Which statement about gay rights do you agree with more.

[mrsmaalox]

It was something my ex boyfriend told me once :lol

I think he must have had ulterior motives!!

[I Love Me Some Me]

You are implying that you are only "in line with your natural sexual function" if you are attracted to someone of the opposite sex. So if someone is attracted to a person of the same sex..you are saying they are not natural by someone's standards and I was curious as to whom. Someone who is powerful enough to determine what is natural to an entire species would be nice to know.

Natural sexual function is to reproduce. Biologically speaking, the only sexual relationship that can reprduce is that of a man and a woman. That isn't my opinion, that isn't something I read, that isn't something they told me in Sunday school...that is a basic, simple biological fact.

So, whether you believe that someone made us that way, or nature made us that way, or that's what we evolved to be...I don't know how you can dispute that sex in it's most basic function (reproduction) is only natural in a heterosexual event.

[CuckingFunt]

I know some guys who refuse to acknowledge that they think another man is attractive. You don't have to be gay to know that Brad Pitt, Hugh Jackman, Denzel Washington are studs.

Those guys are scaredy cats.

[Summers]

(This doesn't seem to apply to women. you can eat all the pussy you want andstill be straight. )

This reminds me of my lesbian friend who told me I'm her only straight friend who, upon learning that she was gay, didn't tell her I'd had a lesbian experience.

[Blake]

After all these pages, not only do I not know what point you're trying to make, I am increasingly unconvinced that you know what point you're trying to make.

I am convinced very few understand the point of this thread.

Until proven otherwise, just like you are going on your own opinion that orientation is basically out of someone's control, it's my opinion that it's more of a choice than not (which isn't to say that I think it's 100% choice)....

Which means that a gay man has the same right as I do if he chooses to marry a woman.

I also do not have the right to marry another man same as a gay man.

Gays are asking for extra rights on top of the ones already granted equally to every American.

[samikeyp]

Natural sexual function is to reproduce. Biologically speaking, the only sexual relationship that can reprduce is that of a man and a woman. That isn't my opinion, that isn't something I read, that isn't something they told me in Sunday school...that is a basic, simple biological fact.

So, whether you believe that someone made us that way, or nature made us that way, or that's what we evolved to be...I don't know how you can dispute that sex in it's most basic function (reproduction) is only natural in a heterosexual event.



I believe reproduction is one of the functions of sex, but not the only one. Talk down to me if you want but that is just my opinion.

[David Bowie]

I never heard of that! I thought it was only if you were being paid a bunch of money.


I think he must have had ulterior motives!!


:lol

well, he did go to gay clubs...just for the music. He shaved his chest. He always told me that if he were gay, he would fuck so and so. and he flirted with some gay kid at a checkout counter....just for laughs of course.

In all seriousness, I think he was really straight and confident. As far as I know, he's married to some chick right now. (not me)

[I Love Me Some Me]

I'm good then.

That's what he said.

[purist]

Prejudice and oppression are different things -- one operates at an individual level, the other operates at an institutional level. Personal prejudice would still continue regardless any changes in law (in the immediate future, at least), but systemic oppression would be considerably more difficult.

My long term vision of a perfect world would include changing people's attitudes and erasing all individual prejudices, but systemic and institutional oppression has to be the first to fall in order for that to have even the slightest chance of happening. In the here and now, I think the laws should change in order to represent all people equally, and I really give fuck all about whether or not everyone is happy and comfortable with it. Attitudes of hate need not be coddled.

Hmm. It's kinda the old chicken or egg question. does law merely reflect the personal prejudices and/or enlightment of the citizenry; or or is law the agent of change that shapes personal prejudices?

I tend to believe that personal beliefs (whether they be "prejudices" or not) shape law; not the other way around. Therefore, I'm inclined to fall back on the old cliche that you can't legislate morality or, in this case, acceptance of homosexuality.

I see the same in Christianity. Throughout history and up to today, there has been a battle within the ranks between zealots who have attempted to impose their beliefs on others and individualists who have opted to view their beliefs as personal within the realm of free will. It seems much the same to me within this homosexual issue.

Just a thought.

[Summers]

Which means that a gay man has the same right as I do if he chooses to marry a woman.

I also do not have the right to marry another man same as a gay man.

Gays are asking for extra rights on top of the ones already granted equally to every American.

WR_zgKsD-28

[JoeChalupa]

That's what he said.

Damn it! :lmao

[samikeyp]

Blake,

What extra rights are gay people asking for? You probably posted it but 11 pages..damn! :lol

[Blake]

Did you actually read the article you posted? Did you understand it? Do you understand that they ran a test and didn't like the results so they polled data from a different pool and ran with the one with a lower %. Then lended credibility to the possibility of it being hereditary at the end of the article.

Of course I read it.

There isn't one study out there that can claim "gay gene"

There also aren't any studies that rule out the possibility of it being hereditary at the end.

Why am I not surprised you don't get the article. I'm betting you don't know what a monozygotic twin is without having to quickly google it.

You, BacktoBasics, are an idiot.

[CuckingFunt]

Gays are asking for extra rights on top of the ones already granted equally to every American.

This is where we disagree. Fundamentally.

Not surprising, I suppose, considering the fact that it is our quotes providing the framework for this thread/poll.

If you take gender out of the equation, it becomes clear that the law/rights are NOT currently equal. Straight people can legally share their lives with the person they love, gay people cannot. That is a huge difference.

[samikeyp]

Gay Gene....isn't he the guy downtown giving hand jobs for crack?

[Blake]

Blake,

What extra rights are gay people asking for? You probably posted it but 11 pages..damn! :lol

gay men are asking for the right to marry other gay men.

gay women are asking for the right to marry other women.

Currently any American man can marry a woman.

Currently no American man can marry another man.

[samikeyp]

gay men are asking for the right to marry other gay men.

gay women are asking for the right to marry other women.

Currently any American man can marry a woman.

Currently no American man can marry another man.

Shouldn't you be allowed to marry anyone you want?

[I Love Me Some Me]

I believe reproduction is one of the functions of sex, but not the only one. Talk down to me if you want but that is just my opinion.

I wasn't trying to talk down to you, I was only trying to simplify my explanation.

[peewee's lovechild]

Wait a sec, who's sucking who?

Interesting question.

[Blake]

This is where we disagree. Fundamentally.

Not surprising, I suppose, considering the fact that it is our quotes providing the framework for this thread/poll.

If you take gender out of the equation, it becomes clear that the law/rights are NOT currently equal. Straight people can legally share their lives with the person they love, gay people cannot. That is a huge difference.

I don't really care if you disagree because it's a fact that gender is part of the equation.

It's a fact that gays are asking for extra rights.

[samikeyp]

I wasn't trying to talk down to you, I was only trying to simplify my explanation.

At what point did you determine I needed to have it simplified?

[Blake]

Shouldn't you be allowed to marry anyone you want?

you mean like a 12 year old or a cat?

I'm gonna say no.

But again, I'll say I have no problem with gays getting the extra rights to get married.

[samikeyp]

I don't really care if you disagree because it's a fact that gender is part of the equation.

It's a fact that gays are asking for extra rights.

Not really because if a law is passed where members of the same sex can get married, then gay men and straight men will have that right.

[peewee's lovechild]

(This doesn't seem to apply to women. you can eat all the pussy you want andstill be straight. )

Us men love that about you women.

[samikeyp]

you mean like a 12 year old or a cat?

I'm gonna say no.

No, I meant another adult and you know that.

[Summers]

gay men are asking for the right to marry other gay men.

gay women are asking for the right to marry other women.

Currently any American man can marry a woman.

Currently no American man can marry another man.

Doesn't this go back to the idea that a law isn't necessarily a good law just because it's a law? Are gays really asking for an exception to the law or just what's fair? Gays want to be legally bound so they can buy homes together, adopt families, share bank accounts, have informed consent regarding medical decisions, have the right to make end-of-life decisions. Why would anyone be against that? Can gays screw up marriage anymore than the 50% of heterosexuals who've tried it and given up?

[Blake]

Not really because if a law is passed where members of the same sex can get married, then gay men and straight men will have that right.

once the law is passed, then gender will no longer be part of the equation.

It currently is.

Gays are asking for extra rights.

[I Love Me Some Me]

This is where we disagree. Fundamentally.

Not surprising, I suppose, considering the fact that it is our quotes providing the framework for this thread/poll.

If you take gender out of the equation, it becomes clear that the law/rights are NOT currently equal. Straight people can legally share their lives with the person they love, gay people cannot. That is a huge difference.

As far as the law is concerned, love has nothing to do with it.

[Blake]

Doesn't this go back to the idea that a law isn't necessarily a good law just because it's a law? Are gays really asking for an exception to the law or just what's fair? Gays want to be legally bound so they can buy homes together, adopt families, share bank accounts, have informed consent regarding medical decisions, have the right to make end-of-life decisions. Why would anyone be against that? Can gays screw up marriage anymore than the 50% of heterosexuals who've tried it and given up?

See, this is a good example of someone that is confused about the subject of the thread.

[Blake]

No, I meant another adult and you know that.

I know what you meant.

Although I could have pulled a Huckabee on you and opened a big can of worms.

[I Love Me Some Me]

At what point did you determine I needed to have it simplified?

When you asked "According to who?"

[samikeyp]

When you asked "According to who?"

There you go again. Nice.

[Summers]

See, this is a good example of someone that is confused about the subject of the thread.

I thought I was addressing what you said was the subject of this thread. (shrug)

[samikeyp]

I know what you meant.

Although I could have pulled a Huckabee on you and opened a big can of worms.

Keep your Huckabee's to yourself! :lol

[CuckingFunt]

Hmm. It's kinda the old chicken or egg question. does law merely reflect the personal prejudices and/or enlightment of the citizenry; or or is law the agent of change that shapes personal prejudices?

I tend to believe that personal beliefs (whether they be "prejudices" or not) shape law; not the other way around. Therefore, I'm inclined to fall back on the old cliche that you can't legislate morality or, in this case, acceptance of homosexuality.

I see the same in Christianity. Throughout history and up to today, there has been a battle within the ranks between zealots who have attempted to impose their beliefs on others and individualists who have opted to view their beliefs as personal within the realm of free will. It seems much the same to me within this homosexual issue.

Just a thought.

But if both sides of the coin could be seen as legislating morality/personal prejudice -- either forcing the acceptance of homosexuality or forcing the discrimination of homosexuality -- shouldn't we err on the side of human rights and equality?

And I think that laws are often a reflection of society's collective prejudices and personal beliefs, but there's no doubt that legal equality has profound effects on reducing those prejudices. Prejudice and institutional discrimination still exist on ethnic/racial bases, but nowhere near to the same extent as they did when there were segregation/slavery/immigration/anti-miscegenation laws on the books. Legally backed equal representation normalizes difference and promotes acceptance/tolerance which, I think, benefits all of us, not just members of the affected groups.

[David Bowie]

Gay Gene....isn't he the guy downtown giving hand jobs for crack?


That literally made laugh out loud. Thanks, I needed that today. :lol :lol

[samikeyp]

That literally made laugh out loud. Thanks, I needed that today. :lol :lol

:tu

You are welcome.

[CuckingFunt]

I don't really care if you disagree because it's a fact that gender is part of the equation.

It's a fact that gays are asking for extra rights.

Neither of those statements are fact.

[samikeyp]

Neither of those statements are fact.

I don't know...I am pretty sure that its a fact that Blake doesn't care if you disagree.

:lol

[BacktoBasics]

Neither of those statements are fact.The poll is reaching 70% for those that don't think that gays are asking for extra rights. A poll that he requested. Its like talking to a child.

[I Love Me Some Me]

There you go again. Nice.

You asked a question, I answered it. In a thread full of people calling each other every name in the book, I've answered each of your questions respectfully and thouroughly...yet you've managed to find a way to take offense to that.

If you're bothered by the way I've answered you, then just don't ask me questions anymore because I'm not sure how else to respond.

[samikeyp]

You asked a question, I answered it. In a thread full of people calling each other every name in the book, I've answered each of your questions respectfully and thouroughly...yet you've managed to find a way to take offense to that.

If you're bothered by the way I've answered you, then just don't ask me questions anymore because I'm not sure how else to respond.

For the most part yes but you also managed to throw in shots, minor shots but still unneccessary. Aside from a couple of those its been good debate and still much more civil than a lot of what has been said.

[peewee's lovechild]

No, I meant another adult and you know that.

This is the kind of lunacy that he's been spewing.

[David Bowie]

LEt me put it this way:

You are a straight dude. Marriege is important to you. By law, you are only allowed to mary other dudes. Would you be happy?

True, we all have equal rights. But those rights don't consider the wishes of a large percentage of our population.

[mrsmaalox]

:lol

well, he did go to gay clubs...just for the music. He shaved his chest. He always told me that if he were gay, he would fuck so and so. and he flirted with some gay kid at a checkout counter....just for laughs of course.

In all seriousness, I think he was really straight and confident. As far as I know, he's married to some chick right now. (not me)

http://www.afterelton.com/archive/elton/blog/uploads/2006/11/gaydar.PNG

LOL

[Blake]

Neither of those statements are fact.

the fact that only a man can marry a woman is a fact. That's fact no matter how much you disagree with it.

[Blake]

LEt me put it this way:

You are a straight dude. Marriege is important to you. By law, you are only allowed to mary other dudes. Would you be happy?

True, we all have equal rights. But those rights don't consider the wishes of a large percentage of our population.

another person that doesnt understand the question

[Blake]

The poll is reaching 70% for those that don't think that gays are asking for extra rights. A poll that he requested. Its like talking to a child.

It's a shame only 30% understand both the question and basic concepts. Hell, I've already counted one drunk and two chicks that said as much.

I also never requested the poll that you started. I sarcastically said to take your poll and start a new thread with it.

Your level of fail continues to amaze me. If you're not careful, you might reach Wild Cobra levels of fail.

How much does it suck to know that even though you have 70% picking what you want them to pick, that you are still getting brutally owned?

You, BacktoBasics, are an idiot.

[Summers]

Blake, I can tell you're big on technicalities, but for the sake of my next question, pretend this debate didn't start 12 pages ago. If gays were allowed all the same legal rights straight couples are allowed so that they could "marry" instead of just shack up, which is what they do now, how would it affect you? Would it hurt you? Would it cheapen your marriage (if/when you're married)? If so, how? I'm not trying to be snarky in the least; I honestly don't understand why you think it's bad to let gays marry.

[Blake]

This is the kind of lunacy that he's been spewing.

Just because you are illiterate doesn't mean that I am spewing lunacy.

[peewee's lovechild]

Just because you are illiterate doesn't mean that I am spewing lunacy.

Okay.

[peewee's lovechild]

Blake, I can tell you're big on technicalities, but for the sake of my next question, pretend this debate didn't start 12 pages ago. If gays were allowed all the same legal rights straight couples are allowed so that they could "marry" instead of just shack up, which is what they do now, how would it affect you? Would it hurt you? Would it cheapen your marriage (if/when you're married)? If so, how? I'm not trying to be snarky in the least; I honestly don't understand why you think it's bad to let gays marry.

He's just going to hit you right back with, "they can already marry a woman if they want" bullshit.

He is quite unable to see exactly how much of an idiot he's being.

[Summers]

He's just going to hit you right back with, "they can already marry a woman if they want" bullshit.

He is quite unable to see exactly how much of an idiot he's being.

I should've known it was already addressed in one of the pages I didn't read. :lol

[Blake]

Blake, I can tell you're big on technicalities, but for the sake of my next question, pretend this debate didn't start 12 pages ago. If gays were allowed all the same legal rights straight couples are allowed so that they could "marry" instead of just shack up, which is what they do now, how would it affect you? Would it hurt you? Would it cheapen your marriage (if/when you're married)? If so, how? I'm not trying to be snarky in the least; I honestly don't understand why you think it's bad to let gays marry.

:lol

I'm betting you voted #1 right away without looking didn't you?

For the record again, I have no problem with Americans getting the extra right to marry a person of the same sex.

[peewee's lovechild]

Blake, I can tell you're big on technicalities, but for the sake of my next question, pretend this debate didn't start 12 pages ago. If gays were allowed all the same legal rights straight couples are allowed so that they could "marry" instead of just shack up, which is what they do now, how would it affect you? Would it hurt you? Would it cheapen your marriage (if/when you're married)? If so, how? I'm not trying to be snarky in the least; I honestly don't understand why you think it's bad to let gays marry.


He's just going to hit you right back with, "they can already marry a woman if they want" bullshit.

He is quite unable to see exactly how much of an idiot he's being.


:lol

I'm betting you voted #1 right away without looking didn't you?

For the record again, I have no problem with Americans getting the extra right to marry a person of the same sex.



I was close enough.

"Extra right".

That's the epitome of stupidity.

[Summers]

:lol

I'm betting you voted #1 right away without looking didn't you?

For the record again, I have no problem with Americans getting the extra right to marry a person of the same sex.

You know, I asked my question sincerely and respectfully. I read the options very carefully and you and I happen to disagree on the definition of "equality under the law".

[Blake]

He's just going to hit you right back with, "they can already marry a woman if they want" bullshit.

He is quite unable to see exactly how much of an idiot he's being.

I am quite able to see exactly how much of an idiot you are.

This thread is really ridiculous to start with. The poll is two very minor points of the big issue.

Again, the only reason it got started was because B2B got butthurt when I called him out for claiming Black slavery = homosexuals discrimination.

[Blake]

I was close enough.

"Extra right".

That's the epitome of stupidity.

No....I'd say trying to make arguments while being illiterate is the epitome of stupidity.

[BacktoBasics]

It's a shame only 30% understand both the question and basic concepts. Hell, I've already counted one drunk and two chicks that said as much.

I also never requested the poll that you started. I sarcastically said to take your poll and start a new thread with it.

Your level of fail continues to amaze me. If you're not careful, you might reach Wild Cobra levels of fail.

How much does it suck to know that even though you have 70% picking what you want them to pick, that you are still getting brutally owned?

You, BacktoBasics, are an idiot.I don't feel like you've owned me one bit so it doesn't "feel" like anything. You just blabber on. Thats it. There is very little basis for a real debate with you. You can't own somebody if you are completely void of the ability to debate probably.

What exactly are you "owning" me in? The members don't agree with you over me. Your facts aren't better than mine (what little you offered). You ranted longer than I did. Good for you.

I'm not the only person in this thread that has questioned your ability to make sense. Some have even suggested that you don't even know yourself what you're arguing for.

Whatever makes you feel better.

[Blake]

You know, I asked my question sincerely and respectfully. I read the options very carefully and you and I happen to disagree on the definition of "equality under the law".


I honestly don't understand why you think it's bad to let gays marry.

I say very sincerely and respectfully that I'm sorry you don't get the point.

[BacktoBasics]

I am quite able to see exactly how much of an idiot you are.

This thread is really ridiculous to start with. The poll is two very minor points of the big issue.

Again, the only reason it got started was because B2B got butthurt when I called him out for claiming Black slavery = homosexuals discrimination.I got butthurt?

WTF?

I cleared up my statement in a rational manor within seconds. You're the one who got butthurt and went on a rant for 3-4 pages before realizing that I was in agreement with you.

Make a fucking point and back it up with a reasonable amount of information. At this point 90% of your argument consists calling people stupid and illiterate. At least some of us have attempted to make decent debate out of this.

I know I know I used blue font and big letters....how long ago was that? Have I not attempted to be civil and reasonable since then?

You just do what you do man. You're the kid that can keep his hand out from underneath the mower no matter how many warnings you get.

How many people have to disagree with you before you realized that you're probably wrong?

[Blake]

I don't feel like you've owned me one bit so it doesn't "feel" like anything. You just blabber on. Thats it. There is very little basis for a real debate with you. You can't own somebody if you are completely void of the ability to debate probably.

Well good. Then I guess you can sleep well tonight in your own ignorance.


What exactly are you "owning" me in? The members don't agree with you over me. Your facts aren't better than mine (what little you offered). You ranted longer than I did. Good for you.

Yes, my facts are better than yours (what little you actually read and comprehended).


I'm not the only person in this thread that has questioned your ability to make sense. Some have even suggested that you don't even know yourself what you're arguing for.

Whatever makes you feel better.

I'm not the one asking for other's opinions to help me feel better about myself.

Whatever helps you try to overcome your insecurities.

[Summers]

I say very sincerely and respectfully that I'm sorry you don't get the point.

And to follow up on what B2B said, it's weak to suggest that the 70% of us who disagree with you are simply too stupid to understand the question. I asked you a question and instead of answering it, you're calling me stupid. Lame.

[BacktoBasics]

Yes, my facts are better than yours (what little you actually read and comprehended).



Your two blurbs were awesome. Especially the second one that agrees with the notion of homosexuality being hereditary. Your facts(two) blew my mind.

[BacktoBasics]

And to follow up on what B2B said, it's weak to suggest that the 70% of us who disagree with you are simply too stupid to understand the question. I asked you a question and instead of answering it, you're calling me stupid. Lame.
Its his only response. He has nothing to actually debate or offer up in support of his views(whatever they are).

You see what we've been dealing with all day.

[Blake]

I got butthurt?

WTF?

I cleared up my statement in a rational manor within seconds. You're the one who got butthurt and went on a rant for 3-4 pages before realizing that I was in agreement with you.

really? Is that why you went with the barrage of curse words and the blue 100 sized font?


Make a fucking point and back it up with a reasonable amount of information. At this point 90% of your argument consists calling people stupid and illiterate. At least some of us have attempted to make decent debate out of this.

Well you have avoided most of my posts when I have debunked yours so if you still think you are 'winning' then I can only assume that you are illiterate.


I know I know I used blue font and big letters....how long ago was that? Have I not attempted to be civil and reasonable since then?

This is your idea of civil and reasonable?

No wonder you don't get it.


You just do what you do man. You're the kid that can keep his hand out from underneath the mower no matter how many warnings you get.

It doesn't matter because you can't figure out how to turn on the mower....... no matter how many times I say to simply turn the key to "ON"


How many people have to disagree with you before you realized that you're probably wrong?

You mean like the poster that admitted he was drunk?

Depends on the quality of people........not the quantity. You are not exactly high on my list of being a quality source of scientific information and/or moral codes.

Again, it's no wonder you can't understand simple concepts.

[BacktoBasics]

really? Is that why you went with the barrage of curse words and the blue 100 sized font?

I went on the blue text and large font response because after 3 fucking pages you couldn't figure out that I was agreeing with you.

[Blake]

And to follow up on what B2B said, it's weak to suggest that the 70% of us who disagree with you are simply too stupid to understand the question. I asked you a question and instead of answering it, you're calling me stupid. Lame.

You specifically stated that you think I am "anti-gay". If that's the case, you obviously didn't get the point of the thread.

Now you can keep being lazy and upset about it, or you can go back and read my explanations.........along with where I have said more than once that "I am not anti-gay"

[samikeyp]

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't make you or them wrong.

We have a big problem with that in our country. Some people are so convinced that they are right or that their way is the only way that they look down their noses and simply can't see how anyone can think differently and therefore automatically believe that the other person has to be wrong. They can't see it because they choose not too.

[Blake]

I went on the blue text and large font response because after 3 fucking pages you couldn't figure out that I was agreeing with you.

I know. It was a classic meltdown.

And after 3 pages you still weakly tried to justify why you said black slaves = homosexuals.

[Blake]

Just because someone disagrees with you or them doesn't make you wrong.

It doesn't make them right either.

[samikeyp]

[QUOTE=samikeyp;3213718]Just because someone disagrees with you or them doesn't make you wrong.

It doesn't make them right either.

You are correct, that works both ways.

Just because you Blake, don't share the same opinion as others here on this subject doesn't make you wrong. You just have a different opinion. Nothing wrong with that, just like there is nothing wrong with Summers having a different opinion than you do.

[dimsah]

FUCK!! Blake is stating that homosexuals are requesting an extension to the current law which allows a man to marry a woman to include homosexual marriage. Since it's currently not law that homosexuals can marry, then a change to the existing law would be required hence the "extra" part he's alluding to.


Semantic dispute:

A disagreement that arises if the parties involved disagree about whether a particular claim is true, not because they disagree on material facts, but rather because they disagree on the definitions of a word essential to formulating the claim at issue.



How did this thread get this far along? I don't think anyone is even trying to understand the opposition at this point.

[CuckingFunt]

I say very sincerely and respectfully that I'm sorry you don't get the point.

I think, in all honesty, most of the people in this thread get this point. Even those with whom I don't agree.

The problem I have with that point is that it is impossible to look at a piece of policy, especially policy which I see as actively discriminatory and which has a very real effect on my life, and its semantics as two separate things. Yes, it's true that every adult, male, female, gay, straight, bisexual, whatever, currently has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex (though, I'm not sure where that leaves intersexed individuals, since they don't have a legally defined "opposite"). That is fact. Everyone has acknowledged that is fact. However, the point that I've countered is that this technicality has very specific implications and that, if you take gender out of the equation, if you take semantics out of the equation, it is very clear how different and discriminatory the current laws are.

No one is arguing against the semantics of your argument, we're merely arguing that those semantics aren't good enough. It is a technical equality being used to mask a lived inequality. As much as you may argue that my point, or anyone else's, is completely unrelated to yours, they are very much connected.

Furthermore, there are several people who have accurately countered your argument based on the same technicalities and semantics on which you are so reliant. If gay marriage laws were passed, all adults, male, female, gay, straight, bisexual, whatever, would have the legal ability to marry any other adult. You have yet to acknowledge, let alone refute, this point.

[Summers]

FUCK!! Blake is stating that homosexuals are requesting an extension to the current law which allows a man to marry a woman to include homosexual marriage. Since it's currently not law that homosexuals can marry, then a change to the existing law would be required hence the "extra" part he's alluding to.


Semantic dispute:

A disagreement that arises if the parties involved disagree about whether a particular claim is true, not because they disagree on material facts, but rather because they disagree on the definitions of a word essential to formulating the claim at issue.



How did this thread get this far along? I don't think anyone is even trying to understand the opposition at this point.


We disagree on what the semantic argument is about. Blake thinks we don't understand the difference between "equality" and "extension of law". Some of us are arguing that gays already do have the right to marry (because they're consenting adults, etc) and they're being discriminated against.

[mogrovejo]

There's no such thing as gay rights. All rights are individual, communitarian rights are not legitimate.

The law can't give rights. Individual rights are not contingent upon laws, neither derived from them.

This makes the dichotomy presented in the poll quite absurd and nonsensical.

My problem with the "gay rights movement" is that they generally understand their own right to marriage from the perspective of a social contract. I feel that for many of them the legal right to marriage is important as an instrument to promote the acceptance (do not confuse with tolerance) of homosexuality by the society. I don't like that. I think people must tolerate homosexuality but they shouldn't be forced to like or accept it. There's nothing wrong about being homophobic - it's a right people have as well and they shouldn't be harassed or insulted for it. No individual should be forced to like gays, talk to gays or allow gays to enter in his own home/store/property/etc.

In fact, I've found that many "gay marriage proponents" would rather have "gay marriage" legalized than just have the government out of marriage business. Someone who believes that marriage is a contract funded on individual rights can't defend simultaneously that the society should have the power to legislate about it. However, I bet many who are in favour of legalizing the marriage between people of the same sex are against the marriage between siblings (or any other kind of incestuous marriage) and polygamy - using the same order of arguments, based on the importance of the common good and eventual externalities.

Anyway, I'm opposed to anyone's legal right to marriage. Marriage shouldn't be a political or legal issue, rather a private one.

[RandomGuy]

Your two blurbs were awesome. Especially the second one that agrees with the notion of homosexuality being hereditary. Your facts(two) blew my mind.

There are times that I wish my 5 year old was not quite so literate.

I logged on absentmindedly, and started reading. My sweet son wanders up to ask for something, glances over at your avatar and correctly, perfectly read the words on the candy heart out loud.

This of course led to another "remember you will get in trouble if you use those words at school" lecture. Mrs. Random Guy and I both feel it best not to make too big of a deal about those words, so as not to make them stick in his mind much.

Quoth Mrs. Random Guy "It sounds so sweet coming from him..." Must. stifle. laughter.

He knows they are rude words, so we discourage them, but we don't make a big deal about it.

[RandomGuy]

Anyway, I'm opposed to anyone's legal right to marriage. Marriage shouldn't be a ... legal issue, rather a private one.

That works until the first messy "private" divorce somehow has to figure out how to "privately" divide a $200,000 asset.

The laws must somewhat reflect the reality of human existence.

If one does not have a legal framework under which to resolve differences, the alternative is barbarism.

[mogrovejo]

That works until the first messy "private" divorce somehow has to figure out how to "privately" divide a $200,000 asset.

The laws must somewhat reflect the reality of human existence.

If one does not have a legal framework under which to resolve differences, the alternative is barbarism.

People make contracts every day - many of them way more complex than a marriage - without having the government as a party.

Courts rule on patrimonial disputes every freaking day. Anyway, I suspect that if marriage wasn't a government institution, most of those cases would be solved by arbitration.

The "barbarism" part is a strawman. I didn't defend a political anomy. People were marrying way before the existence of the modern state.

[2Blonde]

I am way to tired to read this whole thread so... to those who said something funny & clever :lmao the other 98% :rolleyes

[Jekka]

I really just don't understand why we don't let people who love each other marry each other. I have this argument with Minister Mom all the time, and it always goes the same way:

Rev. Mom: But, Jessica, it's just wrong.
Me: But no one is asking YOU to perform the marriages - you don't have to perform the marriage if you don't want to.
Rev. Mom: But, Jessica, it's just wrong.

What I have learned from these repeated encounters is that you are not going to change anyone's mind. So, to those who think that same sex marriage is wrong: I know I can't change your mind, because I think it's closed. To those who are getting all kinds of crazy OCD about the poll: I don't think this thread was created to incite arguments over semantics, and I think it's sad that some people will argue over things that are so unbelievably petty just because they need to be "right". And granted, it is difficult for me to be objective about this issue, because I do know people that have suffered because of their gender or their gender preference, but I think the bigger issue is equality, and not this "extra rights" bullshit. I don't think there is such thing as an "extra right", because that would be "privilege". A right is a right is a right.

[MiamiHeat]

Anal sex is a significant health risk. It causes major medical damage to the area. Doctors ask homosexuals to avoid routine anal sex to prevent damage.

The membranes in that area are very delicate.....human physiology is very clear about this. That area was NOT evolved/created/whatever for routine anal sex life.

It can lead to any number of medical problems :

- ruptures in the rectum,
- internal bleeding,
- tearing tissue,
- internal infection
- and even penile infection,
- anal cancer.....
- hemorrhoids
- anorectal trauma
- anal fissures

and the easiest way to catch an STD because the conditions to catch any STD are ideally suited for transmission.

[MiamiHeat]

Is There a "Gay Gene"?

Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is from the moment of conception.

The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?

No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.


How The Public Was Misled

In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.

Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."

Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."

In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics.


Gene Linkage Studies

Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:

a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and

b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.

To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.

In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.


Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research

But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}


Homosexual Twin Studies

Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."

But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}

The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:

... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3}


More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community

Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.

"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}

But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:

...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}

Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:

It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.

Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.


Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites"

There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.

Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so littleand will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improveso long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.


Understanding the Theory

There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows:

1. Heritable does not mean inherited.

2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.

Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment.


How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way

Suppose you are motivated to demonstratefor political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.

The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.

So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.

Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality.

Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.)

Soon after, the article appears. It says:

"...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and wellperformed..."

But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting.


What All Neuroscientists Know:
The Brain Changes with Use

Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players.

Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."

A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different."

You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing.

Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings.


Gene Linkage Studies:
"Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By"

Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of nonplayers. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome.

You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous.

After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly.


With a Little Help from the Media

Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..."

Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?"

Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traitsmuscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able to, and will want to, play basketball.

In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male homosexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor.

What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.

From the American Psychological Association
"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay
"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:
"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg
"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}

As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is.

Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

Endnotes

{1} Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994).

{2} Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July, 1993. p. 60.

{3} Mann, C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689.

{4} "New Evidence of a 'Gay Gene'," by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, vol. 146, Issue 20, p. 95.

{5} Hamer, D. H., et al. Response to Risch, N., et al., "Male Sexual Orientation and Genetic Evidence," Science 262 (1993), pp. 2063-65.

{6} The American Psychological Association's pamphlet, "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."

{7} LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.

{8} "Scientists Challenge Notion that Homosexuality's a Matter of Choice," The Charlotte Observer, August 9, 1998.

{9} Goldberg, Steven (1994). When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

[ComfortablyNumb]

And if you can't be with the one you love
Love the one you're with

[ploto]

Marriage is not a right in the first place. There are already limitations on who and under what circumstances people may get married. People of certain ages are not allowed to get married, and those limits are decided on a state-by-state basis. You have to apply for a license- you have to wait a certain number of days after a divorce (30 days)- you even used to have a blood test in Texas to do it. IIRC, there are even states that limit the total number of times you may get married in your lifetime in that state. So, we all know that everyone does not have the right to marry whomever they want already. Each group just wants its own determination of who should have the privilege and who should not. I know no one who thinks there should be no limitations (age, number of spouses, cousins...) so it can't be considered a right.

[Summers]

Marriage is not a right in the first place. There are already limitations on who and under what circumstances people may get married. People of certain ages are not allowed to get married, and those limits are decided on a state-by-state basis. You have to apply for a license- you have to wait a certain number of days after a divorce (30 days)- you even used to have a blood test in Texas to do it. IIRC, there are even states that limit the total number of times you may get married in your lifetime in that state. So, we all know that everyone does not have the right to marry whomever they want already. Each group just wants its own determination of who should have the privilege and who should not. I know no one who thinks there should be no limitations (age, number of spouses, cousins...) so it can't be considered a right.

Right, but assuming two men aren't 12 years old, unknowingly have gonorrhea, are still married to other men, or related, what would be the argument for not allowing them to marry?

[BacktoBasics]

There are times that I wish my 5 year old was not quite so literate.

I logged on absentmindedly, and started reading. My sweet son wanders up to ask for something, glances over at your avatar and correctly, perfectly read the words on the candy heart out loud.

This of course led to another "remember you will get in trouble if you use those words at school" lecture. Mrs. Random Guy and I both feel it best not to make too big of a deal about those words, so as not to make them stick in his mind much.

Quoth Mrs. Random Guy "It sounds so sweet coming from him..." Must. stifle. laughter.

He knows they are rude words, so we discourage them, but we don't make a big deal about it.Sorry about that.

Ultimately I could care less about whether its a gene or not. People should be treated fairly and with respect. bigotry, for most any reason, shouldn't be tolerated.

[MiamiHeat]

Right, but assuming two men aren't 12 years old, unknowingly have gonorrhea, are still married to other men, or related, what would be the argument for not allowing them to marry?

Homosexual behavior among men is

a significant health risk,
a corruption of human traditional family,
creates effeminate men,
can lead to cross dressing,
etc

[MiamiHeat]

Sorry about that.

Ultimately I could care less about whether its a gene or not. People should be treated fairly and with respect. bigotry, for most any reason, shouldn't be tolerated.

I don't see people in here advocating 'bigotry' or 'treating people unfairly without respect'

We just don't want homo's to be 'normalized' with a legitimate 8,000+ year old tradition between man and woman.

I'm up for legal unions of some sort, create a new name for it so when a homosexual says "I'm (create word)"...... it's a sort of marriage, but for gays.

Get down to the facts, many people just do not feel that homosexuality is OK.

[samikeyp]

Homosexual behavior among men is

a significant health risk,
a corruption of human traditional family,
creates effeminate men,
can lead to cross dressing,
etc

How is it a corruption of a human traditional family?

I have a human traditional family and know gays who are married and my family is doing just fine.

Corruption of a "traditional human family" is that family's fault, not those outside said family.

[samikeyp]

Get down to the facts, many people just do not feel that homosexuality is OK.

and there is nothing wrong with people feeling that way. On the same token, there is also nothing wrong with people feeling that it is ok.

[MiamiHeat]

How is it a corruption of a human traditional family?

I have a human traditional family and know gays who are married and my family is doing just fine.

Corruption of a "traditional human family" is that family's fault, not those outside said family.
I meant in traditional human family as in traditional human marriage.

[MiamiHeat]

and there is nothing wrong with people feeling that way. On the same token, there is also nothing wrong with people feeling that it is ok.

Exactly, except this isn't about if we should allow homosexuals to be homosexuals. They can do that already.

What this is about is homosexuals entering 'marriage'

[samikeyp]

I meant in traditional human family as in traditional human marriage.

Fair enough so I will rephrase.

I have a traditional human marriage. How is two gay people getting married going to affect that?

[mrsmaalox]

Homosexual behavior among men is

a significant health risk, okay
a corruption of human traditional family, um, how?
creates effeminate men, :huh??
can lead to cross dressing, most cross dressers aren't gay
etc

[Dr. Gonzo]

Homosexual behavior among men is

a significant health risk,
a corruption of human traditional family,
creates effeminate men,
can lead to cross dressing,
etc

You are stupid.

[marini martini]

He he he is!!!

[MiamiHeat]

i know u are but what am i ! He he he he!!

*rolls eyes*

[Dr. Gonzo]

Did you really roll your eyes as you posted that?

[MiamiHeat]

why, yes, yes i did.

it went like this, first i typed *rolls eyes and then I rolled my real eyes at the precise moment I pressed the * key to complete the facial expression

[Kamala]

Homosexual behavior among men is

a significant health risk,
a corruption of human traditional family,
creates effeminate men,
can lead to cross dressing,
etc
You forgot to add awesome!:toast

[Summers]

Homosexual behavior among men is

a significant health risk,
a corruption of human traditional family,
creates effeminate men,
can lead to cross dressing,
etc

You sure do have some back-woods ideas for someone so vehemently anti-religion. Do you just hate everyone?

[Summers]

You forgot to add awesome!:toast

I think you mean fabulous!

:)

[Blake]

You are correct, that works both ways.

Just because you Blake, don't share the same opinion as others here on this subject doesn't make you wrong. You just have a different opinion. Nothing wrong with that, just like there is nothing wrong with Summers having a different opinion than you do.

Summers asked me why I opposed gay marriage.

That has nothing to do with this point of this thread.

[Blake]

FUCK!! Blake is stating that homosexuals are requesting an extension to the current law which allows a man to marry a woman to include homosexual marriage. Since it's currently not law that homosexuals can marry, then a change to the existing law would be required hence the "extra" part he's alluding to.


Semantic dispute:

A disagreement that arises if the parties involved disagree about whether a particular claim is true, not because they disagree on material facts, but rather because they disagree on the definitions of a word essential to formulating the claim at issue.



How did this thread get this far along? I don't think anyone is even trying to understand the opposition at this point.


ding ding. someone else gets it.

It got this far because B2B and I like to "debate"

Yeah, it's pretty close to being a semantic dispute, and again it's really a very minor argument in the bigger picture of legalizing same sex marriage.

[Blake]

I think, in all honesty, most of the people in this thread get this point. Even those with whom I don't agree.

I still don't but, meh, I'm thinking it doesn't matter much any more.


The problem I have with that point is that it is impossible to look at a piece of policy, especially policy which I see as actively discriminatory and which has a very real effect on my life, and its semantics as two separate things. Yes, it's true that every adult, male, female, gay, straight, bisexual, whatever, currently has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex (though, I'm not sure where that leaves intersexed individuals, since they don't have a legally defined "opposite"). That is fact. Everyone has acknowledged that is fact.

Yup that is fact.


As for intersexed individuals, Americans cannot get married on their own until they are at least 18 for the most part.

By then, that person most likely has had the time and the proper counseling/support/advice/soul searching/etc to figure out which gender he/she wants to be. By that point, they will have a legal opposite.


However, the point that I've countered is that this technicality has very specific implications and that, if you take gender out of the equation, if you take semantics out of the equation, it is very clear how different and discriminatory the current laws are.

If science can provide definitive proof of a gay gene, you can then take gender out.

Until then, no.....there is no clear discrimination.


No one is arguing against the semantics of your argument, we're merely arguing that those semantics aren't good enough. It is a technical equality being used to mask a lived inequality. As much as you may argue that my point, or anyone else's, is completely unrelated to yours, they are very much connected.

Ive already been asked why am I against gay marriage. I don't think that was an argument against my semantics.


Furthermore, there are several people who have accurately countered your argument based on the same technicalities and semantics on which you are so reliant. If gay marriage laws were passed, all adults, male, female, gay, straight, bisexual, whatever, would have the legal ability to marry any other adult. You have yet to acknowledge, let alone refute, this point.

I've already acknowledged it and no, I'm not refuting it because I agree..........we would all have the same extra rights if gay marriage laws were passed.

Hooray.

[Blake]

2006-MAY-08: A Gallup Organization poll: They conducted a poll among 1,002 American adults from 2006-MAY-08 to 11. The margin of error is about 3 percentage points. Results were:

On extending marriage to include same-sex couples: 58% are opposed.
39% are in favor
3% are undecided or did not respond.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_marp.htm


polls are always great ideas for exposing truths in the world.

[MiamiHeat]

i think the minority who is for gay marriage are just jumping on the politically correct bandwagon. there is no gay gene. there is absolutely no indication of homosexual predisposition. it's a choice.

same as if Blake, instead of chasing blonde skirts with amazing tits, he decides he is curiously lusting for a penis to suck on. it's a choice.

it's a perversion, in my opinion.

Why, tell me why can't they find a woman attractive? A woman also has an anus, but then she also has a VAGINA, specially designed feel good orifice for the penis. SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED!!!

Why can't they find an emotional connection with a woman? It's not like men and women are so different that they are aliens to each other. You can find an emotional connection to a woman if you wanted to.

WHat it comes down to, is sexual perversion. Fetish of the disgusting kind, and they can do it behind closed doors all they want. They have a right to.

But what they are asking is for society to 'normalize' them, to 'accept them' through marriage. They can be gay and live together and have a legal union and enjoy tax benefits and all that good stuff,

but don't ask society to accept your perversion as if it's 'normal' and have my kids think it's 'normal'

Not gonna happen anytime soon.

[peewee's lovechild]

We just don't want homo's to be 'normalized' with a legitimate 8,000+ year old tradition between man and woman.


Slavery was a tradition for thousands upon thousands of years.

Even the bible speaks of slavery. The Old Testament speaks of how the Israelites should treat their slaves. Fuck, the Israelites where themselves slaves in the Egyptian Empire.

So, using your rationale . . . we all have the right to wrangle up some people we feel are beneath us and force them to be our slaves.

After all, we wouldn't want to change a mulit thousand year old tradition, now would we?

[CuckingFunt]

i think the minority who is for gay marriage are just jumping on the politically correct bandwagon. there is no gay gene. there is absolutely no indication of homosexual predisposition. it's a choice.

same as if Blake, instead of chasing blonde skirts with amazing tits, he decides he is curiously lusting for a penis to suck on. it's a choice.

it's a perversion, in my opinion.

Why, tell me why can't they find a woman attractive? A woman also has an anus, but then she also has a VAGINA, specially designed feel good orifice for the penis. SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED!!!

Why can't they find an emotional connection with a woman? It's not like men and women are so different that they are aliens to each other. You can find an emotional connection to a woman if you wanted to.

WHat it comes down to, is sexual perversion. Fetish of the disgusting kind, and they can do it behind closed doors all they want. They have a right to.

But what they are asking is for society to 'normalize' them, to 'accept them' through marriage. They can be gay and live together and have a legal union and enjoy tax benefits and all that good stuff,

but don't ask society to accept your perversion as if it's 'normal' and have my kids think it's 'normal'

Not gonna happen anytime soon.

The fact that all of your posts objecting to a gay lifestyle refer only to men says a lot about the possible source of your homophobia.

[MiamiHeat]

Slavery was a tradition for thousands upon thousands of years.

Even the bible speaks of slavery. The Old Testament speaks of how the Israelites should treat their slaves. Fuck, the Israelites where themselves slaves in the Egyptian Empire.

So, using your rationale . . . we all have the right to wrangle up some people we feel are beneath us and force them to be our slaves.

After all, we wouldn't want to change a mulit thousand year old tradition, now would we?

You used a logical fallacy

There have been many laws and decrees throughout history to racially discriminate and persecute Jews, blacks, etc..

So, using your rationale. . . we all have the right to ignore all laws and live in anarchy.

[Ignignokt]

The fact that all of your posts objecting to a gay lifestyle refer only to men says a lot about the possible source of your homophobia.

homophobia, no such thing exist.

[MiamiHeat]

The fact that all of your posts objecting to a gay lifestyle refer only to men says a lot about the possible source of your homophobia.

are you trying that 10 cent psychology thing? lol

by the way, homophobia means I am scared of it, which I am not.

I am disgusted by it, I have contempt for it. it's pathetic in my eyes. it's not fear.


every time someone is against homosexuality, someone chimes in with the 'you are a homophobe. you are probably running from your own feelings of homosexuality!!'

don't be a simpleton. don't regurgitate cliche phrases you heard somewhere else without thinking what it means.

[Kermit]

every time someone is against homosexuality, someone chimes in with the 'you are a homophobe. you are probably running from your own feelings of homosexuality!!'



Why do you buy so many cucumbers at the grocery store?

[MiamiHeat]

because you touch yourself at night

[Kermit]

So, you're gay. I knew it!

[MiamiHeat]

only in your dreams

[Ignignokt]

Why do you buy so many cucumbers at the grocery store?

Why avoid them? they're for digestion, anyone else suggesting otherwise is kermit in this thread.

[sabar]

I'm just skipping to the end here.

But for all the "blah blah blah un-natural act blah blah" people...

Have you ever read children's accounts on why they are gay? They are always the same, read any psychology study. They all go like this:


Straight kid

"I've always known I was straight... when I was watching a movie and a woman took her shirt off... I felt good. I wanted to see it, I got aroused. That was the first time it happened, when I was 12. I found my dad's magazines and looked at the pictures..."


Gay kid

"I always felt different, I felt that I didn't like girls, but I was scared to tell anyone. I was confused because society and people, they told me those gay feelings were wrong. But one day I found a clothing magazine... the stuff you get with the newspaper and there was a man without his shirt, just in underpants. My hands got sweaty and I was enjoying looking at it. I knew I was gay from then on."

These are ALWAYS the same. The kids are obviously born gay or straight for whatever reason. You know the feeling, the first time you were aroused by the sex that you prefer. It happened on its own, you didn't "choose".