PDA

View Full Version : Who thinks same sex marriage okay?


Pages : [1] 2

marsaray
02-26-2005, 09:19 PM
Poll.

Thig Lyfe
02-26-2005, 09:22 PM
Who thinks same sex marriage okay?

Mooshoo pork only tree dolla?

Over-Head
02-26-2005, 09:23 PM
Hell NO! :cuss:

In the beginning it was Adam and Eve, NOT Henry and Steve :shake:

marsaray
02-26-2005, 09:29 PM
Mooshoo pork only tree dolla?
You no make fun!!!
Also I suggest the fried rice.

Braincase
02-26-2005, 09:32 PM
The only marriage that affects me is mine.

FloridaChief
02-26-2005, 09:48 PM
Nice avatar...

ChiefFripp
02-26-2005, 10:39 PM
As long as they don't get any on me ,go for it. I don't know if gay couples should be able to raise children though. I mean we have all accidently heard our parents hump, that may be a little too tramatic for little Stevey who is being raised by two gay wrestlers.

"Oh Dave, put me in that sleeper hold while you....wait a sec you put Stevey to bed early right?"

Psyko Tek
02-26-2005, 10:55 PM
I believe that there should be a constitutional ban against
ALL Marriage


it really phvcks up my pursuit of happiness somedays

Rausch
02-26-2005, 11:50 PM
Hell NO! :cuss:

In the beginning it was Adam and Eve, NOT Henry and Steve :shake:

In the beginning women didn't shave and no one wore deoderant.

That don't make it a good idea...

SNR
02-27-2005, 12:14 AM
I believe that there should be a constitutional ban against
ALL Marriage


it really phvcks up my pursuit of happiness somedays
ROFL rep

|Zach|
02-27-2005, 12:28 AM
Interesting, I didn't think this poll would be so close on this board.

jAZ
02-27-2005, 08:25 AM
The gov't should get the hell out of the "Marriage" business all together. They should issue only "civil unions" for both staight and gay couples.

Marriages should be left as a religious institution and the rules for marriage should be decided by whatever church you choose to be part of.

Ultra Peanut
02-27-2005, 08:50 AM
The gov't should get the hell out of the "Marriage" business all together. They should issue only "civil unions" for both staight and gay couples.

Marriages should be left as a religious institution and the rules for marriage should be decided by whatever church you choose to be part of.That's easily the best solution, but it makes things tougher for those who wish to meddle in the lives of others.

whoman69
02-27-2005, 11:23 AM
If this would match national averages, then it would be about 35 % with the same number believe that even civil unions are not allowed. Frankly I don't believe in gay marriage, but to deny them even the basic rights that married couples have and they cannot is reprehensible. There need to be civil unions with equal protection under law.

el borracho
02-27-2005, 12:40 PM
The gov't should get the hell out of the "Marriage" business all together. They should issue only "civil unions" for both staight and gay couples.

Marriages should be left as a religious institution and the rules for marriage should be decided by whatever church you choose to be part of.
Exactly.

Anyone have a logical argument against this solution?

patteeu
02-27-2005, 12:45 PM
Exactly.

Anyone have a logical argument against this solution?

Not me.

jAZ
02-27-2005, 01:56 PM
Exactly.

Anyone have a logical argument against this solution?
I do...

It would take away a wedge issue for the Republicans, so you won't see them budge an inch from their new-found "moralist" position. And either party ever tried to do this, the other would cry "they are trying to destroy 'marriage' for EVERYONE, those heathens", and try to gain some political ground at the expense of a very reasonable solution.

A solution like this will have to happen in spite of politics, because it could never happen through politics.

Mr. Laz
02-27-2005, 02:27 PM
The only marriage that affects me is mine.
yep...

put me in the "don't really care" catagory



i do care when some people wanna use laws to enforce their religious beliefs on others though.

Boozer
02-27-2005, 02:37 PM
I do...

It would take away a wedge issue for the Republicans, so you won't see them budge an inch from their new-found "moralist" position. And either party ever tried to do this, the other would cry "they are trying to destroy 'marriage' for EVERYONE, those heathens", and try to gain some political ground at the expense of a very reasonable solution.

A solution like this will have to happen in spite of politics, because it could never happen through politics.

You're in Arizona . . . ballot initiative?

el borracho
02-27-2005, 02:40 PM
A solution like this will have to happen in spite of politics, because it could never happen through politics.
How would that be accomplished? Are you suggesting that hetero couples stop getting married and start getting civil unions instead?

Duck Dog
02-27-2005, 02:42 PM
You had a good idea and should have of stopped while you were ahead.

You say something that makes total sense in one reply, then show your azz and ignorance in the very next one.

Originally Posted by jAZ
The gov't should get the hell out of the "Marriage" business all together. They should issue only "civil unions" for both staight and gay couples.

Marriages should be left as a religious institution and the rules for marriage should be decided by whatever church you choose to be part of.


I do...

It would take away a wedge issue for the Republicans, so you won't see them budge an inch from their new-found "moralist" position. And either party ever tried to do this, the other would cry "they are trying to destroy 'marriage' for EVERYONE, those heathens", and try to gain some political ground at the expense of a very reasonable solution.

A solution like this will have to happen in spite of politics, because it could never happen through politics.

Rausch
02-27-2005, 07:51 PM
Interesting, I didn't think this poll would be so close on this board.

"First they came to take away all the homos, and I didn't say anything. Then they came and took away all the lesbos, and I didn't say a word. Then they came for my lipstick-lesbian pr0n, and I had to shoot a mother****er..."

Me

jAZ
02-27-2005, 08:18 PM
How would that be accomplished? Are you suggesting that hetero couples stop getting married and start getting civil unions instead?
Not exactly... I'm saying Gov't stops regulating "Marriage" and only regulates civil unions.

That would mean the gov't plays no roll in defining Marriage... they leave it up to religion to do so.

It would mean that heteros and gays would stop getting "Married", and would get "Civil Unions" instead (as far as the Gov't was concerned).

However, both hetero couples and gay couples could both go to churches and allow the Church decide whether to ordain the Gov't Civil Union as a Church "Marriage".

el borracho
02-27-2005, 09:01 PM
Not exactly... I'm saying Gov't stops regulating "Marriage" and only regulates civil unions.

That would mean the gov't plays no roll in defining Marriage... they leave it up to religion to do so.
OK, but my question is how would we reach that point "in spite of politics" instead of "through politics?" I don't know of any large-scale governmental policy changes (such as we are discussing) which have occurred without some kind of political initiative.

go bowe
02-27-2005, 11:07 PM
In the beginning women didn't shave and no one wore deoderant.

That don't make it a good idea...hmmmmmm...

you might just have a point there... :hmmm: :hmmm: :hmmm:





nahhhhh!!! ROFL ROFL ROFL

go bowe
02-27-2005, 11:10 PM
"First they came to take away all the homos, and I didn't say anything. Then they came and took away all the lesbos, and I didn't say a word. Then they came for my lipstick-lesbian pr0n, and I had to shoot a mother****er..."

MeROFL ROFL ROFL

:hail: :hail: :hail:

patteeu
02-28-2005, 06:56 AM
You had a good idea and should have of stopped while you were ahead.

You say something that makes total sense in one reply, then show your azz and ignorance in the very next one.

Yep. I must just be a habit.

Frankie
02-28-2005, 01:10 PM
I myself was in a "Same Sex" marriage...
SAME DAMN SEX FOR TEN YEARS!!!! :banghead: :banghead:

BIG_DADDY
02-28-2005, 01:54 PM
I myself was in a "Same Sex" marriage...
SAME DAMN SEX FOR TEN YEARS!!!! :banghead: :banghead:

This just in Flunkie, your hand doesn't count.

BIG_DADDY
02-28-2005, 01:55 PM
"First they came to take away all the homos, and I didn't say anything. Then they came and took away all the lesbos, and I didn't say a word. Then they came for my lipstick-lesbian pr0n, and I had to shoot a mother****er..."

Me

Rep

picasso
02-28-2005, 02:48 PM
Hell NO! :cuss:

In the beginning it was Adam and Eve, NOT Henry and Steve :shake:

If you believe that then it means we are all related to YOU.
Hell NO! :cuss:

Also, it's Neil and Bob NOT Henry and Steve. :shake:

redsurfer11
02-28-2005, 08:07 PM
Why should I care. If gay people want to marry each other. It doesn't bother me at all. I just don't want myself or my family seeing them slopping their faces in public. Keep it in their own bedroom. All people strive to find normalcy in their lives, if this makes them feel normal, let them do it. One day we all wake up and its the present day, the 21st century. The days of witch burning and the inquisition are over. It wouldn't hurt anyone to accept this

|Zach|
02-28-2005, 08:11 PM
Why should I care. If gay people want to marry each other. It doesn't bother me at all. I just don't want myself or my family seeing them slopping their faces in public. Keep it in their own bedroom. All people strive to find normalcy in their lives, if this makes them feel normal, let them do it. One day we all wake up and its the present day, the 21st century. The days of witch burning and the inquisition are over. It wouldn't hurt anyone to accept this
Wait, so they shouldn't be in public together? So you could kiss your spouse in public but they can't theirs?

redsurfer11
02-28-2005, 08:26 PM
Wait, so they shouldn't be in public together? So you could kiss your spouse in public but they can't theirs?

I have no problem with them being in public, just don't flaunt that shyt in front of my family. If they do in public, it could create prejudism against them. They would create their own down fall. People don't care what goes on behind closed doors, the deffinitly don't want to see that in public. JMO.

wutamess
02-28-2005, 09:54 PM
I usually just lurk in this DC section because I like reading comments and peoples thoughts on different political topics.

However, me not being very political, I couldn't keep from voicing my opinion to support why I DON'T support gay marriages.

I'm also not very reiligous so religion has no enfluence on my opinion.

It pains me to see that so many people are so liberal when it comes to a topic such as this. How can anyone raising kid(s) feel that gay marriages are ok? If gay marriages are to become the norm what's to say that it won't encourage your kids to "try new things"?

Now before you say that "I should teach my kids the difference", I'd rather have my kids learn on their own if they're gay or whatnot and not put the idea, notion, or examples out in plain sight. For now, my 8 year old occasionally see's sexual content on T.V. because (let's be honest) sex is everywhere.

I have no problem with gay people and could care-less what the hell they do behind closed doors. But in my opinion, it doesn't make it right just because 2 people of the same sex are "in love" that they should be able to express it by getting hitched.

If you believe that kids shouldn't be raised by gay couples then how can you be for gay marriage?:hmmm: Married people have kids whether it be by adoption, artificial insimination, or by other means.

If you believe in gay marriages here's a hypothetical question for you. Let's say your wife or husband tells you he/she's gay and wants a divorce and your kids are in the pre-teen age (3-12). Would you want your kids growing up around your ex and his/her live-in significant other?

I balk at the thought of one day, instead of having the "sex" talk to my kids, I have to explain the same-sex marriage or same-sex relationship talk in the same conversation. I understand that history repeats itself but this is one cycle that I'm rather glad the government has stepped in to hold some "morally correct" prestige to the land. Just because a lot of our fore fathers and historical heroes used to live in times when it was widely accepted or were gay themselves, this is not something that I'm ready to accept with open arms as if it doesn't effect me or my family.

Everything already has to be too politically correct and in doing so, we as a nation has already lost shitloads of morality in the process. We shouldn't have to sacrifice anymore of our values just to satisfy a few (morally wrong) participants. If that's the case, it offends me in the same way In God We Trust, One Nation Under God, or Christmas offends others.

What they do behind closed doors is their business. But I don't think the government should allow it because if they do, it'll send a signal that it's accepted as normal behavior and it isn't and it shouldn't be.

I have no problem with gay people. I do however have a problem with gay people getting married or trying to influence others like some religious people try to push their religion on you.

Mr. Kotter
02-28-2005, 10:15 PM
It would be intesting to see names attached to these poll results...how many recently registered, or "rookies"? :hmmm:

Iowanian
02-28-2005, 10:23 PM
I could give a crap less what 2 adults do in their own home.

My problem with it lies in the extra expenses and benefit costs for companies for health insurance, benefits etc. I think it opens alot of doors for Fraud for Health care for example.

Whats to keep 2 longtime roomates(lets say the Odd Couple, or Balky and Whatshisname), to just say they take it in the can for Benefits? What about a man-woman who have lived together for a decade, but won't marry for whatever reason.........can they have benefits too? What about those Poor Polygamist families who can't marry? Who is to say that poor Mormon can't take 10 wives?

I also have some protective ideals and Morals for Traditional Marraige. I wish it were more difficult for STRAIGHT People to marry, so there wouldn't be so many divorces..........Of course, implementing my plan to cut off the Ring finger at the knuckle for each party would limit them, or some people would be picking thier noses with elbows.

Logical
02-28-2005, 10:40 PM
I could give a crap less what 2 adults do in their own home.

My problem with it lies in the extra expenses and benefit costs for companies for health insurance, benefits etc. I think it opens alot of doors for Fraud for Health care for example.

Whats to keep 2 longtime roomates(lets say the Odd Couple, or Balky and Whatshisname), to just say they take it in the can for Benefits? What about a man-woman who have lived together for a decade, but won't marry for whatever reason.........can they have benefits too? What about those Poor Polygamist families who can't marry? Who is to say that poor Mormon can't take 10 wives?

I also have some protective ideals and Morals for Traditional Marraige. I wish it were more difficult for STRAIGHT People to marry, so there wouldn't be so many divorces..........Of course, implementing my plan to cut off the Ring finger at the knuckle for each party would limit them, or some people would be picking thier noses with elbows.

At most companies if they claim to be a couple they already get the benefits. Marriage would actually cut down on the potential for fraud, as then they would have to have proof of marriage if asked.

Ultra Peanut
02-28-2005, 10:44 PM
If you believe in gay marriages here's a hypothetical question for you. Let's say your wife or husband tells you he/she's gay and wants a divorce and your kids are in the pre-teen age (3-12). Would you want your kids growing up around your ex and his/her live-in significant other?So do you want laws banning two people of the same sex from living together in the same house/apartment, too?

Mr. Kotter
02-28-2005, 11:01 PM
At most companies if they claim to be a couple they already get the benefits. ....

That must be a CA/West Coast deal; it isn't the case here in the red states....and likely won't be anytime soon, UNLESS the Feds coerce it--which is one of the reasons there is such opposition here in IA and SD.

|Zach|
02-28-2005, 11:11 PM
I have no problem with them being in public, just don't flaunt that shyt in front of my family. If they do in public, it could create prejudism against them. They would create their own down fall. People don't care what goes on behind closed doors, the deffinitly don't want to see that in public. JMO.
I don't have a problem with this if you also have a problem with heterosexuals flaunting their sexuality in public which happens quite often.

Just trying to keep it fair both ways...

Ultra Peanut
02-28-2005, 11:13 PM
That must be a CA/West Coast deal; it isn't the case here in the red states....and likely won't be anytime soon, UNLESS the Feds coerce it--which is one of the reasons there is such opposition here in IA and SD.Someone ban this ****ing retard for using the term "red states."

Mr. Kotter
02-28-2005, 11:16 PM
Someone ban this ****ing retard for using the term "red states."

Should I substitute "real America" :D

DenverChief
02-28-2005, 11:18 PM
If gay marriages are to become the norm what's to say that it won't encourage your kids to "try new things"?




This is a MAJOR misnomer...most gays/lesbians have sex with persons of the same sex at around the age of everyone else (15-16) with other kids the same age....older gays are not out "recruiting" younger men/women to join their ranks...that is just absurd

Mr. Kotter
02-28-2005, 11:21 PM
This is a MAJOR misnomer...most gays/lesbians have sex with persons of the same sex at around the age of everyone else (15-16) with other kids the same age....older gays are not out "recruiting" younger men/women to join their ranks...that is just absurd

There's a significant amount of research that disputes your contention--and, of course, you'd dispute their credibility.

That is NOT a statement you can make authoritatively, because there is NO scientific or research consensus. Not even close, Jason.

Nice try, though. :thumb:

(And, no...I'm not gonna fight this battle again. You have your "experts," I have mine.)

el borracho
02-28-2005, 11:25 PM
wutamess,

1) How can you say that you have no problem with gay people yet also say that you find homosexuality morally offensive and wrong?

2) I have known more than a few people who grew up in gay households. It is not a certainty that kids who have same sex parents will be mentally or emotionally messed up. Some are, some are not.

3) "Not very religious" is not the same as not influenced by religion.

el borracho
02-28-2005, 11:30 PM
For those who fear that condoning gay marriage and allowing gay couples to raise kids (as if they already aren't) will cause the kids to turn gay, How do you explain families where one child is gay and the others are hetero? Why weren't the hetero kids affected by the gay sibling? Or hetero children of divorced families where one of the parents is gay?

Logical
02-28-2005, 11:30 PM
There's a significant amount of research that disputes your contention--and, of course, you'd dispute their credibility.

That is NOT a statement you can make authoritatively, because there is NO scientific or research consensus. Not even close, Jason.

Nice try, though. :thumb:

(And, no...I'm not gonna fight this battle again. You have your "experts," I have mine.)

Unless your experts have no religious affiliation, are known through clear action not to be homophobic I would never ever believe them.

Mr. Kotter
02-28-2005, 11:34 PM
Unless your experts have no religious affiliation, are known through clear action not to be homophobic I would never ever believe them.

And unless his experts have no ties to Gay groups, "civil rights" groups, and unless accepted by a "consensus" agreement of researchers across the country (not just east coast/west coast/Liberal universities), I'd never believe his either.

Therein lies the dilemma. :shrug:

Ultra Peanut
02-28-2005, 11:34 PM
This is a MAJOR misnomer...No.

It's not like he called gays "Martian Elephant Riders."

most gays/lesbians have sex with persons of the same sex at around the age of everyone else (15-16) with other kids the same age....older gays are not out "recruiting" younger men/women to join their ranks...that is just absurdSort of like the belief that legalizing weed will encourage more young kids to try it... like you can't already get it if you want it.

If some fifteen-year-old boy's dream is to become a fashion designer or poke his pecker into other guys, he's going to do it whether gay marriages are legal or not, and gay marriage being legal is not going to convince someone to turn his sights from the head cheerleader to the star football player.

Besides, you really have no place to say "we've gotta protect the children from even entertaining the thought of being gay."

Mr. Kotter
02-28-2005, 11:40 PM
....

Besides, you really have no place to say "we've gotta protect the children from even entertaining the thought of being gay."

Nor should we turn a blind eye to those who would prey upon the vulnerable. Just as "young girls" are rightly protected by statutory rape laws, young and vulnerable 'same sex' victims ought to be protected by society from predators also....and, currently, the social stigma, along with vulnerabilities based in low-self esteem or poor social skills, make SOME particularly susceptible to be "recruited" into the lifestyle.

Just as negative attention is better than no attention; "interest" from somebody is better than "interest" from nobody in the minds of those who may be otherwise "unloved." :hmmm:

Ultra Peanut
02-28-2005, 11:44 PM
So now you're saying gay people are pedophiles who "recruit" young boys into their "lifestyle?"

You know a lot about NAMBLA, being a founding member and all. Isn't that your territory? Is there some sort of National Gay Pedophile Association of America that competes with you guys?

If some gay guy had walked up to you when you were 15 and offered to give you head, would you have let him?

If some supermodel had walked up to you when you were 15 and offered to give you head, would you have let her?

Mr. Kotter
02-28-2005, 11:47 PM
So now you're saying gay people are pedophiles who "recruit" young boys into their "lifestyle?"

You know a lot about NAMBLA, being a founding member and all. Isn't that your territory?

Is there some sort of National Gay Pedophile Association of America that competes with you guys?

I do know a lot about this area; but not for the reasons YOU cite. :p

FTR, I've "battled" bastards from "organizations" like those you mention; that's why I'm quite convinced of my position. I HAVE seen it first hand. We see a lot of really sick shit in my job. It really opens your eyes beyond the ideals of "equality" and "new" civil rights those groups are fighting for. :shake:

Ultra Peanut
02-28-2005, 11:49 PM
Since you're using pedophilia as a reason that their quest for equal rights is not supportable, should heterosexual couples be allowed to marry?

|Zach|
02-28-2005, 11:49 PM
I do know a lot about this area; but not for the reasons YOU cite. :p

FTR, I've "battled" bastards from "organizations" like those you mention; that's why I'm quite convinced of my position. I HAVE seen it first hand. We see a lot of really sick shit in my job. It really opens your eyes beyond the ideals of "equality" and "new" civil rights those groups are fighting for. :shake:
I have no doubt about this...but...

I don't think the ratio of abusive situations to healthy situations would be that dramitcally different if you were to compare hetero and homosexual families.

DenverChief
02-28-2005, 11:51 PM
There's a significant amount of research that disputes your contention--and, of course, you'd dispute their credibility.

That is NOT a statement you can make authoritatively, because there is NO scientific or research consensus. Not even close, Jason.

Nice try, though. :thumb:

(And, no...I'm not gonna fight this battle again. You have your "experts," I have mine.)


I'm sorry but you are wrong...this is my Career field...crime that is or the study of criminology....I am getting my Masters in it....countless studies have proven

#1. MOST OFTEN Child Molesters are Heterosexual, Male (90%+), and aquainted with the victim

#2. A study conducted by Dr. Carole Jenny University of Colorado Health Sciences Center ( Head of child advocacy and protection team) reviewed 269 cases that involved an adult molesting a child from July 1 1991 to June 30 1992. Of the 269 cases only TWO offenders were homosexual.

#3. A Massachusetts study in 1978 by Nicholas Groth and Jean Birnbaum found that 76% of molesters were exclusivly heterosexual while 24% were bisexual and only chose boys becasue they were more "available" than girls were. Since the study in 1978 Nicholas Groth and Jean Birnbaum have seen over 3000 molestation cases and say that nothing has changed thier minds about their original findings


I can give you the research lsitings if you are intersted?

Mr. Kotter
02-28-2005, 11:54 PM
Since you're using pedophilia as a reason that their quest for equal rights is not supportable, should heterosexual couples be allowed to marry?

It's not a reason....rates and propensity ARE mitigating factors, but only part of the debate. The debate is much more than that.

Marital abuse rates and heterosexuality are not analogous in anyway to what you we are talking about here, quantitatively or based on the merits of other considerations--so your question is irrelevant.

Mr. Kotter
02-28-2005, 11:55 PM
I'm sorry but you are wrong...this is my Career field...crime that is or the study of criminology....I am getting my Masters in it....countless studies have proven

#1. MOST OFTEN Child Molesters are Heterosexual, Male (90%+), and aquainted with the victim

#2. A study conducted by Dr. Carole Jenny University of Colorado Health Sciences Center ( Head of child advocacy and protection team) reviewed 269 cases that involved an adult molesting a child from July 1 1991 to June 30 1992. Of the 269 cases only TWO offenders were homosexual.

#3. A Massachusetts study in 1978 by Nicholas Groth and Jean Birnbaum found that 76% of molesters were exclusivly heterosexual while 24% were bisexual and only chose boys becasue they were more "available" than girls were. Since the study in 1978 Nicholas Groth and Jean Birnbaum have seen over 3000 molestation cases and say that nothing has changed thier minds about their original findings


I can give you the research lsitings if you are intersted?

1. RATES, not raw numbers are what matters.
2. One study; one "conclusion"--contradicted by others.
3. Your research; versus contradictory research. Who's "right?"

You have your experts; I have mine. Neither of us would be willing to accept the credibility of the other's "experts." We are at an impasse. I'll not go down this road again, any further. Sorry. :shrug:

Ultra Peanut
02-28-2005, 11:57 PM
I'll not go down this road again, any further.Next SD post in five, four, three...

DenverChief
02-28-2005, 11:58 PM
I'm sorry but you are wrong...this is my Career field...crime that is or the study of criminology....I am getting my Masters in it....countless studies have proven

#1. MOST OFTEN Child Molesters are Heterosexual, Male (90%+), and aquainted with the victim

#2. A study conducted by Dr. Carole Jenny University of Colorado Health Sciences Center ( Head of child advocacy and protection team) reviewed 269 cases that involved an adult molesting a child from July 1 1991 to June 30 1992. Of the 269 cases only TWO offenders were homosexual.

#3. A Massachusetts study in 1978 by Nicholas Groth and Jean Birnbaum found that 76% of molesters were exclusivly heterosexual while 24% were bisexual and only chose boys becasue they were more "available" than girls were. Since the study in 1978 Nicholas Groth and Jean Birnbaum have seen over 3000 molestation cases and say that nothing has changed thier minds about their original findings


I can give you the research lsitings if you are intersted?


just for shits and giggles

Carole Jaenny, Thomas A Roesler, and Kimberly L Poyer, "Are children at risk for sexual abuse by homosexuals?" Pediatrics, July 1994, pp. 41-44

Ann Schrader, "Study: Molesters usually heterosexual," Denver Post, Jluy 12, 1994.

A Nicholas Groth, "Patterns of sexual assualt against children and adolescents" in Ann Wolbert Burgess, A Nicholas Groth, Lynda Holmstrom, Suzanne Sgroi, Sexual assualt of children and adolecesnts (Lexington Mass 1978)

A Nicholas Groth and Jean Birnbaum in Archives of sexual behavior, vol 7 no 3 1978

DenverChief
03-01-2005, 12:01 AM
1. RATES, not raw numbers are what matters.
2. One study; one "conclusion"--contradicted by others.
3. Your research; versus contradictory research. Who's "right?"

You have your experts; I have mine. Neither of us would be willing to accept the credibility of the other's "experts." We are at an impasse. I'll not go down this road again, any further. Sorry. :shrug:


well show me some of your studies then...I gave you mine I want to see yours back em up cowboy...I'm sorry but a team of peadatricians have no stake in the out come of thier study that is valid #'s...raw #' s versus rates...are you smoking? :bong:

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 12:05 AM
well show me some of your studies then...I gave you mine I want to see yours back em up cowboy...I'm sorry but a team of peadatricians have no stake in the out come of thier study that is valid #'s...raw #' s versus rates...are you smoking? :bong:

Nah, I'm tired of beatin' my head against a brick wall on this issue with you and others; so I'm just around to make sure your propaganda is answered. :)

I've grown to love you (as a CP buddy :p ), Jason.

The ole Tom Petty tune goes, "you believe what you wanna believe...everybody's got to fight to be free...."

Our ability to remain civil and disagree is one of the things that makes America great.

DenverChief
03-01-2005, 12:07 AM
Nah, I'm tired of beatin' my head against a brick wall on this issue with you and others; so I'm just around to make sure your propaganda is answered. :)

I've grown to love you (as a CP buddy :p ), Jason.

The ole Tom Petty tune goes, "you believe what you wanna believe...everybody's got to fight to be free...."

Our ability to remain civil and disagree is one of the things that makes America great.


but you are wrong you know this right?

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 12:08 AM
but you are wrong you know this right?

Hardly. I know YOU are wrong. :p

That's called an irreconcilible difference.

Good night, Jason. :thumb:

Ultra Peanut
03-01-2005, 12:10 AM
Next post by SD in five, four, three, two...

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 12:11 AM
Unless they do something you don't like.

No one is saying you can't fight the good fight; doesn't mean you'll win though....

Night, Psi. :)

Rausch
03-01-2005, 12:19 AM
I could give a crap less what 2 adults do in their own home.

My problem with it lies in the extra expenses and benefit costs for companies for health insurance, benefits etc. I think it opens alot of doors for Fraud for Health care for example.

Gay/Lesbian couples save money on insurance.

Pitt Gorilla
03-01-2005, 12:22 AM
Hardly. I know YOU are wrong. :p

That's called an irreconcilible difference.

Good night, Jason. :thumb:Bullshit. Denver provided citations. You noted that "others" contradicted his citations. Provide evidence or we'll have to assume that you are a liar. It really is that simple.

Logical
03-01-2005, 12:26 AM
Nor should we turn a blind eye to those who would prey upon the vulnerable. Just as "young girls" are rightly protected by statutory rape laws, young and vulnerable 'same sex' victims ought to be protected by society from predators also....and, currently, the social stigma, along with vulnerabilities based in low-self esteem or poor social skills, make SOME particularly susceptible to be "recruited" into the lifestyle.

Just as negative attention is better than no attention; "interest" from somebody is better than "interest" from nobody in the minds of those who may be otherwise "unloved." :hmmm:


Statutory rape laws protect all young people from adults whether same sex or opposite sex both males and females. So I do not see you having any sort of valid point in this post.

stumppy
03-01-2005, 12:27 AM
So I do not see you having any sort of valid point in this post.


If I had a nickel.

Rausch
03-01-2005, 12:27 AM
I don't have a problem with this if you also have a problem with heterosexuals flaunting their sexuality in public which happens quite often.


As the boyfriend of a gal that works at Wal-Mart, and a man forced to be there quite often, I'll admit to that in a heartbeat.

Wal-Mart confirms my belief that fascism should be given a 2nd chance...

|Zach|
03-01-2005, 12:31 AM
As the boyfriend of a gal that works at Wal-Mart, and a man forced to be there quite often, I'll admit to that in a heartbeat.

Wal-Mart confirms my belief that fascism should be given a 2nd chance...
This conversation is kind of funny...reminds me of a post I made long long ago...

http://www.zachishere.com/archives/000018my_lovehate_relationship_with_the_midwest.html

stumppy
03-01-2005, 12:38 AM
This conversation is kind of funny...reminds me of a post I made long long ago...

http://www.zachishere.com/archives/000018my_lovehate_relationship_with_the_midwest.html


Nice site zach.:thumb: Ihave one question though. Why isn't Chiefs Planet at the very top of your list of links ?

Logical
03-01-2005, 12:38 AM
This conversation is kind of funny...reminds me of a post I made long long ago...

http://www.zachishere.com/archives/000018my_lovehate_relationship_with_the_midwest.html Nice content in that post on your site Zach.

|Zach|
03-01-2005, 12:40 AM
Nice site zach.:thumb: Ihave one question though. Why isn't Chiefs Planet at the very top of your list of links ?
Heh, I should give it a bump...I am actually in the process of redesigning the whole enchilada. I need to remember to add 37 Forever as well.

Pants
03-01-2005, 12:49 AM
Hardly. I know YOU are wrong. :p

That's called an irreconcilible difference.

Good night, Jason. :thumb:

WTF, dude, give us your "experts", DC gave us his.

I didn't vote, because I don't really know how I stand on this. Different people have different ideas about what marriage is/should be and all I know is that I agree with Jaz' point.

Rausch
03-01-2005, 01:00 AM
This conversation is kind of funny...reminds me of a post I made long long ago...

http://www.zachishere.com/archives/000018my_lovehate_relationship_with_the_midwest.html

I've already suffered the horrors of a prostate exam.

After going through that, if you want to subject yourslelf to that type of pain and humiliation on a regular basis I have no problem admitting you're more of a man than me.

I'll tap out. Run. Have my prostate fall out my azz in a shrunken, cancerous, nasty hunk of flesh to the floor with a dull thud.

DenverChief
03-01-2005, 01:26 AM
If I had a nickel.
ROFL

DenverChief
03-01-2005, 01:31 AM
No.

It's not like he called gays "Martian Elephant Riders."



Misnomer = A name wrongly or unsuitably applied to a person or an object.

Child Molester is unsuitably applied to Homosexual :thumb:

Rausch
03-01-2005, 01:46 AM
Misnomer = A name wrongly or unsuitably applied to a person or an object.

Child Molester is unsuitably applied to Homosexual :thumb:

Unless he's Catholic...

Ultra Peanut
03-01-2005, 02:12 AM
Misnomer = A name wrongly or unsuitably applied to a person or an object.

Child Molester is unsuitably applied to Homosexual :thumb:Your misnomer statement was in response to this:

If gay marriages are to become the norm what's to say that it won't encourage your kids to "try new things"?

patteeu
03-01-2005, 07:02 AM
What about those Poor Polygamist families who can't marry? Who is to say that poor Mormon can't take 10 wives?

The Mormons. AFAIK, polygamy hasn't been sanctioned by the main LDS denominations for quite some time. Those groups who still embrace this practice are fringe splinter groups. Attributing polygamy to the Mormans is a little like suggesting that all fundamentalist christians embrace the white supremecist Christian Identity ideology. (I realize that my analogy breaks down a bit in that at least in the case of the Mormans there is historical accuracy in the attribution of polygamy to that religion whereas in the case of fundie christians, Christian Identity is a perversion).

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 07:04 AM
Today, the City of Topeka votes whether or not to make homosexuals a protected class. I'm sure it will pass, banning homosexuals from becoming a protected class, and making it perfectly legal to discriminate.

Also the bill has a nice little rider attached to it, making the council unable to revisit the matter for another 10 years.

Topeka, city of Hate.

patteeu
03-01-2005, 07:10 AM
I usually just lurk in this DC section because I like reading comments and peoples thoughts on different political topics.

However, me not being very political, I couldn't keep from voicing my opinion to support why I DON'T support gay marriages.

I'm also not very reiligous so religion has no enfluence on my opinion.

It pains me to see that so many people are so liberal when it comes to a topic such as this. How can anyone raising kid(s) feel that gay marriages are ok? If gay marriages are to become the norm what's to say that it won't encourage your kids to "try new things"?

Now before you say that "I should teach my kids the difference", I'd rather have my kids learn on their own if they're gay or whatnot and not put the idea, notion, or examples out in plain sight. For now, my 8 year old occasionally see's sexual content on T.V. because (let's be honest) sex is everywhere.

I have no problem with gay people and could care-less what the hell they do behind closed doors. But in my opinion, it doesn't make it right just because 2 people of the same sex are "in love" that they should be able to express it by getting hitched.

If you believe that kids shouldn't be raised by gay couples then how can you be for gay marriage?:hmmm: Married people have kids whether it be by adoption, artificial insimination, or by other means.

If you believe in gay marriages here's a hypothetical question for you. Let's say your wife or husband tells you he/she's gay and wants a divorce and your kids are in the pre-teen age (3-12). Would you want your kids growing up around your ex and his/her live-in significant other?

I balk at the thought of one day, instead of having the "sex" talk to my kids, I have to explain the same-sex marriage or same-sex relationship talk in the same conversation. I understand that history repeats itself but this is one cycle that I'm rather glad the government has stepped in to hold some "morally correct" prestige to the land. Just because a lot of our fore fathers and historical heroes used to live in times when it was widely accepted or were gay themselves, this is not something that I'm ready to accept with open arms as if it doesn't effect me or my family.

Everything already has to be too politically correct and in doing so, we as a nation has already lost shitloads of morality in the process. We shouldn't have to sacrifice anymore of our values just to satisfy a few (morally wrong) participants. If that's the case, it offends me in the same way In God We Trust, One Nation Under God, or Christmas offends others.

What they do behind closed doors is their business. But I don't think the government should allow it because if they do, it'll send a signal that it's accepted as normal behavior and it isn't and it shouldn't be.

I have no problem with gay people. I do however have a problem with gay people getting married or trying to influence others like some religious people try to push their religion on you.


I find your post facinating. On the one hand, you suggest that "religion has no influence" on your opinion, but OTOH you seem to base your position on morality. Although I am in favor of gay marriage, I can appreciate opposition on religious grounds. But I don't understand where you would derive moral opposition to gay marriage if religion is not your source.

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 07:12 AM
I find your post facinating. On the one hand, you suggest that "religion has no influence" on your opinion, but OTOH you seem to base your position on morality. Although I am in favor of gay marriage, I can appreciate opposition on religious grounds. But I don't understand where you would derive moral opposition to gay marriage if religion is not your source.

You're arguing that morals can't exist without religion. That's absurd. One's moral compass can point in any particular direction with or without religion.

memyselfI
03-01-2005, 07:13 AM
Wow, this board supports something that is a 'threat to traditional marriage' and poses a 'danger' to our society? :hmmm:

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 07:18 AM
Today, the City of Topeka votes whether or not to make homosexuals a protected class. I'm sure it will pass, banning homosexuals from becoming a protected class, and making it perfectly legal to discriminate.

Also the bill has a nice little rider attached to it, making the council unable to revisit the matter for another 10 years.

Topeka, city of Hate.

Homosexuality is usually not protected under the law as it currently stands. I may be wrong, but I think all Topeka is doing to certifying something that is already true.

That doesn't make it right, of course, but...

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 07:22 AM
Homosexuality is usually not protected under the law as it currently stands. I may be wrong, but I think all Topeka is doing to certifying something that is already true.

That doesn't make it right, of course, but...
Yep. The only thing that really bothers me is the "unable to appeal" for 10 years rider.

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 07:31 AM
Yep. The only thing that really bothers me is the "unable to appeal" for 10 years rider.

I'm not sure it's enforceable, though. If Congress said we're dropping taxes to 5% and we can't revisit it for 10 years, that wouldn't have any impact on what Congress does in the future.

patteeu
03-01-2005, 07:34 AM
You're arguing that morals can't exist without religion. That's absurd. One's moral compass can point in any particular direction with or without religion.

No I'm not, that's absurd. You are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.

I'm saying that I can understand how moral opposition to gay marriage can rise from religious views. I'm personally not sure where the moral basis for arguing against gay marriage would come from aside from religion. It's an invitation to educate me.

*edit* As an agnostic who considers himself to have morals (even if I don't always live up to them), it would be ironic if I were arguing that morals can only come from religion. */edit*

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 07:39 AM
No I'm not, that's absurd. You are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion.

I'm saying that I can understand how moral opposition to gay marriage can rise from religious views. I'm personally not sure where the moral basis for arguing against gay marriage would come from aside from religion. It's an invitation to educate me.

Sorry if I read too much into your statement.

It appears he's adopted most of the arguments the religious right (or however you want to describe them) assert for their objections to gay marriage. He just doesn't cite any religious grounds for it.

Apparently, he's has a conservative stance on morals issues, although he's not religious. :shrug: Presumably he's concerned about deterioration of society, bad examples for kids (especially if adoption is permitted), and all that stuff.

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 07:41 AM
*edit* As an agnostic who considers himself to have morals (even if I don't always live up to them), it would be ironic if I were arguing that morals can only come from religion. */edit*

Yeah, I'm the same, actually. Agnostic, but a pretty straight arrow.

patteeu
03-01-2005, 07:45 AM
You're arguing that morals can't exist without religion. That's absurd. One's moral compass can point in any particular direction with or without religion.

Just out of curiosity, Amnorix, do you think that wutamess has a well-thought-out basis for his moral belief in this case or do you think this is just a run-of-the-mill prejudice? I'm not sure what you mean by "[o]ne's moral compass can point in any particular direction," but what would your response be to someone who said they objected to blacks and whites being allowed to drink at the same water fountain on moral grounds?

Note: I'm not comparing gay marriage to race-based civil rights. I favor gay marriage, but I don't believe it is an equal protection right (or any other kind of civil right).

patteeu
03-01-2005, 07:47 AM
Sorry if I read too much into your statement.

It appears he's adopted most of the arguments the religious right (or however you want to describe them) assert for their objections to gay marriage. He just doesn't cite any religious grounds for it.

Apparently, he's has a conservative stance on morals issues, although he's not religious. :shrug: Presumably he's concerned about deterioration of society, bad examples for kids (especially if adoption is permitted), and all that stuff.

No problem, *edit* I can see how I left myself open to misinterpretation*/edit* :) . Sounds like a good guess to me.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 07:55 AM
Wow, this board supports something that is a 'threat to traditional marriage' and poses a 'danger' to our society? :hmmm:


Nah. I suspect the poll is skewed by "rookies" and recent registrations that are recruited by "activists" whenever, and where-ever a poll like this is posted....of course, the mods could answer that question for us. And, I could be wrong; although I suspect not.

jspchief
03-01-2005, 07:56 AM
This conversation is kind of funny...reminds me of a post I made long long ago...

http://www.zachishere.com/archives/000018my_lovehate_relationship_with_the_midwest.html

I think you need to differentiate between " I don't care to see it" and "I think they should be banned from it".

Personally, I have no opposition to gays. I'm not religious, I don't care whether it is nature or nurtured, etc. I believe they should have the same rights as any other American.

However, I don't care to watch two guys kiss. I'm not a big fan of PDA in general. I'd probably pull up a chair if it were two women (assuming they were good looking). That doesn't mean they aren't allowed to do it, it just means I may turn my head in disgust. A lot of people say things like "just don't do that sh*t around me" and mean simply that they don't like to see it. Not that there should be laws banning it.

Just like any shifting of descriminating views, it's a slow process. Acceptance of gays won't just happen because someone creates a law saying they are equal. Look no further than desegregation for the perfect comparison. It's a slow evolution, that will probably never completely stop. In a perfect world maybe everyone would look at two men kissing and only see it as a display of love, but it won't happen until it happens. Laws and lectures don't change those views, they have to change on their own. The only thing laws can do is protect those people from descrimination.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 07:58 AM
Bullshit. Denver provided citations. You noted that "others" contradicted his citations. Provide evidence or we'll have to assume that you are a liar. It really is that simple.

I've been down this road with DC(and Boozer, Braincase, Hel'n, Duhnise and others) numerous times before, and provided citiations. If the search function were working, I'm sure you'd find the evidence yourself. I have neither the time, nor the desire to debate the topic again....since his mind and your mind are already made up, as is mine. It would be a waste of time for both of us. :shrug:

MOhillbilly
03-01-2005, 08:01 AM
gays need to go back to africa

wutamess
03-01-2005, 08:07 AM
I find your post facinating. On the one hand, you suggest that "religion has no influence" on your opinion, but OTOH you seem to base your position on morality. Although I am in favor of gay marriage, I can appreciate opposition on religious grounds. But I don't understand where you would derive moral opposition to gay marriage if religion is not your source.

I say I'm not very religious but I do have a religious background. I also know that the bulk of most religious belief systems are based off of morality. I guess religion has some persuasion on my stance but it's not the sole factor.

If gay marriages didn't have to be explained to kids I wouldn't give a hell who got married. But they will ahve to be explained to kids and I don't want kids getting experimental just because, "others are doing it".



Someone else asked would I care if a gay couple live together?

No I could give a damn what a gay couple do BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. I don't even mind that they show PDA when kids aren't around. I just don't want my kids growing up with the notion that gay is the "in thing".

Now I've known about gays when I was growing up and some of you may think it was naive but I always thought that gays were people I'd never meet. I didn't start paying attention to who was gay until I got to junior high or high school. I'm sorry but i'd like for my kids to grow up the same way. Yes it may be ignorant but we're faced with a boatload of problems and gay marriages is one less thing I'll have to confront for or with my kids.

Now if my kid(s) up and decide he/she is gay based on her/their own decision. I'll fully support her/their decision. I have no problem with gays and have had numerous friends that were/are.

So this isn't really about me being against gays, it's about the message that is sent to kids in allowing gay marriages.

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 08:13 AM
Just out of curiosity, Amnorix, do you think that wutamess has a well-thought-out basis for his moral belief in this case or do you think this is just a run-of-the-mill prejudice? I'm not sure what you mean by "[o]ne's moral compass can point in any particular direction," but what would your response be to someone who said they objected to blacks and whites being allowed to drink at the same water fountain on moral grounds?

Note: I'm not comparing gay marriage to race-based civil rights. I favor gay marriage, but I don't believe it is an equal protection right (or any other kind of civil right).

The "moral compass can point in any direction" comment reflects my belief that people of any particular religious philosophy (or areligious philosophy) can have any moral view on the map. Although one could make generalizations, we've seen intensely religious Catholic FBI agents sell their country's secrets and allow himself and his wife to be watched while having sex (Robert Hanssen). Others use religion as an excuse for murder, etc., etc. Meanwhile, people without religion lead "virtuous" (for lack of a better term) lives. I obviously don't mean to say that those without religion have better morals than those who do -- that's stupid. But I think religion and good morals don't go hand in hand, nor does "lack of religion" and "lack of morals".

I think wutamess thinks he has good arguments that ultimately rely on nothing more than prejudice. He's primarily concerned about the impact on kids, which is fair enough. However, unless there is research tending to show that kids raised by homosexuals are more likely to become homosexual (a premise I very much doubt), or otherwise "screwed up", then there's simply no basis for his statements.

He seems to have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy towards gays. He doesn't mind them, so long as they are private, discreet and stay out of his sight. I understand that notion as even I am uncomfortable whenever I witness overt male homosexual displays (overt displays of female sexuality (where the participants are good looking) are encouraged ;) ). Ultimately, however, our sense of discomfort doesn't give us a right to discriminate.

I've stated in the past, however, that my only concern is that gays get the same group fo legal rights as heterosexually married couples. I'm therefore ambivalent about "civil unions" vice "marriage". Give them the legal rights, and that's good enough in my opinion. That's a separate issue from outright discrimination, however.

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 08:18 AM
However, I don't care to watch two guys kiss. I'm not a big fan of PDA in general. I'd probably pull up a chair if it were two women (assuming they were good looking). That doesn't mean they aren't allowed to do it, it just means I may turn my head in disgust. A lot of people say things like "just don't do that sh*t around me" and mean simply that they don't like to see it. Not that there should be laws banning it.

Just like any shifting of descriminating views, it's a slow process. Acceptance of gays won't just happen because someone creates a law saying they are equal. Look no further than desegregation for the perfect comparison. It's a slow evolution, that will probably never completely stop. In a perfect world maybe everyone would look at two men kissing and only see it as a display of love, but it won't happen until it happens. Laws and lectures don't change those views, they have to change on their own. The only thing laws can do is protect those people from descrimination.

You could dial back the clock and change "two guys kiss" to "a white and black person kissing"....

MOhillbilly
03-01-2005, 08:21 AM
gays spread aids one only has to look at that fruit in NYC who went on a crank induced bender and had sex w/ 140 other dudes.
logic enough for me.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 08:23 AM
You could dial back the clock and change "two guys kiss" to "a white and black person kissing"....

So now we go down the road of equivocating between "genetically determined" condition to, at best.....and, yes arguably, behavior rooted in a dizzying complex psychological, sociological, cultural, experiential, and, yes, perhaps even genetic factors. For some, sexual orientation/preference is the 'equivelent' of race and gender. To many others it is not. The one certainty is no one knows who is right. No one.

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 08:23 AM
Now I've known about gays when I was growing up and some of you may think it was naive but I always thought that gays were people I'd never meet. I didn't start paying attention to who was gay until I got to junior high or high school. I'm sorry but i'd like for my kids to grow up the same way. Yes it may be ignorant but we're faced with a boatload of problems and gay marriages is one less thing I'll have to confront for or with my kids.

Now if my kid(s) up and decide he/she is gay based on her/their own decision. I'll fully support her/their decision. I have no problem with gays and have had numerous friends that were/are.

So this isn't really about me being against gays, it's about the message that is sent to kids in allowing gay marriages.

I've got two boys. Frankly, explaining Will & Grace to them isn't that far removed from explaining an actual marriage. :shrug:

Of all the things I worry about with my two youngers (one's a toddler and one's an infant), this one would rank somewhere right around "I hope they don't suffer from chronic hangnails".

wutamess
03-01-2005, 08:25 AM
I guess I am prejudiced, but it's only for kids sake. I could care-less who get's married to whom.

I just don't want it to become the norm and have kids growing up thinking they have to do it because everyone else is doing it.

Just like drugs or alcohol or cigarettes has ruined a lot of kids. This is of the same magnitude.

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 08:25 AM
gays spread aids one only has to look at that fruit in NYC who went on a crank induced bender and had sex w/ 140 other dudes.
logic enough for me.

This idea is about 10 years out of date. Hetero's also spread AIDS. Those who participate in anal sex have a slightly higher chance of passing it on to their partner, I believe.

I didn't hear about the nutjob in NYC, but if that story is right, he should be locked up for life, in an isolated cell.

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 08:26 AM
So now we go down the road of equivocating between "genetically determined" condition to, at best.....arguably, behavior rooted in a dizzying complex psychological, sociological, cultural, experiential, and, yes, perhaps even genetic factors. For some, sexual orientation/preferenc is the 'equivelent' of race and gender. To many others it is not. The one certainty is no one knows who is right. No one.

I agree. I haven't seen anyone proving what "causes" homosexuality.

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 08:27 AM
I guess I am prejudiced, but it's only for kids sake. I could care-less who get's married to whom.

I just don't want it to become the norm and have kids growing up thinking they have to do it because everyone else is doing it.

Just like drugs or alcohol or cigarettes has ruined a lot of kids. This is of the same magnitude.

:spock: Wow.

Homosexuality -- the next trend... I just can't imagine it.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 08:28 AM
I agree. I haven't seen anyone proving what "causes" homosexuality.

So you think it is wise to predicate social policy upon a convuluted and dubious equivocation that the majority in society do not accept?

wutamess
03-01-2005, 08:31 AM
:spock: Wow.

Homosexuality -- the next trend... I just can't imagine it.

It's all fun and games till someone get's hurt.

If it becomes a trend amongst kids that aren't really gay then I have a problem with that.

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 08:31 AM
So now we go down the road of equivocating between "genetically determined" condition to, at best.....and, yes arguably, behavior rooted in a dizzying complex psychological, sociological, cultural, experiential, and, yes, perhaps even genetic factors. For some, sexual orientation/preference is the 'equivelent' of race and gender. To many others it is not. The one certainty is no one knows who is right. No one.
However, it doesn't make a difference. A homosexual is still a homosexual, an african-american is still an african-american. It doesn't matter "how they became..", it matters where they are. They are both a "group". It is just a matter of time until they have the same rights.

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 08:33 AM
So you think it is wise to predicate social policy upon a convuluted and dubious equivocation that the majority in society do not accept?

Mainly, I think it's unwise to discriminate against individuals based on personal biases based on unsupported opinions and prejudices.

Homosexuality has always existed, whether approved by the state or not. In my view it's rarely a "choice" voluntarily made by the individual in question. To permit discrimination against individuals based on their sexual orientation just makes no sense to me.

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 08:34 AM
However, it doesn't make a difference. A homosexual is still a homosexual, an african-american is still an african-american. It doesn't matter "how they became..", it matters where they are. They are both a "group". It is just a matter of time until they have the same rights.

Concur. Important to note that it's a group that didn't necessarily "choose" to be in that group. We're not talking about a group of people that wear orange clothing. Many who are homosexual struggle with that fact mightily as they progress through their early years of sexual development.

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 08:36 AM
Concur. Important to note that it's a group that didn't necessarily "choose" to be in that group. We're not talking about a group of people that wear orange clothing. Many who are homosexual struggle with that fact mightily as they progress through their early years of sexual development.
FWIW, there are "groups" that are protected already based on choice. You can not discriminate based on religion. Is religion a choice, or a pre-determined genetic "condition"?

jspchief
03-01-2005, 08:36 AM
You could dial back the clock and change "two guys kiss" to "a white and black person kissing"....

Exactly my point. The laws didn't automatically make people more accepting of it. You can't take the "bizarre" and expect it to become the "normal" overnight. Just like my forefathers probably looked down on inter-racial relationships and I don't, My children will probably be more accepting of gay relationships, because they are growing up with more exposure to it than I ever was.

The biggest problem with the "gay movement" as far as I can tell is that they lack a "Martin Luther King" type figure to be a spearhead. When people think of gay rights parades, they think of 10,000 "village people" marching with their asses hanging out of their chaps. These are the "Black Panthers" for gays....too in your face, and a hard pill to swallow. When you see gays as the guy that plays golf in your golf league, or the neighbor who's lawn you envy, instead of the mustached flamer in assless chaps, it will be a lot easier to accpet them as "normal".

MOhillbilly
03-01-2005, 08:36 AM
Seven DEMANDS of the Homosexual Agenda: Set forth and distributed at the "Gay Pride" March on Washington, D.C., April 25, 1993
Demand the repeal of all sodomy laws and legalization of all forms of sexual expression. (Including pedophilia, changing age of consent laws to allow sex with youth.) Demand defense budget funds be diverted to cover AIDS patients' medical expenses, and taxpayer funding of sex change operations. Demand the legalization of same sex marriages, and legalization of adoption, custody, and foster care within these structures. Demand the full inclusion of lesbians, homosexual men, bisexuals and trans-genders in education and childcare. Demand that contraceptives and abortion services be made available to all persons, regardless of age. Demand taxpayer funding for artificial insemination of lesbians and bisexuals. Forbid religious based concerns regarding homosexuality from being expressed [as is already the case on radio & TV in Canada]. Demand that organizations, such as Boy Scouts, be required to accept homosexual scoutmasters.http://www.inoohr.org/factsheet.htm

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 08:36 AM
It's all fun and games till someone get's hurt.

If it becomes a trend amongst kids that aren't really gay then I have a problem with that.

So you think if a few more of your high school friends were gay you would've given it a shot?

:spock:

Honestly -- and I doubt I'm unique when I say this -- the opposite sex holds immense and endless fascination for me, and my own gender holds none whatsoever. There's no way I would've "tried it out" or whatever. :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 08:37 AM
However, it doesn't make a difference. A homosexual is still a homosexual, an african-american is still an african-american. It doesn't matter "how they became..", it matters where they are. They are both a "group". It is just a matter of time until they have the same rights.

Perhaps not in your mind. In the minds of many others though, legally speaking...we DO permit distinctions between groups of people based on behavior. Alchoholism is no excuse for spousal abuse or drunk driving. Addiction is no excuse for not being able to pay the bills if one would rather smoke weed and stay home in bed all day. Homesexuality, like other behaviors has consequences....just like if I were to over-eat myself into obesity--I could argue, "I didn't CHOOSE to be obese; who would CHOOSE that?"). There would be social (ostracization and shunning) as well as health consequences for an unhealthy addiction to food.

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 08:39 AM
Seven DEMANDS of the Homosexual Agenda: Set forth and distributed at the "Gay Pride" March on Washington, D.C., April 25, 1993 Demand the repeal of all sodomy laws and legalization of all forms of sexual expression. (Including pedophilia, changing age of consent laws to allow sex with youth.) Demand defense budget funds be diverted to cover AIDS patients' medical expenses, and taxpayer funding of sex change operations. Demand the legalization of same sex marriages, and legalization of adoption, custody, and foster care within these structures. Demand the full inclusion of lesbians, homosexual men, bisexuals and trans-genders in education and childcare. Demand that contraceptives and abortion services be made available to all persons, regardless of age. Demand taxpayer funding for artificial insemination of lesbians and bisexuals. Forbid religious based concerns regarding homosexuality from being expressed [as is already the case on radio & TV in Canada]. Demand that organizations, such as Boy Scouts, be required to accept homosexual scoutmasters.http://www.inoohr.org/factsheet.htm

This is the platform of a bunch of gay-extremist nut jobs. NAMBLA-level insanity.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 08:39 AM
However, it doesn't make a difference. A homosexual is still a homosexual, an african-american is still an african-american. It doesn't matter "how they became..", it matters where they are. They are both a "group". It is just a matter of time until they have the same rights.

See post #118

memyselfI
03-01-2005, 08:39 AM
It's all fun and games till someone get's hurt.

If it becomes a trend amongst kids that aren't really gay then I have a problem with that.

You cannot be serious? A trend? Kids these days are so homophobic the worst thing that could be said about them or to them is that they are gay. Most teenagers struggle with their sexuality and their going through puberty in the first place. Being gay will never be a 'glam' lifestyle 'trend.'

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 08:40 AM
Perhaps not in your mind. In the minds of many others though, legally speaking...we DO permit distinctions between groups of people based on behavior. Alchoholism is no excuse for spousal abuse or drunk driving. Addiction is no excuse for not being able to pay the bills if one would rather smoke weed and stay home in bed all day. Homesexuality, like other behaviors has consequences....just like if I were to over-eat myself into obesity--I could argue, "I didn't CHOOSE to be obese; who would CHOOSE that?"). There would be social (ostracization and shunning) as well as health consequences for an unhealthy addiction to food.
Since when is spousal abuse and drunk driving = homosexuality? I see absolutely no comparison.

memyselfI
03-01-2005, 08:41 AM
Perhaps not in your mind. In the minds of many others though, legally speaking...we DO permit distinctions between groups of people based on behavior. Alchoholism is no excuse for spousal abuse or drunk driving. Addiction is no excuse for not being able to pay the bills if one would rather smoke weed and stay home in bed all day. Homesexuality, like other behaviors has consequences....just like if I were to over-eat myself into obesity--I could argue, "I didn't CHOOSE to be obese; who would CHOOSE that?"). There would be social (ostracization and shunning) as well as health consequences for an unhealthy addiction to food.


Oh my God, you are equating homosexuality to personality disorders like alcoholism and addictive eating? :shake: :mad: :banghead:

MOhillbilly
03-01-2005, 08:41 AM
This is the platform of a bunch of gay-extremist nut jobs. NAMBLA-level insanity.
so the sources dont have credability?

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 08:42 AM
Mainly, I think it's unwise to discriminate against individuals based on personal biases based on unsupported opinions and prejudices.

Homosexuality has always existed, whether approved by the state or not. In my view it's rarely a "choice" voluntarily made by the individual in question. To permit discrimination against individuals based on their sexual orientation just makes no sense to me.

Fair enough. Many of us would simply disagree. And I would even concede that much of the weight of that disagreement would stem from differences in moral standards. Whether government should, and to what extent they should, encourage standards for morality though is an entirely different question. Best left to another thread, on another day.... ;)

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 08:42 AM
You cannot be serious? A trend? Kids these days are so homophobic the worst thing that could be said about them or to them is that they are gay. Most teenagers struggle with their sexuality and their going through puberty in the first place. Being gay will never be a 'glam' lifestyle 'trend.'
I agree. Especially in this state. I myself often use "gay" to describe something I do not like, and I often call people "faggot", when they aren't homosexual. Probably not a good thing, but its the language that has been "programmed" in to me.

jspchief
03-01-2005, 08:42 AM
Perhaps not in your mind. In the minds of many others though, legally speaking...we DO permit distinctions between groups of people based on behavior. Alchoholism is no excuse for spousal abuse or drunk driving. Addiction is no excuse for not being able to pay the bills if one would rather smoke weed and stay home in bed all day. Homesexuality, like other behaviors has consequences....just like if I were to over-eat myself into obesity--I could argue, "I didn't CHOOSE to be obese; who would CHOOSE that?"). There would be social (ostracization and shunning) as well as health consequences for an unhealthy addiction to food.


Do we ban alcoholics or obese people from marriage?

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 08:43 AM
so the sources dont have credability?
I'd say no.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 08:44 AM
Oh my God, you are equating homosexuality to personality disorders like alcoholism and addictive eating? :shake: :mad: :banghead:

Most Americans do, actually equate these conditions--except for ideologically and activist driven groups and individuals who have a vested interest in the debate, or for whatever reason are sympathetic to the agenda.

jspchief
03-01-2005, 08:45 AM
so the sources dont have credability?

Sources quoted by the guy that still thinks homosexuality is the leading source of AIDS, when in fact young black hetero females have the highest growth rate of AIDS....

Something isn't credible, that's for certain.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 08:47 AM
Do we ban alcoholics or obese people from marriage?

Perhaps not. But we don't insulate them from consequences of their behavior either. Alcoholics and obese people, in most circumstances, can be fired if unable to perform their job. Many also suffer "relationship" issues and losses because of their addiction. Has society been asked to look the other way, to ignore these folks "choices" in their situations? If it has, we've said 'no,' generally. :shrug:

patteeu
03-01-2005, 08:48 AM
So now we go down the road of equivocating between "genetically determined" condition to, at best.....and, yes arguably, behavior rooted in a dizzying complex psychological, sociological, cultural, experiential, and, yes, perhaps even genetic factors. For some, sexual orientation/preference is the 'equivelent' of race and gender. To many others it is not. The one certainty is no one knows who is right. No one.

Kissing is behavior regardless of who is doing it or what their motivations are.

Black guy kissing white girl = behavior

White guy kissing black girl = behavior

Gay guy kissing gay guy = behavior

Hetro guy kissing gay guy = behavior

Tatooed girl kissing her pet doberman = behavior

SDChiefsFan kissing DenverChief's avatar = behavior

Husband kissing wife = behavior

Mother kissing child = behavior

...

You get the idea.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 08:49 AM
Since when is spousal abuse and drunk driving = homosexuality? I see absolutely no comparison.

For many Americans there is a moral comparison. That the "consequences" are not as dire, and that the consequences are more indirect and insidious may not satisfy you....but for many of us they are sufficient.

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 08:49 AM
Perhaps not in your mind. In the minds of many others though, legally speaking...we DO permit distinctions between groups of people based on behavior. Alchoholism is no excuse for spousal abuse or drunk driving. Addiction is no excuse for not being able to pay the bills if one would rather smoke weed and stay home in bed all day. Homesexuality, like other behaviors has consequences....just like if I were to over-eat myself into obesity--I could argue, "I didn't CHOOSE to be obese; who would CHOOSE that?"). There would be social (ostracization and shunning) as well as health consequences for an unhealthy addiction to food.

We do not punish the condition. Alcoholism is not illegal, as long as you stay in your house and do it. Once you're on the road, drunk, you are a threat to society.

Ditto addiction. You can be addicted to any legal substance you want. It's your ACTIONS that are illegal, if you don't pay your bills, or buy illegal drugs.

Obesity is not illegal either.

No one is arguing gay people will be universally accepted and loved. But are fat people not allowed to get married because they're fat? That's what we're saying...

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 08:50 AM
Oh my God, you are equating homosexuality to personality disorders like alcoholism and addictive eating? :shake: :mad: :banghead:

I'm having a serious case of deja vu. Did you post this before???

jspchief
03-01-2005, 08:50 AM
Perhaps not. But we don't insulate them from consequences of their behavior either. Alcoholics and obese people, in most circumstances, can be fired if unable to perform their job. Many also suffer "relationship" issues and losses because of their addiction. Has society been asked to look the other way, to ignore these folks "choices" in their situations? If it has, we've said 'no,' generally. :shrug:

What are the consequences of gay behaviour? It doesn't affect their job performance, it doesn't affect their health, it doesn't affect their ability to pay bills or be loving spouses. Who are the victims of the gay "choice"?

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 08:53 AM
What are the consequences of gay behaviour? It doesn't affect their job performance, it doesn't affect their health, it doesn't affect their ability to pay bills or be loving spouses. Who are the victims of the gay "choice"?
From what i've heard, "the children" are..and "the sanctity of Marriage!" :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 08:53 AM
You cannot be serious? A trend? Kids these days are so homophobic the worst thing that could be said about them or to them is that they are gay. Most teenagers struggle with their sexuality and their going through puberty in the first place. Being gay will never be a 'glam' lifestyle 'trend.'

I am in a position to call BS to this. For a small percentage of kids, this is how they choose to fit in. It seems non-sensical until you think about it--kids desperately want to fit in, to be accepted. If they don't fit in 'elsewhere,' we have a school "club" which allows them to "support" one another, to socialize, and to become "part of a group." Bisexuality, and even homosexuality, are an "in" for some of these kids.

FTR, I'm not saying such clubs are a bad idea; however, to argue there is no "fall-out" in terms of luring vulnerable and confused kids (who still may be struggling with their sexuality, yes) into the lifestyle is complete ignorance. I see it a number of times, EVERY year.

patteeu
03-01-2005, 08:53 AM
This idea is about 10 years out of date. Hetero's also spread AIDS. Those who participate in anal sex have a slightly higher chance of passing it on to their partner, I believe.

I didn't hear about the nutjob in NYC, but if that story is right, he should be locked up for life, in an isolated cell.

I suspect the chance transmission through anal sex with an infected partner is far greater than the chance that a man will get HIV/AIDS through vaginal sex. It might be similar to the chance that a woman will get it through vaginal sex with an infected partner though. I don't have any studies to back my supposition up though.

In general, I don't think it's useful to characterize HIV/AIDS as a homosexual or heterosexual disease. I do think it would probably be useful to distinguish between risky behaviors and less risky behaviors.

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 08:55 AM
I suspect the chance transmission through anal sex with an infected partner is far greater than the chance that a man will get HIV/AIDS through vaginal sex. It might be similar to the chance that a woman will get it through vaginal sex with an infected partner though. I don't have any studies to back my supposition up though.

In general, I don't think it's useful to characterize HIV/AIDS as a homosexual or heterosexual disease. I do think it would probably be useful to distinguish between risky behaviors and less risky behaviors.

Agreed on all counts. (I don't think I've ever agreed with you this much in a single day before.... :) )

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 08:56 AM
Kissing is behavior regardless of who is doing it or what their motivations are.

Black guy kissing white girl = behavior

White guy kissing black girl = behavior

Gay guy kissing gay guy = behavior

Hetro guy kissing gay guy = behavior

Tatooed girl kissing her pet doberman = behavior

SDChiefsFan kissing DenverChief's avatar = behavior

Husband kissing wife = behavior

Mother kissing child = behavior

...

You get the idea.

I'd argue you are confusing ACTIONS with "behavior" in a sociological sense. BEHAVIOR is much more nuanced and complex than the simple ACTIONS you have listed, IMHO. :hmmm:

patteeu
03-01-2005, 08:59 AM
It's all fun and games till someone get's hurt.

If it becomes a trend amongst kids that aren't really gay then I have a problem with that.

I have a problem with any kind of sex trends among kids.

jspchief
03-01-2005, 09:04 AM
I am in a position to call BS to this. For a small percentage of kids, this is how they choose to fit in. It seems non-sensical until you think about it--kids desperately want to fit in, to be accepted. If they don't fit in 'elsewhere,' we have a school "club" which allows them to "support" one another, to socialize, and to become "part of a group." Bisexuality, and even homosexuality, are an "in" for some of these kids.

FTR, I'm not saying such clubs are a bad idea; however, to argue there is no "fall-out" in terms of luring vulnerable and confused kids (who still may be struggling with their sexuality, yes) into the lifestyle is complete ignorance. I see it a number of times, EVERY year.

Assuming this is true (which I seriously doubt), what exactly is the harm?

Let's say 15 year old Jimmy is "confused" about whether he likes pink hole or brown hole. He sees that the popular crowd are all gays (in SD's bizarro world), and decides to choose brown (UPS will be pleased). So he starts a homosexual relationship with the QB. Then what? Who gets hurt? By joinging the gay crowd, he won't get lung cancer unlike the smoking crowd. There's no risk of becoming an alcoholic, unlike joining the drinking crowd. I could go on, but you get the point.

What exactly is the harm of him choosing "gay"?

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 09:08 AM
What are the consequences of gay behaviour? It doesn't affect their job performance, it doesn't affect their health, it doesn't affect their ability to pay bills or be loving spouses. Who are the victims of the gay "choice"?

In a pinch, I'm gonna have to say mostly moral. Aristotle and Plato wrote about the need for a society to be virtuous. Today, we still debate about the appropriate level of "legislating morality." The question isn't really whether we should, because certainly we do legislate SOMEONE'S idea of morality--and we do it every day. The only real queation is whether the CURRENT moral standard should be altered, to be.....as activists and sympathizers would say, more "tolerant and compassionate."

If so, don't deny and don't be surprised when other groups start knocking at the door requesting the same consideration. That we may, at present reject them, does not diminish the fact we have opened the door. Is that a road we as a society wish to go down? Some say, yes; the time has come. Others say, no.

patteeu
03-01-2005, 09:09 AM
I'd argue you are confusing ACTIONS with "behavior" in a sociological sense. BEHAVIOR is much more nuanced and complex than the simple ACTIONS you have listed, IMHO. :hmmm:

In that case, you are the one who introduced the confusion of "behavior" into a statement that involved "actions."

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 09:13 AM
Assuming this is true (which I seriously doubt), what exactly is the harm?

Let's say 15 year old Jimmy is "confused" about whether he likes pink hole or brown hole. He sees that the popular crowd are all gays (in SD's bizarro world), and decides to choose brown (UPS will be pleased). So he starts a homosexual relationship with the QB. Then what? Who gets hurt? By joinging the gay crowd, he won't get lung cancer unlike the smoking crowd. There's no risk of becoming an alcoholic, unlike joining the drinking crowd. I could go on, but you get the point.

What exactly is the harm of him choosing "gay"?

WHY in the heck would I make something like this up? I assure you, I have two students in my classes who have now "decided" they are "bisexual" (THEIR own words, NOT mine!) They are both great kids, with bright futures. Since their "conversion," let us suffice it to say, things have not been going as well for them...

The harm? In confusing even FURTHER a vulnerable child .... psychologically, morally, and socially....what kid NEEDS additional pressure and confusion? If one chooses a lifestyle, consciously and knowingly accepting the consequences of said choice, fine. However, why wish such additional hardships upon already confused kids? There lives are tough enough.

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 09:14 AM
Assuming this is true (which I seriously doubt), what exactly is the harm?

Let's say 15 year old Jimmy is "confused" about whether he likes pink hole or brown hole. He sees that the popular crowd are all gays (in SD's bizarro world), and decides to choose brown (UPS will be pleased). So he starts a homosexual relationship with the QB. Then what? Who gets hurt? By joinging the gay crowd, he won't get lung cancer unlike the smoking crowd. There's no risk of becoming an alcoholic, unlike joining the drinking crowd. I could go on, but you get the point.

What exactly is the harm of him choosing "gay"?
ROFLROFLROFL

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 09:17 AM
In that case, you are the one who introduced the confusion of "behavior" into a statement that involved "actions."

Kissing is clearly an action in my mind; sexual orientation, generally, is considered a "behavior." Both involve some levels of "choice;" the former, much more clear and easily described, but the latter is much more complex and convuluted...but nonetheless involves a great degree of "choice."

Sorry if I confused you. Divided attention and multi-tasking don't always lend themselves to clarity....

jspchief
03-01-2005, 09:19 AM
If so, don't deny and don't be surprised when other groups start knocking at the door requesting the same consideration. That we may, at present reject them, does not diminish the fact we have opened the door. Is that a road we as a society wish to go down? Some say, yes; the time has come. Others say, no.

Fair enough. Although this won't "open the door", because the door is already open. Societies have been adapting their moral stances for centuries. I don't believe it in any way lowers our resistance to things like bestiality or pedophilia. Maybe 500 years from now, those things will also be accepted, but it won't be because someone forced our hand, it will be because society's stance on the issue has shifted. Just like gays won't be accepted because they forced us to, but rather because we chose to accept them.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 09:22 AM
Fair enough. Although this won't "open the door", because the door is already open. Societies have been adapting their moral stances for centuries. I don't believe it in any way lowers our resistance to things like bestiality or pedophilia. Maybe 500 years from now, those things will also be accepted, but it won't be because someone forced our hand, it will be because society's stance on the issue has shifted. Just like gays won't be accepted because they forced us to, but rather because we chose to accept them.

I agee. You could be right in your predictions. Many of us are hoping you are wrong though.

Nothing personal. Just reasonable disagreement.

patteeu
03-01-2005, 09:25 AM
Assuming this is true (which I seriously doubt), what exactly is the harm?

I think there is some truth to it. I had a gay friend whose sexual MO was to hang out in clubs and other party scenes in a college town and befriend young, heterosexual college guys with the intent of later seducing them. Most of these guys were drug/alcohol abusers and many of them had issues related to societal/parental rejection. To his credit, he would actually become friends with these guys (as opposed to tricking them by feigning friendship), and often the friendship was more detrimental to my gay friend than it was to his hetero crushes (e.g. they would steal from him or take advantage of him to get access to drugs/alcohol).

According to his roommate (who was gay but not in a relationship with my friend), my friend was surprisingly successful at closing the deal. Unfortunately for my friend, these guys would invariably revert to their heterosexual identities (sometimes maintaining the friendship and sometimes not). I don't see how he could have "turned" these guys to the "dark side," even temporarily, if it weren't for some kind of desire to fit in or poor self-esteem issues.

jspchief
03-01-2005, 09:26 AM
WHY in the heck would I make something like this up? I assure you, I have two students in my classes who have now "decided" they are "bisexual" (THEIR own words, NOT mine!) They are both great kids, with bright futures. Since their "conversion," let us suffice it to say, things have not been going as well for them...

The harm? In confusing even FURTHER a vulnerable child .... psychologically, morally, and socially....what kid NEEDS additional pressure and confusion? If one chooses a lifestyle, consciously and knowingly accepting the consequences of said choice, fine. However, why wish such additional hardships upon already confused kids? There lives are tough enough.

And Bill Gates was picked on for being a nerd...

These kids didn't choose to be bisexual because it was "in", they chose it because they are confused. And if it was purely a choice, and their lives are worse for it, why don't they "choose" to not be bi anymore. If they are catching so much hell, it obviously wasn't that "in" anyway.

Besides, the "confusion" that you refer to wouldn't hold near the emotional impact if homosexuality was more acceptable. It's not their choice that causes the grief, it's other's intolerance.

So basically your argument is: We can't accept gays because then kids will choose to be gay, which is bad for kids because being gay in unacceptable.

You're talking in circles.

Ultra Peanut
03-01-2005, 09:29 AM
Nah. I suspect the poll is skewed by "rookies" and recent registrations that are recruited by "activists" whenever, and where-ever a poll like this is posted....of course, the mods could answer that question for us. And, I could be wrong; although I suspect not.You're like a Democrat in November.

jspchief
03-01-2005, 09:29 AM
I don't see how he could have "turned" these guys to the "dark side," even temporarily, if it weren't for some kind of desire to fit in or poor self-esteem issues.

These kids were obviously f*cked up anyway. If it wasn't a gay guy taking advantage of them it would have been some conniving b*tch.

patteeu
03-01-2005, 09:31 AM
Kissing is clearly an action in my mind; sexual orientation, generally, is considered a "behavior." Both involve some levels of "choice;" the former, much more clear and easily described, but the latter is much more complex and convuluted...but nonetheless involves a great degree of "choice."

Sorry if I confused you. Divided attention and multi-tasking don't always lend themselves to clarity....

No, you didn't confuse me (unless I'm still confused). The point was made that a reluctance to see two men kissing in public today is similar to the reluctance years ago to see a black person kissing a white person. You suggested that this was comparing behavior with whatever characterization you gave to black/white. I'm pointing out that the kissing is an action in either case. If kissing is OK for one set of two people (e.g. black and white) then why wouldn't it be OK for another set of people (e.g. man and man). If it's OK to reject kissing for man/man then it should be OK to reject kissing between black/white because kissing is an action.

But anyway, it's not an argument worth having. If you want to rebut what I've said, feel free to have the last word on it.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 09:33 AM
And Bill Gates was picked on for being a nerd...

These kids didn't choose to be bisexual because it was "in", they chose it because they are confused. And if it was purely a choice, and their lives are worse for it, why don't they "choose" to not be bi anymore. If they are catching so much hell, it obviously wasn't that "in" anyway.

Besides, the "confusion" that you refer to wouldn't hold near the emotional impact if homosexuality was more acceptable. It's not their choice that causes the grief, it's other's intolerance.

So basically your argument is: We can't accept gays because then kids will choose to be gay, which is bad for kids because being gay in unacceptable.

You're talking in circles.

How do you attribute SELF "guilt" and moral confusion to "intolerance?"

Some kids are willing to trade "immediate gratification" and "love" for long-term normal development and working through such confusion--sometimes, but not always for the sake of expediency. Hell, many kids do go through differing levels of confusion--some simply don't act on that ambiguity. I'd argue, MOST are better off in the long run for not having "experimented." Although, I suppose it does "work" for some.

Ultra Peanut
03-01-2005, 09:33 AM
In a pinch, I'm gonna have to say mostly moral. Aristotle and Plato wrote about the need for a society to be virtuous. Peterpuffing wasn't some "horrible crime in the eyes of the Lord" until around the time of the Crusades.

patteeu
03-01-2005, 09:34 AM
These kids were obviously f*cked up anyway. If it wasn't a gay guy taking advantage of them it would have been some conniving b*tch.

I couldn't agree more. Some of these guys were really messed up. My gay friend had issues too or he would have been pursuing a relationship that was more likely to have a future.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 09:36 AM
No, you didn't confuse me (unless I'm still confused). The point was made that a reluctance to see two men kissing in public today is similar to the reluctance years ago to see a black person kissing a white person. You suggested that this was comparing behavior with whatever characterization you gave to black/white. I'm pointing out that the kissing is an action in either case. If kissing is OK for one set of two people (e.g. black and white) then why wouldn't it be OK for another set of people (e.g. man and man). If it's OK to reject kissing for man/man then it should be OK to reject kissing between black/white because kissing is an action.

But anyway, it's not an argument worth having. If you want to rebut what I've said, feel free to have the last word on it.

I'm sorry; my fault....I wasn't even adressing the issue of PDA; I was speaking strictly of society's "sanctioning" of the behavior, in a moral sense.

PDA is annoying from anyone; deal with it the same way across the board.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 09:38 AM
Peterpuffing wasn't some "horrible crime in the eyes of the Lord" until around the time of the Crusades.

I'd agree with you, that it isn't....nor should it be a horrible crime, but as I just stated....I don't think it should be sanctioned or celebrated by society, no more than alcoholism or addiction is. It's really as simple as that for me. Live and let live--but in the privacy of your own lives, in your own home. Don't make a "federal" case out of it.

memyselfI
03-01-2005, 09:39 AM
I'm having a serious case of deja vu. Did you post this before???

probably in response to the same point from the same moron... :rolleyes:

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 09:40 AM
probably in response to the same point from the same moron... :rolleyes:

I thought we were on a first name basis by now, Duhnise....come on! :harumph:

:p

memyselfI
03-01-2005, 09:41 AM
I'd agree with you, that it isn't....nor should it be a horrible crime, but as I just stated....I don't think it should be sanctioned or celebrated by society, no more than alcoholism or addiction is. It's really as simple as that for me. Live and let live--but in the privacy of your own lives, in your own home. Don't make a "federal" case out of it.


Alcoholism and addiction are personality disorders. If you are stating that homosexuality is as well then it is your responsibility to prove it using the same standards as those that have designated those two problems as personality disorders...that would mean using a non-religious basis for such a designation.

Let's hear it. What science have you got to back up your placing homosexuality in the same personality disorder as addiction?

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 09:45 AM
Alcoholism and addiction are personality disorders. If you are stating that homosexuality is as well then it is responsibility to prove it using the same standards as those that have designated those two problems as personality disorders...that would mean using a non-religious basis for such a designation.

Let's hear it.

Google it yourself. If the search function were up, I'd try. But divided attention and multitasking only lend themselves to shootin' the breeze, not exhaustive research. Sorry, ask Bob or Phil to turn on the search engine for a bit....and find it yourself. We're rehashing old ground here; and I'm okay with that, but I'm NOT going to re-research it. I can't right now. Divided attention and all.... :shrug:

If you absolutely insist, I might be able to schedule and prioritize it for May....of 2006. :)

Ultra Peanut
03-01-2005, 09:46 AM
I'd agree with you, that it isn't....nor should it be a horrible crime, but as I just stated....I don't think it should be sanctioned or celebrated by society, no more than alcoholism or addiction is. It's really as simple as that for me. Live and let live--but in the privacy of your own lives, in your own home. Don't make a "federal" case out of it.So it's, "Live and let live, but only if what you're doing meets my arbitrary standards of morality. If not, shut up and keep that shit to yourself!"

memyselfI
03-01-2005, 09:48 AM
Google it yourself. If the search function were up, I'd try. But divided attention and multitasking only lend themselves to shootin' the breeze, not exhaustive research. Sorry, ask Bob or Phil to turn on the search engine for a bit....and find it yourself. We're rehashing old ground here; and I'm okay with that, but I'm NOT going to re-research it. I can't right now. Divided attention and all.... :shrug:

If you absolutely insist, I might be able to schedule and prioritize it for May....of 2006. :)

Perhaps when you remember some of the names or organizations who sponsored such studies you'll provide them to us so we can Google. :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 09:49 AM
So it's, "Live and let live, but only if what you're doing meets my arbitrary standards of morality. If not, shut up and keep that shit to yourself!"

Yeah, pretty much.

Kinda like my hang-up for Rosie O'Donnel porn....heh. She would have made one fine HETEROSEXUAL BBW.... ;)

ROFL


:eek:

Ultra Peanut
03-01-2005, 09:50 AM
Kinda like my hang-up for Rosie O'Donnel porn....heh. She would have made one fine HETEROSEXUAL BBW.... ;) Ack.

I'm glad she's out of the gene pool.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 09:53 AM
Perhaps when you remember some of the names or organizations who sponsored such studies you'll provide them to us so we can Google. :hmmm:

Not off the top of my head....they are too numerous to recall at the moment; just google it, seriously....even after you discard the "religous" groups (in FAIRNESS I'd ask that you disregard gay rights "groups" or ideologically affiliated groups)....you'll find MAJOR university studies (ones that have been replicated) on BOTH sides of the issue.

It is a tedious process though, I know.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 09:54 AM
Ack.

I'm glad she's out of the gene pool.

Exactly my point.

See what I mean? :p

Calcountry
03-01-2005, 10:24 AM
I am all for Gay marriage if insurance companies can issue insurance to gay couples and put them into an actuarial pool that accounts for their increased health care costs and exclude that pool from straights.

|Zach|
03-01-2005, 10:52 AM
I think you need to differentiate between " I don't care to see it" and "I think they should be banned from it".

Personally, I have no opposition to gays. I'm not religious, I don't care whether it is nature or nurtured, etc. I believe they should have the same rights as any other American.

However, I don't care to watch two guys kiss. I'm not a big fan of PDA in general. I'd probably pull up a chair if it were two women (assuming they were good looking). That doesn't mean they aren't allowed to do it, it just means I may turn my head in disgust. A lot of people say things like "just don't do that sh*t around me" and mean simply that they don't like to see it. Not that there should be laws banning it.

Just like any shifting of descriminating views, it's a slow process. Acceptance of gays won't just happen because someone creates a law saying they are equal. Look no further than desegregation for the perfect comparison. It's a slow evolution, that will probably never completely stop. In a perfect world maybe everyone would look at two men kissing and only see it as a display of love, but it won't happen until it happens. Laws and lectures don't change those views, they have to change on their own. The only thing laws can do is protect those people from descrimination.

I can see your point. I think at the end of the day I am just interested in eqaulity. Like I told someone earlier on this thread who basically said gay's can have their rights but don't "flaunt" it. I don't think thats a big deal if you don't thing straight folks should "flaunt" it.

If this mindset is a good way or a bad way to blend things better into society (thats a weird way to put it but it seems like a lot of the jist of your post) then whatever happens happens. I guess I am less interested at how this idea meshes with others and more interested in the idea of things being fair. Let the cards fall as they will and let people react as they will.

|Zach|
03-01-2005, 10:54 AM
Exactly my point. The laws didn't automatically make people more accepting of it. You can't take the "bizarre" and expect it to become the "normal" overnight. Just like my forefathers probably looked down on inter-racial relationships and I don't, My children will probably be more accepting of gay relationships, because they are growing up with more exposure to it than I ever was.

The biggest problem with the "gay movement" as far as I can tell is that they lack a "Martin Luther King" type figure to be a spearhead. When people think of gay rights parades, they think of 10,000 "village people" marching with their asses hanging out of their chaps. These are the "Black Panthers" for gays....too in your face, and a hard pill to swallow. When you see gays as the guy that plays golf in your golf league, or the neighbor who's lawn you envy, instead of the mustached flamer in assless chaps, it will be a lot easier to accpet them as "normal".
Good post...

|Zach|
03-01-2005, 10:55 AM
I am all for Gay marriage if insurance companies can issue insurance to gay couples and put them into an actuarial pool that accounts for their increased health care costs and exclude that pool from straights.
Why the seperation?

Calcountry
03-01-2005, 11:00 AM
Why the seperation?People who jump out of planes and hang glide are charged higher rates for life insurance.

Pay for your own riskier lifestyle, thats my point.

|Zach|
03-01-2005, 11:02 AM
People who jump out of planes and hang glide are charged higher rates for life insurance.

Pay for your own riskier lifestyle, thats my point.
Homosexuals lead riskier life styles?

Would you like different insurance rates for slutty chicks also?

Jenny Gump
03-01-2005, 11:09 AM
Homosexuals lead riskier life styles?

Would you like different insurance rates for slutty chicks also?

I vote no.

|Zach|
03-01-2005, 11:10 AM
I vote no.
ROFL ROFL

DenverChief
03-01-2005, 11:12 AM
I vote no.
ROFL

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 11:15 AM
I vote no.

ROFL ROFL

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 11:17 AM
I vote no.

CHEAP ploy for rep.... :shake:


(I'd give you some, but I'm out this 24 hrs)

Bowser
03-01-2005, 11:18 AM
I vote no.

ROFL

I think we need an explanation on this one............

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 11:25 AM
People who jump out of planes and hang glide are charged higher rates for life insurance.

Pay for your own riskier lifestyle, thats my point.
Its very expensive to have a baby.

mlyonsd
03-01-2005, 11:27 AM
I vote no on gay marriage. Although in fairness I'd like to point out I'm consistent in that I'd vote no to the question of letting a sheep rancher marry one of his sheep.

They're both about the same thing, unnatural.

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 11:31 AM
Marriage, in this part of the world, has to be mutual. A sheep can not enter such contract, as it has no say so.

The whole "what next? people marrying barnyard animals?" argument is one of the most illogical, stupid arguments i've heard against gay marriage.

mlyonsd
03-01-2005, 11:32 AM
Marriage, in this part of the world, has to be mutual. A sheep can not enter such contract, as it has no say so.

The whole "what next? people marrying barnyard animals?" argument is one of the most illogical, stupid arguments i've heard against gay marriage.

To some the two are comparibly the same. Get it dumbass?

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 11:34 AM
To some the two are comparibly the same. Get it dumbass?
To some, the moon landing and the holocaust were a hoax.

DenverChief
03-01-2005, 11:35 AM
To some, the moon landing and the holocaust were a hoax.
ROFL

DenverChief
03-01-2005, 11:35 AM
To some the two are comparibly the same. Get it dumbass?


:whackit:

mlyonsd
03-01-2005, 11:38 AM
To some, the moon landing and the holocaust were a hoax.

All I'm saying is man has already defined what the term "marriage" is. I have no problems with civil unions, or calling it something else. I don't know, make up a word, how about "gayrriage"?

But in my book it will never be the same as marriage.

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 11:40 AM
All I'm saying is man has already defined what the term "marriage" is. I have no problems with civil unions, or calling it something else. I don't know, make up a word, how about "gayrriage"?

But in my book it will never be the same as marriage.
Thats fine, too. I'm sure noone minds what its called, because it will end up being called marriage anyways.

bkkcoh
03-01-2005, 11:40 AM
All I'm saying is man has already defined what the term "marriage" is. I have no problems with civil unions, or calling it something else. I don't know, make up a word, how about "gayrriage"?

But in my book it will never be the same as marriage.


And it shouldn't have the same priviledges and rights as marriage...

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 11:41 AM
And it shouldn't have the same priviledges and rights as marriage...
Such as? and why not?

mlyonsd
03-01-2005, 11:46 AM
Such as? and why not?

So barnyard animals aside, where do we draw the line? Should a father be able to marry a daughter?

bkkcoh
03-01-2005, 11:51 AM
Such as? and why not?

I think first of all that it cheapens marriage.

Probate laws for one. But they can side step that issue with a will, but that is ok to me. People can leave anything to anyone, but it needs to be specifically spelled out in a will.

there are a lot of other examples, but due to be foggy on cold medicine, I can't think of really good ones at this time.
:harumph:

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 11:54 AM
So barnyard animals aside, where do we draw the line? Should a father be able to marry a daughter?
1. We have set ages of consent in every state.
2. Inbreeding produces nasty results.

bkkcoh
03-01-2005, 11:56 AM
1. We have set ages of consent in every state.


Those will probably fall in the next USSC decision. Talk about the erosion of states rights....

MOhillbilly
03-01-2005, 11:57 AM
2. Inbreeding produces nasty results.


says you.
What about ALL the cousins that got married north and south.........never mind i just thought of english royality...... geesh!

Calcountry
03-01-2005, 11:58 AM
Marriage, in this part of the world, has to be mutual. A sheep can not enter such contract, as it has no say so.

The whole "what next? people marrying barnyard animals?" argument is one of the most illogical, stupid arguments i've heard against gay marriage.I vote for letting bunny's enter into bigamous marriages with all the rights and priveliges pertaining thereto.

Calcountry
03-01-2005, 12:00 PM
Homosexuals lead riskier life styles?

Would you like different insurance rates for slutty chicks also?Certainly, its called being single, take a blood test when she asks for health insurance. Does she drink , smoke, is she overweight.

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 12:00 PM
says you.
What about ALL the cousins that got married north and south.........never mind i just thought of english royality...... geesh!
ROFL

mlyonsd
03-01-2005, 12:05 PM
1. We have set ages of consent in every state.
2. Inbreeding produces nasty results.

Yea, so the daughter would have to be of age, that's a given. And the inbreeding thing can be eliminated by surgery.

So, any reason left not to let a father marry his daughter?

bkkcoh
03-01-2005, 12:06 PM
says you.
What about ALL the cousins that got married north and south.........never mind i just thought of english royality...... geesh!
http://www.royal.gov.uk/files/images/Royal_F1_4b_background.jpg

This should enough of a reason to stop and outlaw the practice.

Braincase
03-01-2005, 12:10 PM
Certainly, its called being single, take a blood test when she asks for health insurance. Does she drink , smoke, is she overweight.

... did she ever date any Rolla grads living in Arizona named Brian?

jspchief
03-01-2005, 12:11 PM
And the inbreeding thing can be eliminated by surgery.



Elaborate please? Let me pull up a chair and get the popcorn.

DenverChief
03-01-2005, 12:16 PM
I thought htis quote fitting for some


You can't expect people to look eye to eye with you if you are looking down on them.-- Unknown

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 12:17 PM
Nah. I suspect the poll is skewed by "rookies" and recent registrations that are recruited by "activists" whenever, and where-ever a poll like this is posted....of course, the mods could answer that question for us. And, I could be wrong; although I suspect not.

Mods, how about it...seriously? Could one of you "peek" and see how many of those 44 votes are noobs (fewer than say, 50 posts) or "recent" registrants...some have suggested these "recruiting" ploys to skew such polling have spread across much of the internet these days.

I'm just curious how "genuine" this result is.... :hmmm:

mlyonsd
03-01-2005, 12:18 PM
Elaborate please? Let me pull up a chair and get the popcorn.

Oh come on now, I'm sure your imagination can help you figure out how surgery can stop breeding.

All I'm saying is to some, marriage is a hard defined thing with no variations. Letting two people of the same sex marry is the same thing as to family members. Not natural from how we define it.

Calcountry
03-01-2005, 12:22 PM
Homosexuals lead riskier life styles?

Would you like different insurance rates for slutty chicks also?I think the underying premise is one of choice. The gay marriage supporters, and gay rights folks believe that they have no choice and were born gay, and simply cannot choose which shoot to stick their tube down, therefore they cannot change anymore than a black person can become white. So they shouldn't be discriminated against.

I on the other hand see gay lifestyle as a perverse CHOICE, much in the same way one CHOOSES to take drugs or NOT to take drugs, and therefore if one CHOOSES to engage in risky behavior, then they OUGHT to bare the added costs of such DECISIONS and not society at large.

I guess that makes me an insensitive bigot, but hey, I said I would be for Gay marriage, as long as you don't include me in the insurance pool that will be paying out for triple cocktails to the spouses who would otherwise not be covered.

Calcountry
03-01-2005, 12:23 PM
... did she ever date any Rolla grads living in Arizona named Brian?I wouldn't know about that, and I don't think Brian would remember it either.

DenverChief
03-01-2005, 12:25 PM
I think the underying premise is one of choice. The gay marriage supporters, and gay rights folks believe that they have no choice and were born gay, and simply cannot choose which shoot to stick their tube down, therefore they cannot change anymore than a black person can become white. So they shouldn't be discriminated against.

I on the other hand see gay lifestyle as a perverse CHOICE, much in the same way one CHOOSES to take drugs or NOT to take drugs, and therefore if one CHOOSES to engage in risky behavior, then they OUGHT to bare the added costs of such DECISIONS and not society at large.

I guess that makes me an insensitive bigot, but hey, I said I would be for Gay marriage, as long as you don't include me in the insurance pool that will be paying out for triple cocktails to the spouses who would otherwise not be covered.


If I can shoose to be straight then surely you can choose to be gay.....riiiiight.......and how about those religious folk why do they get protection from discrimination for a choice they make? I mena they could choose to be atheist like the rest of us and not be discriminated aginast right?

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 12:27 PM
I thought htis quote fitting for some

If I was poor, obese, and a slob, (or better yet, a BRONCO fan)--would you "look down on me?" Be HONEST... :hmmm:

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 12:29 PM
I guess that makes me an insensitive bigot, but hey, I said I would be for Gay marriage, as long as you don't include me in the insurance pool that will be paying out for triple cocktails to the spouses who would otherwise not be covered.
Yeah right. Quityerbitchin. I'm in the same insurance pool as a 350 lb man who is a hypochondriac.

DenverChief
03-01-2005, 12:29 PM
If I was poor, obese, and a slob, (or better yet, a BRONCO fan)--would you "look down on me?" Be HONEST... :hmmm:


and do you or I ( or any other Chief fan for that matter) see eye to eye with Bronco fans?

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 12:30 PM
If I can shoose to be straight then surely you can choose to be gay.....riiiiight.......and how about those religious folk why do they get protection from discrimination for a choice they make? I mena they could choose to be atheist like the rest of us and not be discriminated aginast right?
Yep, I pointed this out before. If I chose to be say..Hindu, or Muslim, I could not be discriminated against at my job.

bkkcoh
03-01-2005, 12:30 PM
I think the underying premise is one of choice. The gay marriage supporters, and gay rights folks believe that they have no choice and were born gay, and simply cannot choose which shoot to stick their tube down, therefore they cannot change anymore than a black person can become white. So they shouldn't be discriminated against.

I on the other hand see gay lifestyle as a perverse CHOICE, much in the same way one CHOOSES to take drugs or NOT to take drugs, and therefore if one CHOOSES to engage in risky behavior, then they OUGHT to bare the added costs of such DECISIONS and not society at large.

..

My wife works with a lady who just recently broke up with her girlfriend of 7 or so years. The lady is getting screwed big time becuase she was the dutiful wife, and quit her job to follow her girlfriend from Florida. The girlfriend had the high paying job and in the 7 years had everything put into her name. When she told her girlfriend to leave, she was left nothing. Everything was put into the girlfriends name, resort membership and everything else.

Interesting comment from the co-worker, she said that she would be more likely to put up with men's actions than to be screwed over by another girl friend. :hmmm: sounds like in her case, sexual preference is a choice.

patteeu
03-01-2005, 12:33 PM
I'm sorry; my fault....I wasn't even adressing the issue of PDA; I was speaking strictly of society's "sanctioning" of the behavior, in a moral sense.

PDA is annoying from anyone; deal with it the same way across the board.

Most people would agree that tongue-swallowing, pelvis-grinding, and hands-down-the-pants-groping don't belong in public (whether hetro or homo), but what about lesser PDAs like a simple peck on the lips, a tasteful embrace, or the holding of hands? Surely you wouldn't have a problem with these lesser PDAs between heterosexual couples. Would you deal with these the same way across the board?

Seriously, I'm not trying to bust your chops on this issue. I have respect for people who hold religious beliefs that lead them to oppose gay marriage or societal acceptance of gay behavior even if I don't agree with them. I just think this idea that we can cleanse society of displays of affection breaks down upon inspection and the question becomes whether one is willing to allow homosexuals to operate under the same limits of decency as heteros or are they going to have to observe stricter limits?

Calcountry
03-01-2005, 12:37 PM
If I can shoose to be straight then surely you can choose to be gay.....riiiiight.......and how about those religious folk why do they get protection from discrimination for a choice they make? I mena they could choose to be atheist like the rest of us and not be discriminated aginast right?I certainly could choose to engage in sodomy, but I find the mere entertainment of the notion to be disgusting.

I choose not to.

patteeu
03-01-2005, 12:39 PM
I am all for Gay marriage if insurance companies can issue insurance to gay couples and put them into an actuarial pool that accounts for their increased health care costs and exclude that pool from straights.

I think that sounds fair in one sense. Liberal gay activists seem to be seeking group rights so they shouldn't be bothered by being treated as an actuarial group. However, what would you do if we found that gay drivers had fewer accidents than straights and therefore got discounts on auto insurance for being gay?

Calcountry
03-01-2005, 12:41 PM
If I can shoose to be straight then surely you can choose to be gay.....riiiiight.......and how about those religious folk why do they get protection from discrimination for a choice they make? I mena they could choose to be atheist like the rest of us and not be discriminated aginast right?Because freedom of religion is in the Constitution and we are democracy that is governed by majority rule of law.

Go ahead, use the rule of law to make the right of choosing the ghey lifestyle a constitutionally protected right.

It is your right to try. The women tried to get more than equal protection under the law with the ERA and it failed. Go ahead and try it.

Calcountry
03-01-2005, 12:43 PM
I think that sounds fair in one sense. Liberal gay activists seem to be seeking group rights so they shouldn't be bothered by being treated as an actuarial group. However, what would you do if we found that gay drivers had fewer accidents than straights and therefore got discounts on auto insurance for being gay?You mean like women have fewer accidents that beer drinking over testosterone men.

Sure, I am down for that if the statistics bare that out then they should get a break. But then, is it the shemale that is more safe or the hemale? :p

Calcountry
03-01-2005, 12:45 PM
Yeah right. Quityerbitchin. I'm in the same insurance pool as a 350 lb man who is a hypochondriac.I just turned 40 and my rates went up. Thats not fair, I cannot control the aging process.

Sarcasm/off

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 12:50 PM
and do you or I ( or any other Chief fan for that matter) see eye to eye with Bronco fans?

No....my question remains, do you "look down" on the bald, fat, overweight, poor, disheveled fellow who happens to be sportin' a Bronco jacket with Elway's signature?

Do YOU??? :hmmm:

(Sorry to bring TJ, into this....heh. I know, I know...he's not POOR...)

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 12:51 PM
Most people would agree that tongue-swallowing, pelvis-grinding, and hands-down-the-pants-groping don't belong in public (whether hetro or homo), but what about lesser PDAs like a simple peck on the lips, a tasteful embrace, or the holding of hands? Surely you wouldn't have a problem with these lesser PDAs between heterosexual couples. Would you deal with these the same way across the board?

Seriously, I'm not trying to bust your chops on this issue. I have respect for people who hold religious beliefs that lead them to oppose gay marriage or societal acceptance of gay behavior even if I don't agree with them. I just think this idea that we can cleanse society of displays of affection breaks down upon inspection and the question becomes whether one is willing to allow homosexuals to operate under the same limits of decency as heteros or are they going to have to observe stricter limits?

MY idea of PDA is excessive shows of affection; groping. I'm okay with the benign suggestions you mentioned, for anyone....I guess. :shrug:

Ultra Peanut
03-01-2005, 01:46 PM
People who jump out of planes and hang glide are charged higher rates for life insurance.

Pay for your own riskier lifestyle, thats my point.What are those risks?

patteeu
03-01-2005, 01:50 PM
You mean like women have fewer accidents that beer drinking over testosterone men.

Sure, I am down for that if the statistics bare that out then they should get a break. But then, is it the shemale that is more safe or the hemale? :p

Fair enough.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 01:55 PM
Yeah right. Quityerbitchin. I'm in the same insurance pool as a 350 lb man who is a hypochondriac.

Why'd you go and bring ME into this.... :harumph:

;)

go bowe
03-01-2005, 01:55 PM
It would be intesting to see names attached to these poll results...how many recently registered, or "rookies"? :hmmm:well, 40 of those yes votes are from rookie fake identies i'm using right now...

the rest are dc's...

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 01:56 PM
well, 40 of those yes votes are from rookie fake identies i'm using right now...

the rest are dc's...

I taught you guys well...heh. ROFL

go bowe
03-01-2005, 01:56 PM
This is a MAJOR misnomer...most gays/lesbians have sex with persons of the same sex at around the age of everyone else (15-16) with other kids the same age....older gays are not out "recruiting" younger men/women to join their ranks...that is just absurdspeak for yourself, sonny...

DenverChief
03-01-2005, 02:41 PM
speak for yourself, sonny...


:spock: you are out recruiting young women to come to your palace of delights? :p

Mark M
03-01-2005, 02:45 PM
I don't have time to start a huge discussion on this issue, so I'll just throw out one comment:

If you're against gay marriage (or civil unions, or whatever), then don't marry a gay person.

Seems pretty simple to me ...

MM
~~:shrug:

DenverChief
03-01-2005, 02:45 PM
Because freedom of religion is in the Constitution and we are democracy that is governed by majority rule of law.

.


UM no its not...the purpose of the supreme court is to protect the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the majority...therefore we do not have a majority rule govt.

go bowe
03-01-2005, 02:45 PM
:spock: you are out recruiting young women to come to your palace of delights? :pno, it's sort of like when the nazis ordered jews in occupied denmark to wear star of david patches to show that they were jews, the king of denmark went out in public wearing one of the patches and thousands of other danes joined him..

i'm just wearing my star of david patch... :thumb:

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 02:46 PM
:spock: you are out recruiting young women to come to your palace of delights? :p

You gotta remember....everyone, except Skip and Manilla is younger than John...heh.

Ultra Peanut
03-01-2005, 02:47 PM
we are democracy that is governed by majority rule of law.<img src="http://pbskids.org/clifford/shared/images/games/tbone/emily/clifford_house-wrong.gif" style="width: 210px; height: 163px; border: 0" alt="" />

DenverChief
03-01-2005, 02:48 PM
I don't have time to start a huge discussion on this issue, so I'll just throw out one comment:

If you're against gay marriage (or civil unions, or whatever), then don't marry a gay person.

Seems pretty simple to me ...

MM
~~:shrug:
ROFL

long time no see buddy :)

DenverChief
03-01-2005, 02:48 PM
no, it's sort of like when the nazis ordered jews in occupied denmark to wear star of david patches to show that they were jews, the king of denmark went out in public wearing one of the patches and thousands of other danes joined him..

i'm just wearing my star of david patch... :thumb:
:)

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 02:57 PM
<img src="http://pbskids.org/clifford/shared/images/games/tbone/emily/clifford_house-wrong.gif" style="width: 210px; height: 163px; border: 0" alt="" />

bunny is right, you are wrong. :shake:

Majority Rule? Psi...did you sleep through that in civics class?

(FTR, Yes it is Majority Rule....balanced with minority rights...however, the courts have yet to acknowledge homosexuality as the legal equivalent of other protected "classes" such as race and gender....that's why this is such a big deal; most people don't understand it--it would be a monumental shift in curerent law....and the gay rights movement is using that to stealthily "piggy back" on legitimately protected suspect classifications....)

go bowe
03-01-2005, 03:09 PM
UM no its not...the purpose of the supreme court is to protect the rights of the individual from the tyranny of the majority...therefore we do not have a majority rule govt.i think the concept of the rule of law began with the notion of protecting ordinary citizens from being mistreated by whoever happens to be in power at the time...

in that way, the rule of law protects a citizenry from despots, but is not it's only defining characteristic...

the rule of law also protects individuals and minorities from the will of the majority (what is sometimes called the tyrany of the majority)...

the founding fathers and the authors of the constitution seemed to have had a profound distrust and even fear of the majority (in terms of the political majority)... hell, it can be argued that they feared direct democracy in any form...

election of senators by legislatures, election of the president by electors, appointment of judges by the executive - all without any direct control by the voting populace...

only the house of representatives was chosen by direct election of the people...

and the senate (originally elected by the state legislatures) effectively protected congress from being controlled by the will of the majority (of the voting public)...

the rule of law and rule by the majority are two very different things...

that's why i always chuckle when i see the "rule of law" tied to the will of the majority... the two are virtually the diametric opposites of one another...

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 04:09 PM
i think the concept of the rule of law began with the notion of protecting ordinary citizens from being mistreated by whoever happens to be in power at the time...

in that way, the rule of law protects a citizenry from despots, but is not it's only defining characteristic...

the rule of law also protects individuals and minorities from the will of the majority (what is sometimes called the tyrany of the majority)...

the founding fathers and the authors of the constitution seemed to have had a profound distrust and even fear of the majority (in terms of the political majority)... hell, it can be argued that they feared direct democracy in any form...

election of senators by legislatures, election of the president by electors, appointment of judges by the executive - all without any direct control by the voting populace...

only the house of representatives was chosen by direct election of the people...

and the senate (originally elected by the state legislatures) effectively protected congress from being controlled by the will of the majority (of the voting public)...

the rule of law and rule by the majority are two very different things...

that's why i always chuckle when i see the "rule of law" tied to the will of the majority... the two are virtually the diametric opposites of one another...

Well done, young...er, old, man. :clap:

DenverChief
03-01-2005, 04:24 PM
i think the concept of the rule of law began with the notion of protecting ordinary citizens from being mistreated by whoever happens to be in power at the time...

in that way, the rule of law protects a citizenry from despots, but is not it's only defining characteristic...

the rule of law also protects individuals and minorities from the will of the majority (what is sometimes called the tyrany of the majority)...

the founding fathers and the authors of the constitution seemed to have had a profound distrust and even fear of the majority (in terms of the political majority)... hell, it can be argued that they feared direct democracy in any form...

election of senators by legislatures, election of the president by electors, appointment of judges by the executive - all without any direct control by the voting populace...

only the house of representatives was chosen by direct election of the people...

and the senate (originally elected by the state legislatures) effectively protected congress from being controlled by the will of the majority (of the voting public)...

the rule of law and rule by the majority are two very different things...

that's why i always chuckle when i see the "rule of law" tied to the will of the majority... the two are virtually the diametric opposites of one another...
:) I was simplifing ..

vailpass
03-01-2005, 05:33 PM
I can't wait until the current gay fad dies down and we can return to pursuing the real issues, those that are truly important, such as...

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 05:55 PM
I can't wait until the current gay fad dies down and we can return to pursuing the real issues, those that are truly important, such as...

Amen, brother. If I'm reincarnated, I wanna be that girl's bicycle seat... :)

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 06:34 PM
Today, the City of Topeka votes whether or not to make homosexuals a protected class. I'm sure it will pass, banning homosexuals from becoming a protected class, and making it perfectly legal to discriminate.

Also the bill has a nice little rider attached to it, making the council unable to revisit the matter for another 10 years.

Topeka, city of Hate.
the race is closer than I thought, so far.

5 of 141 precincts reporting:

Yes: 1,504
No: 1,505

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 06:48 PM
Yes: 3,448
No: 3,555

27 reporting.

Saulbadguy
03-01-2005, 07:17 PM
Sweet...

Yes: 12,019
No: 13,418

132 out of 140 precincts reporting...

DenverChief
03-01-2005, 08:49 PM
Sweet...

Yes: 12,019
No: 13,418

132 out of 140 precincts reporting...


I'm confused as to what a yes vote means and what a no vote means?

Logical
03-01-2005, 08:55 PM
bunny is right, you are wrong. :shake:

Majority Rule? Psi...did you sleep through that in civics class?

(FTR, Yes it is Majority Rule....balanced with minority rights...however, the courts have yet to acknowledge homosexuality as the legal equivalent of other protected "classes" such as race and gender....that's why this is such a big deal; most people don't understand it--it would be a monumental shift in curerent law....and the gay rights movement is using that to stealthily "piggy back" on legitimately protected suspect classifications....)
Actually you are wrong we are a "Republic" governed by a representative majority. Majority rules only applies to the selection of those representatives and even then not our President and Vice President. Evidently it is you who missed civics class.

Mr. Kotter
03-01-2005, 09:03 PM
Actually you are wrong we are a "Republic" governed by a representative majority. Majority rules only applies to the selection of those representatives and even then not our President and Vice President. Evidently it is you who missed civics class.

Apparently it is you that has forgotten that IF those representatives DEFY majority rule, the consequence is they are soon replaced by SOMEONE ELSE who will undo what the morons did. Critics call this "tyranny of the masses"--a quaint little check on "representative/republican" arrogance.

Exhibit A: Prohibition. :)

Usually the mere threat of voter revolt over an issue of sufficient magnitude (and I do think this is one) is enough to scare them into compliance though--fortunately.