sometimes the rhetoric gets fiery on both sides. However if someone is homophobic, they deserve to be called such. It may be something they need to deal with. I can tell you that being attacked (physically) and condemned for being gay doesn’t make want to run right out and find myself a fella. Nor does it draw me to Christianity.
[quote]On the other hand, I am disgusted by any employer who would discriminate against someone because of their sexual preference. And I do think that this happens.
I am also distressed at those on my side calling gay folks various nasty names. It only makes debate more difficult, and those words cause pain to people who do not deserve it! [/quote]
I appreciate this. I mean it.
[quote]I am afraid i will have to insist that those with religious prejudices treat me with dignity even so. Otherwise, there is going to be a fight.
Anyone who treats you with less than respect deserves to face a fight. And to be quite honest I would take your side in such a circumstance, as I have done in the past with others. (I know this is hard to believe but I don’t like bully’s… I never have). [/quote]
Again, this is appreciated. It would have been nice on the several occasions I have been assaulted to have had some backup.
[quote]I would imagine that if you were to be treated differently because you are a Christian or heterosexual, you would fight back, too. You might get a little emotional as well. In fact I think I’ve seen you get pretty feisty when you feel your relgious faith has been attacked.
Back to you…
You are correct once again WMD.
I am for civil debate. Everyone bring your points to the surface and let’s kick them around.
However, leave the vicious attacks on someone’s belief’s out of it.
I don’t like having my belief equated with believing in the fairy god mother any more than gays should be called fairies.
[quote]WMD wrote:
Thank you for once again comparing gay people to child molesters. Try reading something on how often children who have been molested commit the same act. What in hell does that have to do with what I wrote?
[/quote]
Like all the evidence that shows how young boys that are molested often turn out to be gay? Or how young girls who are rapped become gay as adults? Why is it that physiological trauma ends up causing someone to turn gay? Perhaps falling into a dysfunctional copying pattern like being gay may not be the best way to deal with this kind of trauma and maybe mental health treatment is what is needed? But no, sounds like you would rather try and legitimize this dysfunctional coping behavior to make yourself feel better.
Wonder why gays have such a high suicide rate? Perhaps it is because they really need treatment and not legitimization?
Because it’s either genetic or a choice.
I recon you chose it as the least painful option between whatever issue with men that you had and the perceived less threatening alternative of female companionship.
And yet the statistics prove otherwise. Remember, we are talking about behavior, not thoughts.
If you are so happy with your lifestyle choice, why do you and other gays want legitimization from non-gays? Why do you need our approval? Perhaps if every one else will accept you than you can accept yourself?
So anyone who doesn’t agree with you is stupid. Right.
Perhaps you should ask yourself why you are coming into mainstream society asking to be validated? Maybe you don’t feel some comfortable deep down about your own lifestyle decisions?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
I don’t consider homosexuality normal. I do think it’s an abonormality. But I don’t think it’s evil and I don’t hold homosexuals at fault. Sexual desire is not something you can control. Yes, you can control if you act on it or not. But two consenting adults who feel heat or even love for each other giving into their desires is not harming anyone, even though those desires may deviate from the vast majority of the population. You would not like it if you were told you could never act on your own sexual desire. You can’t say that it’s clearly an immoral behavior. It’s not clear since so many disagree with your pronouncement.
[/quote]
Well, first, if it is abnormal, then should they receive treatment instead of normalization? Wouldn’t that be the more human thing to do? Also, understand that until the mid 1970’s homosexuality was considered a mental disorder and treated. At that time the gay lobby put so much pressure on the APA (American Psychiatric Association- the organization that determines the diagnosis for all the mental illness [DSM]) that they removed it from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of mental Disorders).
So science did not remove homosexuality from being considered a mental disorder, political correctness did.
As far as being immoral, all major religions of the world feel it is immoral. Many more feel it is immoral than feel it ok or moral. So in terms of actual numbers, those that feel it is ok is a small minority, a special interest.
I appreciate that you are not trying to offend me. Whether you believe me or not, I knew I was not going to be involved with boys/men in relationships from the time I was a little girl. The other little girls played house and did all the adult rehearsal games little girls do. Not me. And my parents were not to excited about it, even though they let me go my own way.[/quote]
I believe you.
I have no idea at this point. But I do wonder how someone who declares himself or herself as “gay” can ever have satisfying sex with someone of the opposite sex as they stated that they had. For that matter how can 66% of the males (who switched to heterosexual) become aroused enough to have such sex, if they were not converted? There is no faking that.
How could a normal healthy heterosexual have homosexual sex? I doubt that that is possible in any way. So it seems that those formerly (we think) “gay” males who have been converted must have really been changed in order to perform.
Absolutely!
Then you are for Polygamists marrying?
But what makes it “bad?” I would think that X amount of years ago one would think that homosexuals were “bad.” As societaly norms change maybe it won’t be so bad in 10 or 15 years time.
No, and neither do you! Looks like we have at least that in common
My bride was promised to me from a tribe that lived three hills from us…See I had no choice
Okay…I get the idea. But keep in mind that no one has ever had the “right” to marry someone of the same sex. And that is sort of what this thread is all about.
Okay, okay quite complaining. I’ll pull a few strings and you will have that right-BUT no one else is going to have it. JUST YOU! Happy now?
Oh but they are still important issues! Nothing occurrs in a vacume. Homosexuality was in fact "criminal behavior in most states up to about 1973! As social mores change the law follows. As I have already reported there has not been a prosecution for Polygamy in the US since the mid 1950’s.
If you think that you can make such a sweeping change without effecting any other “different” relationships you are mistaken. Nothing happens in a vacuum.
[quote]When you suggest that homosexuals should have the right to marry you are suggesting yet another social change. See how it all fits?
I see where you are trying to go but the analogies do not fit. And I say thank God for progress. Now I can have a private life without fearing a home invasion by the police. I am neither a criminal nor am I mentally ill.[/quote]
There has not been an arrest for Polygamy since the mid 1950’s. We can talk about right and wrong all day long. It’s what is legal and what is likely to become legal that matters.
And no you are not mentally ill. However, if something did occur at a very young age (or a series of things) then you may have some sort of psychological malfunction.
Again, why are people leaving the gay lifestyle and having satisfying heterosexual sex if it’s genetic?
Take a look at Professor Martha Ertmans view. Ertman happens to be on your side:
"Further, if we scramble our definition of marriage, it will soon embrace relationships that will involve more than two persons. Prominent advocates hope to use gay marriage as a wedge to abolish governmental support for traditional marriage altogether.
Law Professor Martha Ertman of the University of Utah, for example, wants to render the distinction between traditional marriage and “polyamory” (group marriage) “morally neutral.”
(note to readers: “morally neutral” is what the social liberals want for our entire country. Then anything and everything is acceptable. Use your imagination.)
She argues that greater openness to gay partnerships will help us establish this moral neutrality (Her main article on this topic, in the Winter 2001 Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review, is not available online, but she made a similar case in the Spring/Summer 2001 Duke Journal Of Gender Law & Policy).
University of Michigan law professor David Chambers wrote in a widely cited 1996 Michigan Law Review piece that he expects gay marriage will lead government to be “more receptive to [marital] units of three or more” (1996 Michigan Law Review).
Okay.
I want the readers to understand that gay marriage on it’s face is a bad idea (as no legitimate reason has been given to make such a dramatic change). However, people on WMD’s side are already talking about the boundaries of marriage being extended beyond even that!
You don’t have to! It’s being promoted by others on your side. It’s not just about gay marriage. It’s about our very culture.
I suppose that you wouldn’t. And that is at the very essence of our disagreement. However, the 70%+ people polled who continually vote gay marriage down do see it as sacred. I don’t think that will be changing int he near future.
I don’t know about that. When you say the “boundaries” have changed I think you mean more the rules with in a heterosexual marriage. That is nothing new as that has happened many times over the past 5000+ years. However, embracing homosexual marriage is quite another matter.
First of all (if you stats are correct) gay people foster older children because it is easier for them to adopt older chldren. As we both know a baby will go to a heterosexual home first.
Secondly, if gay marriage were approved then gays would indeed try to adopt (and have every right) more babies.
We are then back to my original complaint: I’m not yet sure that children will grow up to be productive members of society if raised by two homosexuals. Then again, I’m not sure that they won’t be even better and more productive members of society if raised by two homosexuals. The long term studies needed to establish this, one way or the other, have not been done. Until then there should be no gay marriage! Why gamble with our childrens lives? Don’t we owe them more than this?
You tend to fall back into an illogical argument regarding this issue. Simply because some kids are messed up who were raised in a traditional home does not mean that gay parents would be better. I think aecdotal evidence is fine, but insufficient to make such a drastic change.
We need long term studies and I think you know that deep down.
Sorry WMD, the Christian conservatives did not “thrust” this issue upon you. It is your side which is beating the drum on this. The conservatives have responded! That is the part that you don’t like!
There you go again, that is all pure conjecture on your part. This is an emotional plea because you want to do what you want to do. There is no research to back this up and you know it, so please stop saying it!
I was hoping that you not trying to compare belief in God (which over 95% of Americans share) that is thousands of years old to a handful of anecdotal gay adoption experiences…But sadly you were…
This would include homosexuals as well I assume.
Gays have no marital rights. Hence, there is nothing to protect.
So it seems that any and all who oppose gay marriage are the “lowest common denominator?” You might want to rethink that stance. There are plenty of people on my side of the issue with IQ’s that would dwarf yours (and mine).
Gay marriage will continue to go down to defeat every time the people have a choice. The only way that you side wins is if liberal Judges get a shot at it just as they did in Mass. However, as I have already pointed out twice the people are rising up to strike that down (68% of all people in Mass. are opposed to gay marriage). I don’t think it will be legal after 2008.
I would, say since the late 1970’s the media has favored the homosexual movement. You know it as well as I. The interesting part is (as previously stated) even with the media fully on board the people continue to reject gay marriage!
You are correct in stating that “most are misinformed.” However, they are misinformed because the media is pro gay! As the public learns more about homosexuality they are less likely to accept it. I honestly think that between more honest information being given to the public, and the militant stance that the pro gay marriage folks demonstrate the numbers against gay marriage will rise! I wouldn’t be surprised if they rose to 80% to 85% against gay marriage over the next five years!
I’m sure that the media cannot be enough “pro gay” to suit you. And that makes sense. When you want something as badly as you do there can never be enough good publicity for your cause.; especially in light of the fact that your side is losing. Therefore, it must seem like the media is not “pro gay” enough.
Simply count up the pro gay stories, articles, TV shows and movies. Now contrast them with the anti-gay (if there are any) media…
Homosexuals comprise somewhere between 1% and 4% (no one knows but 4% is probably high) of the total population. how many gay Tv characters do you want to see on TV?
Much of it is coming from the Christian right, I agree. However, without that “push” in the other direction gay marriage would still not be a reality.
You cannot win this debate nationally!
And you won’t be winning it in the near future. I happen to know that there is quite a lot of money being put in the anti-gay movement right now. You will see the effects of this over the next year or two.
Please point out where the media is gay hostile? If you look closely you will see the error of that statement.
Actually, church attendance is down compared to 10 years ago when less people opposed gay marriage!
The backlash is there for a few reasons. One certainly is the militant stance which homosexuals take. No one likes that. No one likes to be called homophobic, or a hater because they want to stand up for the traditional family structure. Your side has silenced some of the debate because you scared people (just as you did early in this thread). But they speak at the polls and they are not happy with even the idea of gay marriage!
[quote]Texas grows more conservative. Do you think that this is an anomaly?
No anomaly, just more human ignorance. Texas has been conservative for a while.[/quote]
Every time someone speaks out against gay marriage they are ignorant? Do you see what I mean about the militant attitude? WOW! Can two people simply disagree without one side being evil?
I don?t think for a second the typical homosexual is ?bad,? ?evil,? or even stupid! Why do those of us who disagree have to be categorized as ?ignorant??
BOSTON, November 28, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) ? A family advocacy coalition has submitted double the required number of signatures necessary to ensure voters have an opportunity to overturn a 2003 activist court decision by voting on a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex “marriage” during the 2008 general election.
A Zogby International poll conducted in 2004 found that 69% of likely voters in Massachusetts want to vote on a constitutional amendment to keep Massachusetts a traditional marriage state."
There is that 70% figure popping up again! I think that 70% figure will grow as the general public gets even more accurate information.
Call Zogby.
There you go again: People are ignorant, lazy, stupid etc. You really need to reexamine your thought process on this. With all due respect, it might just be that people have indeed thought about and don?t like ver much!
Also keep in mind that you have it backwards! When the people knew less about homosexuality they were more in favor of gay marriage. Polls showed that people objected to gay marriage by about 59% 5 to 10 years ago. As the militant homosexual lobby has pursued the right to marry and people have seen even more information regarding this hot topic they have grown to object it at a higher rate!
Yes, your side always has to bring in the big “H” word. HATRED, oh my just as it was starting to die…(shaking head). Why can’t someone oppose something and not hate it? That is the very attitude that continues to draw more people to my side of the debate.
You side has a very bad battle plan: Call everyone who opposes you hateful. That might work to silence them as I stated earlier. But that won’t stop them from entering the voting booth and crushing your hopes.
You need to give the masses a reason (or two) to actually change the institution of marriage. You have not, and this thread is a microcosm of the national debate on this very issue. How many pages have we been through and the arguments on your side are all still basically emotional. And along with that emotion the various national gay lobbies are mean spirited and vindictive. You will never get anything passed in this country that way.
Maybe…or it could be that they know exactly what it is and they just don’t like it! It’s not rocket science wmd.
I could put up a link or two here, which shows that this is not always the case. But I don’t like to do the link war thingy…
Some gays are very responsible. However MOST gays seem to be very much the opposite when it comes to switching partners. Does this suddenly end when they marry? Um…it usually does not work that way with heterosexuals.
“Immoral” you are always going to have a problem with in some sectors. I hope you know this. Just about every major world religion looks at homosexuality as immoral. It?s not just Christians.
I think I know why too. You see you are correct we all “sin.” However, we are supposed to try not to sin. Homosexuals are not viewed as trying not to sin. They are viewed as saying “in your face” we will do what we want because we were born this way! Which of course there is no conclusive proof in which to back you up. Therefore, you end up looking not only mean spirited, but just a tad ?loony.? (Not you personally).
Hardly, an example for “go and sin no more.”
That’s why you guys get nailed with the “immoral” label.
It could be a contributing factor. However, I think it’s more the lifestyle which brings on the pain. You cannot possibly find long term happiness jumping around from gay partner to gay partner and that happens a lot…Don’t make me post a link…
However, as we see by the polls and the ballot measures across the country. The “silent” majority is making your side pay for this militant position uninformed position.
On the other hand, I am disgusted by any employer who would discriminate against someone because of their sexual preference. And I do think that this happens.
I am also distressed at those on my side calling gay folks various nasty names. It only makes debate more difficult, and those words cause pain to people who do not deserve it!
[quote]I appreciate this. I mean it.
I am afraid i will have to insist that those with religious prejudices treat me with dignity even so. Otherwise, there is going to be a fight. [/quote]
Anyone who treats you with less than respect deserves to face a fight. And to be quite honest I would take your side in such a circumstance, as I have done in the past with others. (I know this is hard to believe but I don’t like bully’s… I never have).
That would have been a very weird sight: ZEB and WMD fighting back to back against a gang of hate mongering thugs…(shaking head)…LOL None the less I would have helped you.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
WMD wrote:
Thank you for once again comparing gay people to child molesters. Try reading something on how often children who have been molested commit the same act. What in hell does that have to do with what I wrote?
None of this is true. Where do you get this crap?
It couldn’t be that gay people are hated, reviled and demonized by this society. Maybe the society needs treatment. Starting with you.
Let’s see…hemophilia is genetic and it is a physical illness. Again, what has that to do with what I wrote?
Hemophilia is a choice?
Who do you reckon I learned to be a lesbian from as I was growing up, my hetero parents?
If you think women are less threatening than men, you have clearly never been with a woman.
Those you claim have changed, haven’t. Every single one of those gay-change programs has been discredited.
What statistics? And what the hell are you talking about?
What treatment do you suggest? Perhaps you think I should be confined in an institution and forcibly lobotomized or electrocuted? What makes you think I even want to change? The person who has the problem with my sexual preference is you, not me, so maybe you are the one who needs treatment.
I don’t want your approval. I want you to keep your dirty little hands off my civil rights. You are really bad at pop psychology.
[quote]I wonder if stupidity is genetic? Did you get it from your parents? I think we should research it some more before we allow stupid people to continue breeding. Do you have a wife? Does stupidity fit into Darwin’s survival of the fittest? If not, why are you still alive?
So anyone who doesn’t agree with you is stupid. Right.[/quote]
No, not just anyone. You, in particular, are stupid. Everything you write is something you pulled out of your ass. Your hostility towards gay people radiates through everything you write. It is clearly your problem.
Not asking for approval or validation. We are asking to be treated like
American citizens. And since you don’t know anything about my “lifestyle”, perhaps you could quit projecting your own issues all over me. It’s really gross. Myabe deep down inside you really are afraid you are gay. Maybe you feel a bit threatened by gay women. After all, we are hotter and get more women than you do even in your fantasies.
[quote]WMD wrote:
ZEB wrote:
How long did they stay “reverted”? How many of them stayed reverted? That would be some proof of the pudding.
I have no idea at this point. But I do wonder how someone who declares himself or herself as “gay” can ever have satisfying sex with someone of the opposite sex as they stated that they had. For that matter how can 66% of the males (who switched to heterosexual) become aroused enough to have such sex, if they were not converted? There is no faking that. [/quote]
How does anyone, gay or straight, get it up for an inflatable blow up doll? I think it has been pretty well established that human sexuality is very complex. But both the gay and staight and bi men I know can get aroused by a strong breeze blowing in the right place at the right time. I would suspect that alot of those who have “reverted” were not especially commited to being gay in the first place. One or two homosexual experiences do not make one gay, nor does being raped either. But alot of people think it does. This is what I mean by ignorance.
Ever heard of “gay for pay”? The porno industry is full of them. The human body is wired to recieve certain stimuli as pleasurable. Push the right buttons and we get off. Women have reached climax while being raped. Do you think that means they wanted the rape? I would imagine not.
[quote]1. I think consenting adults from different genentic lineages should be able to marry whoever they want in whatever quantities they want. Since the number is so small, I don’t see the issue. Again, polygamous marriage was pretty common throughout human history. Part of the tradition, you could say.
Then you are for Polygamists marrying?[/quote]
To be honest, I’m not sure I’m for anyone marrying, unless it is what they want. If polygamists want to get married, then they can go for it. If it is ever legal for them anyway.
[quote]2. Incest is pretty bad no matter what age is involved.
But what makes it “bad?” I would think that X amount of years ago one would think that homosexuals were “bad.” As societaly norms change maybe it won’t be so bad in 10 or 15 years time.[/quote]
The bad things about incest: inbred children, violation of children by adults or older children, etc. Incest is usually about a messed up power dynamic that gets sexualized by the perpetrator.
[quote]Do you want to marry a man?
No, and neither do you! Looks like we have at least that in common :)[/quote]
You got me there…
[quote] The point is I cannot marry the person of my choosing. Did you marry a person of your choosing or did you have that person dictated to you? Were you denied the right to choose your partner? I think not.
My bride was promised to me from a tribe that lived three hills from us…See I had no choice :([/quote]
I hate it when that happens.
The question has never been asked before. Before this century and the last, marriages were arranged by parents and had precious little to with choice on the part of the bride and groom. Kind of like your Appalachian problem above. ;p Marriages were about economics and offspring until the last century or so. The bride and groom didn’t meet until the day of the wedding and the bride was often little more than a child. I would imagine that this new found freedom of choice has opened the door for the gay marriage question, sociologically speaking.
[quote]The rights I want are no more special than the ones you assume you have: The right to choose one’s partner.
Okay, okay quite complaining. I’ll pull a few strings and you will have that right-BUT no one else is going to have it. JUST YOU! Happy now? [/quote]
Thanks. I knew I could count on you.
[quote]Incest, polygamy and criminal behavior are important issues. They have nothing to do with whether or not I can marry my girlfriend.
If you think that you can make such a sweeping change without effecting any other “different” relationships you are mistaken. Nothing happens in a vacuum.[/quote]
I agree nothing happens in a vacuum.
Social change is bound to happen. Slowly, painfully at times, but it happens. It’ll be okay.
If I am malfunctioning, I would hope that the numerous mental health tests I had to take in the military would have detected something. Why assume that my attraction to women is a malfunction? I mean, have you seen women?
I’m not sure they are. Humans seem to be able to have sex with everything from canteloupes to sheep. So who the heck knows?
Take a look at Professor Martha Ertmans view. Ertman happens to be on your side:
[quote]I have not advocated any of Ertmans positions.
You don’t have to! It’s being promoted by others on your side. It’s not just about gay marriage. It’s about our very culture.[/quote]
Extremes are gone to on both sides. We are the tools of Satan and ya’ll are bigoted meanies. Round and round we go. I think none of it is true and none of the extremes will come to fruition.
[quote]However, being an outsider in this society, I see its traditions and culturally defined mores from a very different perspective. Marriage means something different to me than it does you and I certainly don’t see it as sacred.
I suppose that you wouldn’t. And that is at the very essence of our disagreement. However, the 70%+ people polled who continually vote gay marriage down do see it as sacred. I don’t think that will be changing int he near future.[/quote]
I should clarify. I don’t see marriage as sacred in a religious sense. I see it as sacred in that you have set this relationship aside as special. That commitment should be honored by anyone who enters into it. I do believe in monogamy and commitment. I hate to burst everybodies bubble that i’m not one of those folks who sleeps around with multiple partners.
As I said earlier, I think it is the changes in hetero marriage that have opened the doors for the gay marriage question to be asked. I don’t think anyone thought of it before.
My stats are always correct. I thought we’d established that. ;p As to the rest of what you say, I agree.
This may be true but not every gay couple that wants marriage also wants children.
I hear what you are saying. Bring on the long terms studies. But how do we do them without children being raised in gay homes, with at least civilly united gay couples? A bit of a quandary. The legal protections afforded by marriage or civil union would protect the children in the family from being siezed without some sort of legal proceeding.
[quote]You keep calling it anecdotal, like that’s a bad thing. Not all of the reports are purely anecdotal. Plenty of kids from traditional man/woman relationships are truly screwed up. MOre even. That’s been going on forever. I’d be interested in readin more about these not so fine kids from gay homes.
You tend to fall back into an illogical argument regarding this issue. Simply because some kids are messed up who were raised in a traditional home does not mean that gay parents would be better. I think aecdotal evidence is fine, but insufficient to make such a drastic change.[/quote]
I’m not saying gay parents would be better. Just saying the would in general be as good as good hetero parents. Kids grow up fine in single parent homes. They also grow up pretty messed up as well. Same for two parent homes. I think it has way more to do with the quality of the parenting than how many parents there are or what sexual preference the parents have.
So lets do it. Can us queers have civil unions in the meantime? Pleeeeaaaase? We’ll be good. I promise.
[quote]Well, I didn’t push the gay marriage issue. It was thrust upon me by Christian conservatives.
Sorry WMD, the Christian conservatives did not “thrust” this issue upon you. It is your side which is beating the drum on this. The conservatives have responded! That is the part that you don’t like![/quote]
Actually, I was sound asleep when all of a sudden everybody was yelling about all this gay marriage crap. Seriously, it would not be an issue for me or for many other gay people but for the virulent opposition. Being married was not on the table for so much of my life, that it didn’t even bear consideration. I would like legal protections for my relationship and the property held in common. I’d have been perfectly happy with a civil union. But the opposition was so knee jerk and nasty in many quarters that it just pissed me off. Now probably isn’t the time for gay marriage. It’ll probably happen down the line at some point. In the meanwhile, what about civil unions?
[quote]I happen to know that kids will be just fine in gay homes. Certainly no worse off than in a lot of straight homes.
There you go again, that is all pure conjecture on your part. This is an emotional plea because you want to do what you want to do. There is no research to back this up and you know it, so please stop saying it![/quote]
I’ll admit that it is conjecture but it is educated conjecture. I know whereof I speak regarding the decency of many gay people.
[quote]The point I was making here is that you want your anecdotal experience of religious experience accepted as fact. Yet you do not want to give gay people the same benefit of the doubt regarding their experience.
I was hoping that you not trying to compare belief in God (which over 95% of Americans share) that is thousands of years old to a handful of anecdotal gay adoption experiences…But sadly you were…[/quote]
What is anecdotal about it is that it has not been examined with empirical scientific method, which is what you say you want regarding gay marriage and adoption. Religious experience cannot be measured empirically, can it? I believe in god but i can’t prove it scientifically. That is sort of the essence of faith, is it not? Just because lots of people believe in something does not make it true or proven. Test it scientifically, then it is no longer anecdotal. The point is that you tend to discount the testimony of gay people regarding their lives but anything you say about your beliefs regarding God you expect to be accepted without question.
[quote]The founders were the intellectual elites of their time. They were not the lowest common denominator. That is why they framed the Bill of Rights and constitution the way they did. They knew most people are lazy and stupid and slaves to their emotions.
This would include homosexuals as well I assume.[/quote]
Absolutely. Stupid, lazy people travel in all sorts of circles.
[quote]That is why this is a democratic republic and not a pure democracy. The idea was that the majority will rule, but minorities have their rights protected at the same time.
Gays have no marital rights. Hence, there is nothing to protect.[/quote]
That is the problem.
[quote]Gay marriage ballots will continue to go down in defeat for a while longer. That is because the lowest common denominator tends to vote based on ignorance and emotion.
So it seems that any and all who oppose gay marriage are the “lowest common denominator?” You might want to rethink that stance. There are plenty of people on my side of the issue with IQ’s that would dwarf yours (and mine).[/quote]
Not all who oppose are lazy or stupid, but they most assuredly are ignorant. The things said about gay people that are just not true make me sick. Something can be true about a segment of a population, yet not be true about all of them or even most. The problem with most of the people is that they do not take the extra step required to go past propaganda to find out truth.
Lots of people hold misguided beliefs about marriage and gay people. It will probably take along time for the truth to get out. I’m patient.
[quote]Most of what you refer to above are very recent phenomena. Please tell me more about this gay on hetero violence. I would like to join a queer gang.
I would, say since the late 1970’s the media has favored the homosexual movement. You know it as well as I. The interesting part is (as previously stated) even with the media fully on board the people continue to reject gay marriage! [/quote]
I’m not so sure about the media being on board, across the board. The media tend to be whores to popular opinion, because they want to keep their jobs. I haven’t seen anything in the media advocating for gay marriage, but then I don’t watch TV that much. There are some gay characters on shows but the ones I’ve seen are caricatures of gay stereotypes. This is not the same as advocating gay marriage.
What is pro gay in your view? Having a gay character? And for the love of God, anyone getting their information about anything from TV shows is a moron.
Why? What is it you think they are learning? Do you think it is somehow different from what kept gay people closeted for centuries or had them confined to mental institutions or arrested and beaten or murdered for being gay?
[quote]I honestly think that between more honest information being given to the public,[/quote] What honest information are you talking about?
I won’t be surprised either. Then it will reverse itself.
[quote]I am afraid my experience is not that the media is pro-gay.
I’m sure that the media cannot be enough “pro gay” to suit you. And that makes sense. When you want something as badly as you do there can never be enough good publicity for your cause.; especially in light of the fact that your side is losing. Therefore, it must seem like the media is not “pro gay” enough.[/quote]
It is darkest before the dawn and all that rot. I don’t experience the media as pro-gay because they aren’t. A couple of positive stories about gay people does not pro-gay make. If you are referring to Queer as Folk and the L-Word(both of which suck in my opinion; I hate soap operas) you should watch them before you decide if they are pro-gay. Maybe they are, but I don’t think they depict any reality. Like most dramas they exaggerate for effect. If you are talking about something else, let me know what network it’s on so I can make my own mind up about it. Maybe i’m not watching enough TV.
Dude, I’m working on a dissertation. I don’t have time to watch TV much less count news stories. I’d like it if there were no polemics regarding gay people in this world. We aren’t evil and we don’t deserve to be wiped off the face of the earth.
The vast majority of shows do not have gay characters
All the hot women would work for me. You can have the rest.
[quote]Frankly I think any movement has a backlash, in this country it is coming in the form of a mobilized Christian right against gay people. This will go on for a while.
Much of it is coming from the Christian right, I agree. However, without that “push” in the other direction gay marriage would still not be a reality.[/quote]
I’m not sure what you mean here.
[quote]You cannot win this debate nationally!
Not right now, anyway.
And you won’t be winning it in the near future. I happen to know that there is quite a lot of money being put in the anti-gay movement right now. You will see the effects of this over the next year or two.[/quote]
You are probably right.
[quote]Again, I think this is a difference in perspective. I do not find the American media all that gay friendly. A little less gay hostile than in previous years.
Please point out where the media is gay hostile? If you look closely you will see the error of that statement.[/quote]
I don’t watch enough TV to argue about this.
[quote]The trust what they hear on TV, or what they hear from friends or from their Pastor at church.
Actually, church attendance is down compared to 10 years ago when less people opposed gay marriage! [/quote]
Last I read more people have been turning to religion for guidance, but I don’t go to church so I couldn’t say.
I’m having a hard time believing a few queers have scared people into silence. Who did I scare off? And frankly if someone is that easily scared they have some problems. I don’t and I think most gay people don’t have a problem with the traditional family structure per se. The problem is the lies being told regarding gay people, how we live our lives, what our lives are like, etc. in the name of preserving the traditional family structure. And if that structure is the issue, why no polemics against single parenting or divorced couples with combined families? I think it has more to do with entrenched hostility toward gay people in the culture.
[quote]Texas grows more conservative. Do you think that this is an anomaly?
No anomaly, just more human ignorance. Texas has been conservative for a while.
Every time someone speaks out against gay marriage they are ignorant? Do you see what I mean about the militant attitude? WOW! Can two people simply disagree without one side being evil? [/quote]
MOst people who speak against gay marriage have no idea what they are talking about when they speak of gay people. That is ignorant. I don’t think it is militant to call a spade a spade. Stupidity is bad enough but it probably can’t be changed. Ignorance is a treatable condition. The evil lies in the refusal to get accurate information, maybe even from people who know what they are talking about. Like gay people.
Fair enough. But please get some accurate info on the diverse nature of the gay population. We are not all promiscuous party boys (or girls) with a new sex partner every night. Most of us do not frequent bath houses or wear gold lame hot pants and high heels and sing in drag shows. Most gay women own not one shred of flannel nor a single pair of combat boots. Many of us are so similar to straight people in demeanor and lifestyle that you can’t tell us apart unless we come out. We hold jobs, have long term relationships, play sports, go to restaurants and on and on. Many of us would make excellent parents.
[quote]There is that 70% figure popping up again! I think that 70% figure will grow as the general public gets even more accurate information.
What accurate information is that?
Call Zogby.[/quote]
No, you said as the general public gets even more accurate information. What information is that?
[quote]Again with the lazy, misinformed people voting based upon their visceral reactions, rather than actually reading the wording of the prop and getting the facts. So yes, that many people can be misinformed and wrong. .
There you go again: People are ignorant, lazy, stupid etc. You really need to reexamine your thought process on this. With all due respect, it might just be that people have indeed thought about and don?t like ver much![/quote]
I’m sure they thought alot about it and got more and more upset. None of this is being done dispassionately or with accurate information about gay people. And that is my whole point.
10 years ago gay marriage was less in the consciousness of America. Now it is more so. I don’t most people know anything more about gay people now than they did 10 years ago or even 100 years ago. Some ideas are pretty entrenched.
[quote]It couldn’t be that conservative Christians have been aggressively campaigning against gay rights, spreading misinformation or fanning the coals of hatred that were starting to die.
Yes, your side always has to bring in the big “H” word. HATRED, oh my just as it was starting to die…(shaking head). Why can’t someone oppose something and not hate it? That is the very attitude that continues to draw more people to my side of the debate.[/quote]
Well, most of the anti-gay rhetoric is pretty hateful. I guess that’s where I get the idea of hatred. Most people can’t oppose soemthing without having some sort of hostile feeling. Why else oppose it? I think those being drawn to your side had pre-existing issues with gay people. This just makes them feel like they are right.
I’m not entirely sure that that is the plan. It is just a case of calling a spade a spade. If people don’t want to be called hateful, it helps if they say things that recognize the dignity and humanity of the people they are talking about, rather than “othering” us by saying we are sick, sinful, worthy of death, disease carriers and all the other crap that gets said about us.
Well, reasons have been given but you keep discounting them. YOu may not like the reasons but they are still good ones. I think most peoples reasons for opposing gay marriage have everything to do with their fears and ignorances and projections. As far as the gay lobbies rhetoric, it mirrors the anti-gay rhetoric pretty well.
[quote]Bush made this a big deal as part of his 2004 campaign and used it to mobilise his Christian conservative base. People are no more informed about homosexuality now than they were 10 years ago. They’re just more up in arms about it now.
Maybe…or it could be that they know exactly what it is and they just don’t like it! It’s not rocket science wmd.[/quote]
What is it you think these folks know? What is it you are saying about gay people? What is homsexuality, in your opinion and what is it you think people know about it now that they didn’t previously?
[quote]I am projecting regarding what I do know. Gay people are decent, loving human beings with good jobs. At least most of them are. The ones that aren’t don’t want to be parents or married anyway. Kids are already in the situation, so why don’t we study that?
I could put up a link or two here, which shows that this is not always the case. But I don’t like to do the link war thingy… [/quote]
Well it would help if your links were to other than conservative Christian anti-gay websites. Maybe the odd nuetral site or some peer reviewed studies. As a scholar I can lend no credence to websites run by people with such obvious biases as conservative Christians. I can’t lend much to pro-gay websites either. Again with the bias. Most of the info I refer to is my own personal first hand knowledge of gay people. Not scientific, but certainly reprsentative.
Gay people who want to live a promiscuous lifestyle are probably not interested in marriage any more than heteros who want to be promiscuous are, so they aren’t the issue. If irresponsible heteros can get married and make babies, why can’t responsible gay people have the same privilege? Gay women in particular tend not to sleep around for a variety of reasons. There is a subculture of promiscuous behavior in the gay male population. It is by no means representative of all gay people.
[quote]No one wants to be compared to child molesters or called sick or evil or immoral.
“Immoral” you are always going to have a problem with in some sectors. I hope you know this. Just about every major world religion looks at homosexuality as immoral. It?s not just Christians.[quote]
You are probably right. Yet another reason I have problems with organized religion.
[quote]I do not think it is an accident that gay people get compared to child molesters all the time. You think that has a negative impact? Do you think I or any other gay person might be offended by the position taken by many Christians on this issue or by the propaganda being spread about us? It is a given that all humans commit sin, but somehow us queers are placed at the bottom of the totem pole, as the lowest of the low, by conservative Christians.
I think I know why too. You see you are correct we all “sin.” However, we are supposed to try not to sin. Homosexuals are not viewed as trying not to sin. They are viewed as saying “in your face” we will do what we want because we were born this way! Which of course there is no conclusive proof in which to back you up. Therefore, you end up looking not only mean spirited, but just a tad ?loony.? (Not you personally).[/quote]
Well most of us are living quiet lives just like most heteros. The “pro-gay” media puts particular images on TV, like drag queens on parade, and people like you take that to be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth about all gay people. And you Christian folk need to try a little harder with the trying not to sin. Because if what I see in the news is any indicator, ya’ll aren’t trying very hard. I believe the message was “Let he who is WITHOUT sin, cast the first stone.” Not let he who is sinning the least beat the shit out of the fags and dykes.
[quote]Hardly, an example for “go and sin no more.”
That’s why you guys get nailed with the “immoral” label.[/quote]
It’s called moral typification. It doesn’t call me home to Jesus, so to speak. Check the splinter in your own eye and let me worry about my life.
What are you basing this on? Men love harems. They love multiple partners. Most young hetero men go through a period where they sleep around as much as possible. This desire for multiple partners has alot to do with marital infidelity. Maybe it’s more of a guy problem than a gay problem. Don’t make ME post a link. ;p
[quote]Again, this is appreciated. It would have been nice on the several occasions I have been assaulted to have had some backup.
That would have been a very weird sight: ZEB and WMD fighting back to back against a gang of hate mongering thugs…(shaking head)…LOL None the less I would have helped you. [/quote]
