http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20060607/cm_thenation/189347

What a suprise. Now can our elected officials get back to matters of actual importance - like Iraq, Gas prices and so on.

It's a DISGRACE that Bush pulled this stunt, knowing fine well it could never fly & overtly just doing this for benefit of mid-term elections.

It would be a sad day that discrimination was entered into the language of the constitution, but a lot of fundamentalists go wild over this garbage. They think the world is going to collapse if we don't outlaw Gay marriage. I'll never understand it.

What a suprise.
And a relief.

Now can our elected officials get back to matters of actual importance

Yeah, right.

Bush's reason for this amendment was to stop "activist" judges, but that makes no sense. Almost everystate has passed their own state constitutional amendment, and that hasn't stopped these judges. So what is going to stop judges from over-ruling a Federal amendment the way they supposedly over-rulled the state amendments?

If Bush's goal was to prevent judges from making laws, then he should have proposed a Constitutional amendment banning judges from making laws.

It's a DISGRACE that Bush pulled this stunt, knowing fine well it could never fly & overtly just doing this for benefit of mid-term elections.

I agree 100%.

But the reason that our elected officials --like Bush-- sink to such silliness is that America is chock full of bigoted, superstitious, religiously motivated individuals DEMANDING that their leaders get involved in such inane, repressive types of initiatives.

I don't blame the idiocy of the political leadership as much as the stupidity and narrow-mindedness of the populace.

I always cringe when they talk of "activist judges" - basically any judge that doesn't place the bigoted christian view over the constitution is an activist judge. Nuts.

Bush's reason for this amendment was to stop "activist" judges,

Bush's reason for the amendment was to rally his political base. The activist judges BS makes for a nice sound bite, but the reality is that they're following the law and the constitution. In most cases, if they were to allow the christian agenda to become the law, that would be activism.

...... if they were to allow the christian agenda to become the law........

IOW, if what has been going on for over two centuries in this nation continues to take place..........

If they bring this up again, they should include provisions for the South. If marriage is between a man and a woman, that "woman" could be his sister or his cousin down there in the Inbred Basket of America. Nothing in the amendment says you can't tie the knot with kinfolk. Nothin' says lovin' like marryin' yer cousin! Plus make sure they can't keep getting hitched to livestock!
So now they've moved on to the flag burning amendment when what we really need is one banning the desecration of the Bill of Rights with cheap election-year politics.
And if the "conservatives" are giving the F'nCC a bigger club, the first one they should fine is Dubya for his indecent and offensive 2003 speech delivered on broadcast TV about Saddam's fantastical weapons which preceded the plunging of the US into a poorly conceived, ill-equipped and indefinite holy war.
Remember when lying presidents were impeached?

You have it all wrong! The people voted on and passed things we call laws.

Some of the judges say somthing along the line of ....... I don't care what the people voted for, this law is not right, I will rule against it.

Where in the constitution is it written that a man can marry a man or a woman can marry a woman??? (please answer that)

Give the gay people civil unions, but don't call it marriage.

I always cringe when they talk of "activist judges" - basically any judge that doesn't place the bigoted christian view over the constitution is an activist judge. Nuts.

You have it all wrong! The people voted on and passed things we call laws.

Some of the judges say somthing along the line of ....... I don't care what the people voted for, this law is not right, I will rule against it.The Gay Marriage Amendment would prohibit the states (i.e. the People) from passing laws that allow gay marriage. If you think people should be able to vote on and pass laws you should oppose the amendment.Where in the constitution is it written that a man can marry a man or a woman can marry a woman??? (please answer that)Where in the Constitution is it written that they can't? Or that marriage must be between a man and a woman? The Constitution doesn't address the issue one way or the other.

You have it all wrong! The people voted on and passed things we call laws.
Yes, because the United States is a direct democracy. Sarcasm aside, the judicial branch (and, theoretically, the entire government) exists for a reason, that being to protect the people's rights to life, liberty, and property. Basic civics from John Locke, and the United States was founded on Lockean principles.
Some of the judges say somthing along the line of ....... I don't care what the people voted for, this law is not right, I will rule against it.
Which is exactly their job, at least of higher-level judges in their own jurisdictions (state supreme courts, the U.S. Supreme Court). I quote the Constitution, Article Three, Section Two:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States..."

Gee, sure seems like one of their duties is to decide constitutionality of laws, doesn't it! Maybe your problem isn't that they're doing their job, but that their decisions don't agree with your opinions?
Where in the constitution is it written that a man can marry a man or a woman can marry a woman??? (please answer that)
Arguably, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That aside, where in the Constitution is it written that people of the opposite gender can get married? Maybe we should take away that right too?
Give the gay people civil unions, but don't call it marriage.
Yes, because "separate but equal" always worked. Just look at black schools and white schools up until the 1960s!

You have it all wrong! The people voted on and passed things we call laws.

Some of the judges say somthing along the line of ....... I don't care what the people voted for, this law is not right, I will rule against it.

Where in the constitution is it written that a man can marry a man or a woman can marry a woman??? (please answer that)

Give the gay people civil unions, but don't call it marriage.

fyi - you are the one that has it all wrong. It is the judiciary's role to overturn laws that are not constitutional. Congress can't just pass any law they want and it stand if it goes against the constitution. Give me one example of a supreme court judge saying "this law is not right" ie extending personal opinion. What the people voted for is of no concern to the judiciary branch. The uphold the laws and ultimately the constution.

The only reason Bush et al wants a constitional amendment is they know that changing the constitution is the only possible way that gay marriage can be stopped. It'll never happen.

Where in the constitution is it written that a man can marry a man or a woman can marry a woman??? (please answer that)


The same place it says you have the right to marry a black woman (assuming you're white). It doesn't say either of course, but then again, it also never specifically states you have a right to privacy when you speak on the telephone. This right was granted to you by "activist judges" who gave that right to us all by interpreting the Constitution, which is of course exactly what they're supposed to do.

I seem to recall reading in another thread that you were married to a "person of color". 40 years ago you couldn't take that right for granted. It wasn't until some "activist judges" sitting on the Supreme Court decided a case called Loving v. Virginia that people of different races could legally marry in all 50 states, and have their marriages recognized by all the states. If you are married to a person of another race, you should thank your god every day for "activist judges".

Four juicy responses, it's like a pack of wolves here when gay marriage is not wanted. Still not convinced sisko?

Beyond the legal issues - I just can't quite understand why people are so against it. With 50% of marriages ending in divorce - it's not like marriage is some bastion of sanctimony. People who get all worked up act like this would be the end of the world.

People should just get on with their own lives and let others live their lives as they choose. Gay marriage isn't hurting anybody & never will.

Beyond the legal issues - I just can't quite understand why people are so against it.
Two simple words: The Bible.

Two simple words: The Bible.
I've always thought this very curious. The most oft-quoted passage against homosexuality is Leviticus 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination." Also quoted is Lev. 20:13, "If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." But the curious part is rest of the stuff that Leviticus says...that I'm sure these quote-unquote "Christians" do not follow. Let's look at some:

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

"...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

I have never heard one of these fundamentalist yahoos preach against the evils of a man uncovering his wife's menstrual flow, or shaving, or pork, or crop rotation, or cotton/polyster blends, or lobster and shrimp. Moreover, I don't hear them preaching about the legitimacy of slavery. But they use passages in Leviticus to defend their opinion that gay people are icky.

Great examples of how totally idiotic & hypocrytical the christian position is. These people need to get a life.

What we need is less debate on how to keep men from getting in bed with each other, and more debate on how to keep politicians and corporate heads from getting in bed with each other.

Two simple words: The Bible.
:rolleyes: More of the same old shit, I see...

Aren't people allowed to think the whole concept of gay marriage is fucking weird without having some limp-wristed, Starbucks patron accuse them of being a Bible banger? Whether or not you agree with their reasoning is of no consequence. Personally, I don't think it's fair to prohibit them from marrying one another, but my feelings on the matter isn't what passes laws in certain states.

BTW, Lionel, excellent point in reference to "activist judges" on page 1.

Aren't people allowed to think the whole concept of gay marriage is fucking weird without having some limp-wristed, Starbucks patron accuse them of being a Bible banger?
You're being extremely disingenuous, as you know full well that the vast majority of opponents of gay marriage in the US draw inspiration from the Bible.

Maybe so, but either way, it's not absolute. When I was against it, my justification didn't come from the bible. I sure I'm not alone.

Maybe so, but either way, it's not absolute. When I was against it, my justification didn't come from the bible. I sure I'm not alone.
I'm using generalizations, and as these generalizations are common knowledge (that the segment of the population in opposition to gay marriage legalization is largely conservative Christian) I see no reason that I should have to alter my statements or else face slander from you. Can you acknowledge that the group of agnostics/atheists against gay marriage is a negligible portion?

I'm not asking you to alter your statements. I'm simply saying that I don't believe the VAST majority of people against gay marriage use the bible to validate their position. As far as religion is concerned, who am I to posture a guess about what percentage of people make their decision based on faith? I can't speak for them. All I can do is tell you that most people I've had contact with that were against gay marriage, were against it for reasons outside the bible.

All I can do is tell you that most people I've had contact with that were against gay marriage, were against it for reasons outside the bible.

?!?!?!?!

And those non-religiously oriented reasons were........what, exactly??

That being gay is "yucky"..........?!?!?

_________________________________________________

Conservatism; kun'survu`tizum --- [n] the systematic scapegoating of blacks, environmentalists, anti-war activists, atheists and homosexuals, in the belief that it will in some magic way save the country.

:rolleyes: More of the same old shit, I see...

Aren't people allowed to think the whole concept of gay marriage is fucking weird without having some limp-wristed, Starbucks patron accuse them of being a Bible banger? Whether or not you agree with their reasoning is of no consequence. Personally, I don't think it's fair to prohibit them from marrying one another, but my feelings on the matter isn't what passes laws in certain states.

BTW, Lionel, excellent point in reference to "activist judges" on page 1.

Sure, when you see on TV 2 gay people kissing at the altar it's makes you a bit sick to your stomach, but a personal view of it being unpalletable isn't a reason to ban it. At the end of the day they are not doing me or anybody else any harm & if it makes them happy then what's the problem?

Many people might be not exactly with the idea, but it's the stick up their ass Bible bashers that make it into some kind of important 'the sky is falling' issue. They think they are on a crusade & satan is behind gay marriage. In simple terms these people are screwed up in the head with their satan behind everything bullshit.

Sure, when you see on TV 2 gay people kissing at the altar it's makes you a bit sick to your stomach, but a personal view of it being unpalletable isn't a reason to ban it. At the end of the day they are not doing me or anybody else any harm & if it makes them happy then what's the problem?

Many people might be not exactly with the idea, but it's the stick up their ass Bible bashers that make it into some kind of important 'the sky is falling' issue. They think they are on a crusade & satan is behind gay marriage. In simple terms these people are screwed up in the head with their satan behind everything bullshit.
Fully agreed, Drew.

?!?!?!?!

And those non-religiously oriented reasons were........what, exactly??

That being gay is "yucky"..........?!?!?
Do I really need to explain it?

For Christ's sake, FT - the whole concept of gay marriage strikes a bad chord in three ways as far as I'm concerned:

Firstly (and this is a gut feeling mixed with personal opinion, but....), it's completely anti-traditional, and deep down, the thought of our society legitimizing such a relationship is somewhat nauseating. Obviously, you're immune to it, and that's fine. Some people take the institution of marriage very seriously, and others....well, I guess it's up to them.

That's why I'm for gay marriage; if they want to piss on what marriage means to the vast majority of us, then so be it. That's their right.

Secondly, it affects estate law, company premiums, social security, and insurance rates, and having said that, who do you think pays for its implementation?

Thirdly, and most importantly, it's a known fact that most gay relationships are anything but monogamous. Knowing this, isn't allowing them to marry one another akin to placing a band-aid on a broken arm? I mean, seriously....what's the point??? I'd be willing to bet ANY sum of money that our divorce rate would pale in comparison to theirs...

Of the few reasons listed here, perhaps you can tell me.......

Which one of them came from the book of Leviticus? I’m curious...

Firstly (and this is a gut feeling mixed with personal opinion, but....), it's completely anti-traditional, and deep down, the thought of our society legitimizing such a relationship is somewhat nauseating. Obviously, you're immune to it, and that's fine.
And this is a good reason to make a law against it? Because you find it nauseating? I find Ricky Martin nauseating, now can I pass a law banning his music?
Secondly, it affects estate law, company premiums, social security, and insurance rates, and having said that, who do you think pays for its implementation?
This isn't a good reason either, at all. Mainly because it's admittedly discriminating against one group of people because it's advantageous to another group of people. That is, in a word, disgusting. I'm all for selfishness, but you can't make an unfair playing field like that.
Thirdly, and most importantly, it's a known fact that most gay relationships are anything but monogamous.
How do we know this isn't because they can't get married? :) And besides which, is it fair to discriminate against those gay relationships which are monogamous because of some promiscuous people? (For the record, I'd be willing to bet good money that the majority of heterosexual relationships aren't monogamous, either.) And while we're at it...those non-monogamous marriages wouldn't end in marriages either, so why does it matter? That argument falls apart on multiple levels, Prae.

And this is a good reason to make a law against it? Because you find it nauseating? I find Ricky Martin nauseating, now can I pass a law banning his music?
YES! By all means! Pass that law, for I think you and I are in total agreement, but in doing so, you'll probably piss off the gays. :)

That aside, I agree, and having said that, it isn't fair to disallow gay marriage, period. I realize that now. I was simply listing reasons outside of the bible.
This isn't a good reason either, at all. Mainly because it's admittedly discriminating against one group of people because it's advantageous to another group of people. That is, in a word, disgusting. I'm all for selfishness, but you can't make an unfair playing field like that.
In principle, I agree, but it'll be an expensive transition to accommodate +/- 3% of the population.
How do we know this isn't because they can't get married? :)
That's no reason to cheat on your partner. You're faithful to your girlfriend, are you not?

That's no reason to cheat on your partner. You're faithful to your girlfriend, are you not?
If I had one, I would be, but I'm not talking about relationships that are purportedly monogamous. I didn't think that was your point, and I would definitely have disputed it had I known it was so. I thought you were talking about the incidence of "open" relationships versus closed, monogamous ones, which is still disputable, but I don't think there's enough evidence to support an argument on either side. I don't think gays cheat any more than straights, and even if they did, I wouldn't think it would be a mitigating factor in a decision to legalize such marriages.

I don't think gays cheat any more than straights, and even if they did, I wouldn't think it would be a mitigating factor in a decision to legalize such marriages.
You're absolutely right - it wouldn't be, but with that aside, I don't think you're right about gays being just as monogamous as we are. The incidence of them going to clubs to pick up a sexual partner is as sickening as it is mind-blowing. That has nothing to do with "marrying" one another, and you know it. Most of their relationships boil down to a category 5 fuck and flee. Look at the percentage of aids and other assorted VD's by sexual preference, and you'll clearly see that gays are ripe with AIDS, HIV, HPV, and chlamydia. Almost two to one what we are, statistically speaking. Their lifestyle is very promiscuous, period. They LIKE multiple partners, and the numbers back that assertion up. These people are NOT monogamous, period.

So now D Dubya I is making fun of the blind.
No, Mr. President. The sun was out.
That was just the dark cloud over your big, stupid head. Get a clue.
And isn't it funny how these filthy politicians are going to determine for us what's indecent and offensive.
What do they think this is, 1962, when the whole family ate dinner together and then all gathered around to watch Mr. Ed or whatever? If that ideal ever existed, it's long gone, and it's not coming back any more than all the good jobs sent overseas during the Bush years. I don't care who they kill in Iraq.
Well, they've shredded the rest of the Bill of Rights. Might as well throw in the one about excessive fines. How'd they miss that?
Whatever happened to letting the marketplace work it out? Remember that, GOP? I guess that's down the crapper if it means protecting the innocence of our children. As if they never grow up. As if there's no HBO or internet where they can find naked people and hear nasty words.
Memo to the GOP and the F'nCC: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

You're absolutely right - it wouldn't be, but with that aside, I don't think you're right about gays being just as monogamous as we are. The incidence of them going to clubs to pick up a sexual partner is as sickening as it is mind-blowing. That has nothing to do with "marrying" one another, and you know it. Most of their relationships boil down to a category 5 fuck and flee. Look at the percentage of aids and other assorted VD's by sexual preference, and you'll clearly see that gays are ripe with AIDS, HIV, HPV, and chlamydia. Almost two to one what we are, statistically speaking. Their lifestyle is very promiscuous, period. They LIKE multiple partners, and the numbers back that assertion up. These people are NOT monogamous, period.

I have a problem with your assertion, not because you are pointing out the fact that gay MEN are more promiscuous, but because you are associating that with homosexuality. If its true that there is a higher incident of promiscuity among gays than striaghts, I think it only applies to gay men, and here is why that is in my opinion.

Men are more promiscuous than women, are more sexually driven and are much more likely to have sex anywhere anytime if they could find a willing partner. So when you have a gay-male relationship you have a horny very-willing male partner on BOTH sides of the equation, making that "sex anywhere, anytime" scenario more likely. In the hetero world this is less likely because one-half of the equation contains a woman who is not as willing to have sex at the drop of a hat with any stranger. You are even less likely to see this promiscuity in a lesbian relationship because you have NO man on either side of the equation (this is why you don't see female "bath houses"). Monogamy is not a GAY problem, its a MALE problem. If women were as willing and horny as men, you would see the same types of behavior from heterosexuals and lesbians.

Civil Unions are the answer....

That way gay people can have their rights, and 75% of the population isn't offended....

Its funny how noone ever cares if Christians are offended.. but we cant flush a qaran down the toilet that is a crime!!!

seperate but equal works in this situation.

Civil Unions are the answer....

That way gay people can have their rights, and 75% of the population isn't offended....

I have a right to marry, not join a "civil union". I have this right even if it offends 100% of the population.


seperate but equal works in this situation.

When it comes to civil rights, "seperate but equal" never works.

I have a problem with your assertion, not because you are pointing out the fact that gay MEN are more promiscuous, but because you are associating that with homosexuality. If its true that there is a higher incident of promiscuity among gays than striaghts, I think it only applies to gay men, and here is why that is in my opinion.

Men are more promiscuous than women, are more sexually driven and are much more likely to have sex anywhere anytime if they could find a willing partner. So when you have a gay-male relationship you have a horny very-willing male partner on BOTH sides of the equation, making that "sex anywhere, anytime" scenario more likely. In the hetero world this is less likely because one-half of the equation contains a woman who is not as willing to have sex at the drop of a hat with any stranger. You are even less likely to see this promiscuity in a lesbian relationship because you have NO man on either side of the equation (this is why you don't see female "bath houses"). Monogamy is not a GAY problem, its a MALE problem. If women were as willing and horny as men, you would see the same types of behavior from heterosexuals and lesbians.

Excellent post dna, and I would add that the drive to have sex with many different partners for males is a biological one. Men are biologically wired to spread their seed among as many females as possible to increase the chances of passing on their genes.

Add to this the absence of a pregnancy risk for gay males and you have a nice recipe for promiscuity.

Civil Unions are the answer....

That way gay people can have their rights, and 75% of the population isn't offended....

Its funny how noone ever cares if Christians are offended.. but we cant flush a qaran down the toilet that is a crime!!!

seperate but equal works in this situation.

Who cares if the population is offended? You could have used that exact same logic in Alabama in the 60's with blacks.

And especially - who cares if Christians are offended - nobody is asking them to be involved with Gay marriage. Why do they think that their views allow them to tell other people how they should live their lives?? and why do they think religion is a deciding factor on constitutional issues?? The US isn't a theocratic dictatorship - it's a constiutional democracy. Religion plays NO PART. Gay people are not telling Christians how to live their life & christians should do them the same courtesy.

Gay marriage is an issue of equal rights - they have every much a right to marriage as heterosexuals & regardless of how people's religion makes them a hillbilly crusader against equality - it doesn't change that fact. They don't have to agree with it or like it, but they have no right to dictate how other people live their lives, especially when the christian view is nothing but a collection of hypocricy anyway. Where do christians get off being the lords of everybodies morality? Police themselves fine, but when they start to try to extend their bullshit to other people then they can go take a flying jump.

Civil Unions are the answer....

That way gay people can have their rights, and 75% of the population isn't offended....


Isn't a perfect example of "political correctness" to base a law not offending someone?

Don't you realize that if we label it "civil unions" the definition of "marriage" is still going to change everywhere but in the text of the law and on marriage certificates? In our daily lives, gay people are not going to say "we got civil unionized" or "we're going to be civil unioned"...they'll say they are "married". I'd refer to them as "married" also. And I'm sure that if gay marriage becomes legal, those against it will refer to it as a "civil union", or some word other than marriage. I don't think making civil unions legal will have the effect you desire.

Civil Unions are the answer....its unfortunate that people blame gays for the governments mistake of promoting some religions.

Heterosexual couples certainly haven't proven anything with their record of fidelity. For every gent straying, there's a lady to accomodate those wants, needs & desires. Why should hetero couples be the only ones paying the divorce lawyers?

Men are more promiscuous than women, are more sexually driven and are much more likely to have sex anywhere anytime if they could find a willing partner. So when you have a gay-male relationship you have a horny very-willing male partner on BOTH sides of the equation, making that "sex anywhere, anytime" scenario more likely. In the hetero world this is less likely because one-half of the equation contains a woman who is not as willing to have sex at the drop of a hat with any stranger. You are even less likely to see this promiscuity in a lesbian relationship because you have NO man on either side of the equation (this is why you don't see female "bath houses"). Monogamy is not a GAY problem, its a MALE problem. If women were as willing and horny as men, you would see the same types of behavior from heterosexuals and lesbians.
That's a very logical assessment, Dna, and when dealing with straight men, I think you make a great point. I'll admit it: I know virtually nothing about the gay lifestyle, and in all honesty, I always thought the bizarre gays who frequented "clubs" were just like woman, only more hopped up on drugs and alcohol, hence the crazy makeup, gender-bender clothing choices, leather chaps, and STD's. Just out of curiosity, I wonder where this innate "drive" to plant their "seed" in other males came from? I guess my question is - how is it biological? Isn't it, to a degree, and by definition, anti-biological???

That's a very logical assessment, Dna, and when dealing with straight men, I think you make a great point. I'll admit it: I know virtually nothing about the gay lifestyle, and in all honesty, I always thought the bizarre gays who frequented "clubs" were just like woman, only more hopped up on drugs and alcohol, hence the crazy makeup, gender-bender clothing choices, leather chaps, and STD's. Just out of curiosity, I wonder where this innate "drive" to plant their "seed" in other males came from? I guess my question is - how is it biological? Isn't it, to a degree, and by definition, anti-biological???

I never thought of it as a desire to "plant their seed", I just thought it was hormones driving them to want sex. I doubt most of the straight men who are out trying to get laid are doing it because they want a pregnacy out of it...they do it for the pleasure.

Just out of curiosity, I wonder where this innate "drive" to plant their "seed" in other males came from? I guess my question is - how is it biological? Isn't it, to a degree, and by definition, anti-biological???

IMO, the only difference in gay people is that they respond to sex pheromones given off by members of the same sex instead of the opposite sex. It doesnt change other aspects of the person's sex drive, e.g. they still have the desire to procreate, and suffer the same biological imperatives as straight people.

IMO, the only difference in gay people is that they respond to sex pheromones given off by members of the same sex instead of the opposite sex. It doesnt change other aspects of the person's sex drive, e.g. they still have the desire to procreate, and suffer the same biological imperatives as straight people.


Just a note, to expand on what Vilepagan has said here. Response to pheremones is genetic. That implies that sexual preference is genetic. In an interesting study I read about a few years ago, it was shown that based on pheremones alone, heterosexual people most wanted to sleep with people that differed most from them geneticly. This was mediated by the most difference in immune system proteins. It is natures way of promoting genetic mixing.
While it has not been definitively proven that sexual preference for the same sex is genetic, there is more and more evidence that it is. I would assert that it is immoral to discriminate against an individual based on genetic make-up. I think most here would agree that it is wrong to discriminate based on skin color, or height, or hair color. I think sexual preference falls into this category, and discrimination based on this characteristic is wrong.

IMO, the only difference in gay people is that they respond to sex pheromones given off by members of the same sex instead of the opposite sex. If a significant part of the human sexual response was pheromone-driven, the porn industry wouldn't be so enormous... and growing... bigger....bigger.....

I think most here would agree that it is wrong to discriminate based on skin color, or height, or hair color.As a male-white civil servant, I wish society shared your meritocratic views.

Originally there were 613 commandments. Christians shaved off 603 of them. Why? I don't know, but the point is that you shouldn't judge individual christian motivations by what you see in the Old Testament.

Quoting Leviticus to explain why some people on these threads are against gay-marriage is creative, but irrelevant. I will bet you most Christians know much less about Leviticus than those who need to Google it to figure out why christians think the way they do.

There may be some TV fundamentalists who go for that crap, but to assign those beliefs to christians in general is stereotyping and bigotry (most often engaged in by those who complain about it the most).

....now D Dubya I is making fun of the blind....What do they think this is, 1962, when the whole family ate dinner together.... I don't care who they kill in Iraq......Whatever happened to letting the marketplace work it out? ..... I guess that's down the crapper if it means protecting the innocence of our children......As if there's no HBO or internet where they can find naked people and hear nasty words....
Do you come up with ideas and then throw a dart into your monitor to decide which thread to post them on?

I never thought of it as a desire to "plant their seed", I just thought it was hormones driving them to want sex. I doubt most of the straight men who are out trying to get laid are doing it because they want a pregnacy out of it...they do it for the pleasure.
True, but isn't procreation the reason males are wired the way they are? Bare with me here, but seeing as to how having children isn't what motivates one man to have sex with another, and given the fact that a fundamental component of their masculinity is absent from the equation, don't you find it a bit peculiar to assume that it's natural for a gay man to be predisposed to a sex drive that's on par with a normal sex drive? I'm sorry, but I'm of the opinion the two components I talked about above are NOT mutually exclusive; that in some way, they are incontrovertibly linked....

Do you see my point, or am I just spinning my wheels here?

I guess my question is simple: do they really desire to have sex as often as normal men (whose habits they don't seem to resemble in any way, whatsoever), or are they just sexually careless because of a liberated culture, heavy drug usage, and willing participants? Once again, I'm sorry, but logic dictates I'm gonna have to go with the latter on this one...

Simply put, I think gays ARE more promiscuous than heterosexuals are, and to deduce anything else is candy-coating the obvious. JMO.

Bare with me hereI hope this isn't a freudian slip. I think you meant 'bear'.

As for your point, I think that men are hard-wired to be horny, whether they are gay or straight. If you looked at a group of heterosexual males in an equally 'liberated' culture with the same level of alcohol and drug use and willing partners you'd find an equal level of promiscuity.

Im going on a rant...

This really does make me sick. It's hard to imagine what could motivate a person to keep two people from loving each other. Because ONE religon says the same sex shouldnt marry, all of a sudden people want to make it law? Ugh.

Honestly, I think it shouldnt matter what sex you are as long as your truly love a person. Since when is lovin another person a bad thing?

Look at it this way, if your are a conservative and you are married, you prolly love your spouse very much. But because of something some book says, you cant marry him/her just because one religon says no-no. It doesnt matter how much you love each other, etc. That just isnt fair.

With all the divorce in the world today, I think us gay people should be given a shot... maybe we can keep it together better... hehe.

Just my opinon.

[QUOTE=The Praetorian]

I guess my question is simple: do they really desire to have sex as often as normal men (whose habits they don't seem to resemble in any way, whatsoever), or are they just sexually careless because of a liberated culture, heavy drug usage, and willing participants?QUOTE]

Not all gay people do drugs. A fair number of them yes, but that has nothing to do with the sexuality.

I am gay and proud to say I have not once in my life ever done drugs, nor do I plan to.

Plus, being gay isnt just about the sex, it's also about how you feel inside. When you like a girl *or guy im not sure of your gender, sorry* it's the same way. You most likely have deeper feelings than sexual attraction. It is the same way. When I like a guy, it isnt because they are attractive, it is because of who they are.

So no, I dont agree with your theories because homosexuality isnt just about sex, even though it has the word in it.:thumbs: .

Since when is lovin another person a bad thing?


Ever since the "perfect", all knowing yet invisible being in the Bronze Age tome known as "the Bible" proclaimed that homosexuals deserve to be executed.

Millions of people in this country, unfortunately, are obsessed with that **ONE** religion you spoke of.

http://www.mattszabo.com/archives/God%20Hates%20Fags-thumb.jpg

True, but isn't procreation the reason males are wired the way they are? Bare with me here, but seeing as to how having children isn't what motivates one man to have sex with another, and given the fact that a fundamental component of their masculinity is absent from the equation, don't you find it a bit peculiar to assume that it's natural for a gay man to be predisposed to a sex drive that's on par with a normal sex drive? I'm sorry, but I'm of the opinion the two components I talked about above are NOT mutually exclusive; that in some way, they are incontrovertibly linked....

Do you see my point, or am I just spinning my wheels here?


I can see how you would come to that conslusion. It might be a possibility that because a gay man's sexual orientation differs from a straight man's, then everything else differs as well. Of course its also possible that some things differ and some are the same. Even if their sex drive is lower than straight males (but higher than women's), my point can still be valid because you're still looking at the fact that you have a male on both halves of the equation...you don't have that lower sex-drive female saying "no, I won't have sex with you, I hardly know you".

I guess my question is simple: do they really desire to have sex as often as normal men (whose habits they don't seem to resemble in any way, whatsoever), or are they just sexually careless because of a liberated culture, heavy drug usage, and willing participants? Once again, I'm sorry, but logic dictates I'm gonna have to go with the latter on this one...

Simply put, I think gays ARE more promiscuous than heterosexuals are, and to deduce anything else is candy-coating the obvious. JMO.

I agree with the "willing participants" if you're talking about gay men, becaus as I said, men are willing. The fact you ignored, which makes your logic fall apart, is that this promiscuity does not exist in the lesbian population...again, have you ever heard of a "bath house" for gay women?

I hope this isn't a freudian slip. I think you meant 'bear'.

As for your point, I think that men are hard-wired to be horny, whether they are gay or straight. If you looked at a group of heterosexual males in an equally 'liberated' culture with the same level of alcohol and drug use and willing partners you'd find an equal level of promiscuity.

I had the experience of seeing just that situation when I was stationed in Korea during my time in the Army in the early 1970's. I was assigned to doing VD contact interviews. There were clubs with hookers across the street from every Army base, and the prices were very reasonable. The case rate for Ghonnorhea was 2000 cases / 1000 men / year. The clubs were full of horny heterosexual men every night, and most of them were there for sex.

I hope this isn't a freudian slip. I think you meant 'bear'.
You know it! Get naked and debate me, baby! ;) :D

I can see how you would come to that conslusion. It might be a possibility that because a gay man's sexual orientation differs from a straight man's, then everything else differs as well. Of course its also possible that some things differ and some are the same. Even if their sex drive is lower than straight males (but higher than women's), my point can still be valid because you're still looking at the fact that you have a male on both halves of the equation...you don't have that lower sex-drive female saying "no, I won't have sex with you, I hardly know you".
Good answer...
...again, have you ever heard of a "bath house" for gay women?
No, I haven't, but that doesn't mean they're not promiscuous, or that these "bath houses" you speak of don't exist. Maybe they’re just more discrete than men are. I mean, I don't exactly hang around hardened lesbians, so it's only logical to assume that I know very little about what goes on behind closed doors. On related note, the incidence of HIV and AIDS is lower simply because rug munching is the least likely way to contract a sexually transmitted disease. Now obviously, that's not absolute, but having said that, I do understand your point, and I appreciate you making an effort to understand mine.

No, I haven't, but that doesn't mean they're not promiscuous, or that these "bath houses" you speak of don't exist. Maybe they’re just more discrete than men are. I mean, I don't exactly hang around hardened lesbians, so it's only logical to assume that I know very little about what goes on behind closed doors.

It seems more likely that the reason you don't see the type of "swinging" behavior from lesbians that you see from gay men is because its minimal, not because they've been keeping it a secret.

Is it your assumption that gay men AND gay women are more promiscuous than heteros of the same gender, and if so why do you think that is?

THe pheromes things seems a bit far fetched.

It all boils down to letting people live their life. Gay people are not hurting anybody married or not married - it makes no difference. It's their business and nobody elses, certainly not a bunch of christians.

Those pics of the 'God hates fags etc' chanters sums it up - those people are total screwed up morons. 99% of chrsitians are not ranting loonies like these people, but there is an element that do go on some kind of hate filled crusade. Most of these people are mentally ill to some degree. Fundamentalist religion attracts people with insecure, broken lives like flies to a lightbulb. They can be ignored, they are worse than pathetic. You see them at mardi gras every year - trying to spoil the party by holding up big banners and chanting that people should turn away from sin. Screw them - they are weirdo's that belong in an institution.

Lets ignore the wacko's and let people live their life.

THe pheromes things seems a bit far fetched.


Perhaps. Perhaps not. It's only just beginning to be studied.

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/ap_050510_pheremones.html

Those pics of the 'God hates fags etc' chanters sums it up - those people are total screwed up morons. 99% of chrsitians are not ranting loonies like these people......

Surely though, you are aware that even if 99% of the Christians in this country are not actually carrying signs like the Phelps clan, a very significant percentage (if polls are any indication) of Christians in America are vocally and vehemently opposed to gays and gay marriage.

You say --"Let's ignore the wackos"..........

....but how the fuck can you ignore 50 or 75 million of them who are steadfastly convinced that gays are horrible "sinners"........?!?!?!?!?

You say --"Let's ignore the wackos"..........

....but how the fuck can you ignore 50 or 75 million of them who are steadfastly convinced that gays are horrible "sinners"........?!?!?!?!?
In all honesty, I think you're glomming onto something that doesn't exist. Most "Christians" are against gay MARRIAGE, not what homosexuals do behind closed doors - and as I see it, there's a pretty big difference. Fundamentally, the concept of one man marrying another is fucked up, period. Having established the obvious here, the real question is: is the collective Christian objection to something so aberrant wrong? Now, I guess that depends on your perspective, but I, personally, don't believe it is. In no way am I trying to say the typical Falwellian mindset is fair, but then again, (and contrary to what FT thinks) I don't believe the majority of Christians possess one. In short, marriage is a joke in this country, anyway. In all fairness to gay people, we should let them take their swipe at the institutional piñata, too. I mean, after all, considering the state of our nation, who really cares???

Fundamentally, the concept of one man marrying another is fucked up, period. Having established the obvious here
I wish you'd stop saying "obvious" things when, in fact, many people do not share your prejudices. Incidentally, do you never check your PMs? ;)

I wish you'd stop saying "obvious" things when, in fact, many people do not share your prejudices.
That's my point...

It's not a "prejudice" at all; it's just...........foreign, and difficult to understand for most people. I contend a large portion of the "Christian" position isn't based on "hate". Look, a lot of people have a very traditional understanding of what "marriage" is, and when you deviate from it so radically, you run the risk of people objecting. Once again, I'm not trying to say it's fair, but that's not the point; it just is what it is.....

No, I haven't, but that doesn't mean they're not promiscuous, or that these "bath houses" you speak of don't exist. Maybe they’re just more discrete than men are. I mean, I don't exactly hang around hardened lesbians, so it's only logical to assume that I know very little about what goes on behind closed doors.

You admitidly aren't aware of these types of "bath houses" existing for lesbians, and you admitidly "don't hang around lesbians" and you also admit you "know very little about what goes on behind closed doors". So I'm wondering why you seem to have the opinion that they are more promiscuous. It seems like its a belief you want to be true, so you believe it even though you don't seem to have any evidence.

The reality is that most people Christian or not simply wouldn't careless if gays married. The polls are missleading because if you stop somebody in the street and ask if they are for or against they may say against, but if it happened they wouldn't care much about it.

The reality is that most people Christian or not simply wouldn't care less if gays married.

I would say that you are entirely incorrect in that.

If it were true that --"Most Christians couldn't care less if gays marry"--, the politicians throughout this land would not be so absolutely terrified of even giving the slightest perception that they would vote to support gay marriage.

The vast majority of the VOTERS in this country DO belong to the Xtian faith.

And THAT is why --I think you will be forced to agree-- most politicians are extremely wary of being seen as supporting gay marriage.

Also, in response to Preatorian's ---""Most "Christians" are against gay MARRIAGE, not what homosexuals do behind closed doors""---....

..... speaking strictly in terms of the Christians that I am personally aquainted with (IOW, the vast and overwhelming majority of the people that I am aquainted with, and EVERY member of my family other tham my son and myself) , there is not ONE I know of who could be said to ""not care what homosexuals do"".

They view --since their Bible instructs them to -- homosexuals as sinful, sinful people, and they --since their Bible instructs them to -- view homosexuality as a horrible, foul perversion.

It seems to me a contradiction in terms to suggest that the majority of the adherants of the Christian religion ""do not care"" that people of the same gender are having sex with one another.

They CARE.

Do you think that various well known spokespeople throughout this country like Franklin Graham, and Jerry Falwell, and Beverly LaHaye and Phyllis Schafly and Laura Schlessinger and Cal Thomas and innumerable OTHER mainstream leaders and speakers in the Christian religion, who have ALL railed against the **evils of homosexuality**, are ALL some sort of wild-eyed, out-of-the-mainstream wackos that no one listens to ?!?!?!?!

NO! .... these people ARE the voice of Xtianity in America, for perhaps a HUNDRED MILLION or more followers of the Christian religion!!

This incessant lame-assed EXCUSE that --"Oh well, those few Christian spokepeople who are so opposed to homosexuality are all just fundamentalist wackos, they're not the real mainstream voice of religion!..............is BULLSHIT!!!

The mainstream religious voices in America --the Grahams and the Falwells and the LaHayes and the Schaflys and the Thomases and the Robertsons and the Roberts and the Tiltons and the Agees and the Schlessingers--- are unanimous in their condemnation of homosexuality.

And the millions upon millions of faithful sheep in this nation LISTEN to those people and heed what they say.

And your assessment is far from having a solid foundation in reality, FT. I'm sorry, but most of the so-called Christians that I'm acquainted with don't follow the ridiculous words of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson. Maybe a change in your location would foster a better sense of what really goes on in America, and if you decide to take that journey, god willing, you'll be able to shed the "Mississippi Burning" mentality.

You admitidly aren't aware of these types of "bath houses" existing for lesbians, and you admitidly "don't hang around lesbians" and you also admit you "know very little about what goes on behind closed doors". So I'm wondering why you seem to have the opinion that they are more promiscuous. It seems like its a belief you want to be true, so you believe it even though you don't seem to have any evidence.
I'm not saying they are, but I have little proof that they're not. The fact of the matter is, neither one of us knows for certain.

The mainstream religious voices in America --the Grahams and the Falwells and the LaHayes and the Schaflys and the Thomases and the Robertsons and the Roberts and the Tiltons and the Agees and the Schlessingers--- are unanimous in their condemnation of homosexuality.

Hardly examples of the mainstream.

You are right that people are against gay marriage due to religious reasons (which is nuts anyway because if they took the Bible seriously they would be asking for constitutional amendments against haircuts & mortgages too), but although against - they would just move on & not start marching in the streets should gay marriage occur. Of course some fruitcakes will march with hate filled banners and so forth. Almost eveybody discounts those crackpots as a total embarrasement.

I'm not saying they are, but I have little proof that they're not. The fact of the matter is, neither one of us knows for certain.

Well then I'm confused by the statement you made earlier, which was "Simply put, I think gays ARE more promiscuous than heterosexuals are, and to deduce anything else is candy-coating the obvious. JMO." Yesterday you said it was "obvious", now you "don't know for certain".

The mainstream religious voices in America --the Grahams and the Falwells and the LaHayes and the Schaflys and the Thomases and the Robertsons and the Roberts and the Tiltons and the Agees and the Schlessingers--- are unanimous in their condemnation of homosexuality.

Hardly examples of the mainstream.

?!?!?!?!!!!!

Are you serious?

Honestly?? Do you know the name *Franklin Graham*....? Do you have the slightest inkling who he is?!?!? ....and you say he is *not mainstream* ....!!!

Do you know who Phyllis Schlalfly is??

Cal Thomas???

Pat Robertson???

IF you are serious about them **not being mainstream**, could you please name a few well-known and highly regarded people in America who speak out in support of the Christian religion who you WOULD consider to be *mainstream*.....?!?!?

I am truly curious to know who it is that you see as being more in the religious mainstream of America than those people named above.

Of course some fruitcakes will march with hate filled banners and so forth.

Yes. And *some* religionists in this country.....oh, maybe a paltry 40 or 50 million......will, by the power of the vote, let their elected representatives know in no uncertain terms that they do not want the politicians they vote for to pass laws allowing gays to marry.

Almost eveybody discounts those crackpots as a total embarrasement.

While almost NOBODY discounts the tens of millions of Christians in this country who ---even though they may not actually wave banners proclaiming it-- harbor an extreme revulsion for and dislike of homosexuals and the homoseual lifestyle.

I mean, come ON....it's not as if the religious faction in America tries to hide it.........far from it.

Honestly?? Do you know the name *Franklin Graham*....? Do you have the slightest inkling who he is?!?!? ....and you say he is *not mainstream* ....!!!

That he, nor I, know who he is would tend to indicate that he's not that mainstream.

Do you know who Phyllis Schlalfly is??

Ditto.

Cal Thomas???

I'm familiar with him as a columnist, not so much as a religious leader. I see that he's in the Jewish World Review.

Pat Robertson???

Well known does not equal mainstream. Pat is frequently (and rightly so) ridiculed. By pretty much everyone.


IF you are serious about them **not being mainstream**, could you please name a few well-known and highly regarded people in America who speak out in support of the Christian religion who you WOULD consider to be *mainstream*.....?!?!?

A few Catholic bishops perhaps. Maybe Joel Osteen, inasmuch as he doesn't seem to be too far off the deepend.

Yes. And *some* religionists in this country.....oh, maybe a paltry 40 or 50 million......will, by the power of the vote, let their elected representatives know in no uncertain terms that they do not want the politicians they vote for to pass laws allowing gays to marry.

And yet it's legal in the overwhelmingly Catholic state run by a Mormon governor.



While almost NOBODY discounts the tens of millions of Christians in this country who ---even though they may not actually wave banners proclaiming it-- harbor an extreme revulsion for and dislike of homosexuals and the homoseual lifestyle.

I mean, come ON....it's not as if the religious faction in America tries to hide it.........far from it.

Well I guess if you don't have any numbers supporting your theories you can just make them up, right? You need to get over this idea that Christians in this country are anywhere close to being a monolithic entity. The denomination I married into allows gay marriage.

IF you are serious about them **not being mainstream.....The typical mainstream christian does not attend mass regularly, would recognize very few passages from the Old Testament and wouldn't know Franklin Graham if he wore a name tag. Typical christians are guided so little by their religion, much less by Leviticus.

Why do so many anti-christians here know so much about what motivates them.

Why do so many anti-christians here know so much about what motivates them.

Probably for the same reason that so many conservatives here know what motivates the "left".

Probably for the same reason that so many conservatives here know what motivates the "left".I think quoting Leviticus goes deeper into faux-psychology than anything we proffer about the left.

FT - although I share your dislike for religious groups, I don't agree with you as to the extent of most groups radicalization.

Your average joe christian is somebody who goes to church on sunday, tries to live rights & doesn't get too hung up on any issue. There's nothing overtly wrong with that. They may be against gay marriage because they believe it to be wrong, but they are not gung ho about it. They certainly would be in the no camp should somebody stop them on the street in a polling.

It's the banner yielding crazies that have the major problem but I doubt they amount to more than 1% of the christian population in the US.

FT - although I share your dislike for religious groups, I don't agree with you as to the extent of most groups radicalization.

Get it through your head---I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT RADICALS OR ANY RELIGIOUS GROUP BEING "RADICALIZED". I am talking about the MAINSTREAM opinion of Christianity in general. .

I am talking about the VERY well known circumstance that the Christian community in America, the U.S. adherants of the Christian religion taken as a whole, taken collectively, are quite outspoken, and make NO SECRET WHATSOEVER of the fact that they do not approve of gays or the gay lifestyle.

All the apologists here for these little superstitionists can concoct all the motherfucking excuses thay want for them all day long, all they want, but they CAN NOT DENY that the Christian community in America, taken as a whole, does not approve of gays or the gay lifestyle.

PERIOD.

I do get it through my head & I disagree with you. I think your ideas apply to a minority of Christians not the majority. Maybe you should try and get that thru your head

I think quoting Leviticus goes deeper into faux-psychology than anything we proffer about the left.
Exactly.

All the apologists here for these little superstitionists can concoct all the motherfucking excuses thay want for them all day long, all they want, but they CAN NOT DENY that the Christian community in America, taken as a whole, does not approve of gays or the gay lifestyle.

PERIOD.
And that one example does not mean the Christian community, taken as a whole, is under the impression that the ridiculous philosophies of noted wackjobs like Falwell and Robertson are correct. Most Christians don't give a shit about what gays do behind closed doors; they just don't want marital institution defiled by people who think it's "normal" to have sex with the same gender.

Most Christians don't give a shit about what gays do behind closed doors; they just don't want marital institution defiled by people who think it's "normal" to have sex with the same gender.
They should have thought of that when they made marriage a state institution.

And I fully agree, but that wasn't the point of my post.

Most Christians don't give a shit about what gays do behind closed doors.....

Oh, I see!!!!!!!!!!!!

THAT explains why gays are not persecurted and reviled in America.

THAT explains why gays are never treated as perverts and pedophiles.

THAT explains why gays have 100% equal rights with the rest of straight society.

THAT explains why every Christian church cheerfully accepts gays and allows them to be members of the clergy.

THAT explains why gays are perfectly free to get a marriage liscense in all 50 states.

Oh...wait...................

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You (intellectually dishonest) fellas are DEMONSTRABLY WRONG in trying to forward the ---"Oh, most Christians in this country have no problem with homosexuals or homosexual behavior!!!.....it's only that very small number of radical "wacko fundamentalist" type Christians in America who disapprove of gays!!--- argument.

And you know it.

Oh, I see!!!!!!!!!!!!

THAT explains why gays are not persecurted and reviled in America.

THAT explains why gays are never treated as perverts and pedophiles.

THAT explains why gays have 100% equal rights with the rest of straight society.

THAT explains why every Christian church cheerfully accepts gays and allows them to be members of the clergy.

THAT explains why gays are perfectly free to get a marriage liscense in all 50 states.

Oh...wait...................

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You (intellectually dishonest) fellas are DEMONSTRABLY WRONG in trying to forward the ---"Oh, most Christians in this country have no problem with homosexuals or homosexual behavior!!!.....it's only that very small number of radical "wacko fundamentalist" type Christians in America who disapprove of gays!!--- argument.

And you know it.

Pretty much every one of your so called points is pure rubbish and without a doubt true intellectual dishonesty. Gays are very well accepted in society these days. Hell they even have gay soap operas and highly successful gay focused TV shows. Mexicans are more persecuted than gay people. The reality is that all minorities receive some level of discrimination, but it's really only a small part of the population Christian or not that practices out & out hatred toward minorities. Maybe you need to get your head out of 1955.

Pretty much every one of your so called points is pure rubbish .........

I honestly thought you were being purposely obtuse just for shock value.

I see now that you're serious.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on whether or not the Christian community as a whole in American thinks being gay is acceptable.

I apologize if I rankled you, but....for the record, I personally have never met a Christian in my life who views homosexuals (or the practice of homosexuality) the way that you and Praetorian contend they view it.

Pretty much every one of your so called points is pure rubbish and without a doubt true intellectual dishonesty. Gays are very well accepted in society these days.

I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say his points are pure rubbish, nor would I agree that gays are very well accepted in this society. Gays are certainly more accepted in society than they were 30 years ago, but there's still a long way to go. For example, only 19 states allow gays to adopt children, you can be discharged from the military for simply stating you are gay, and of course there's the whole marriage issue, and all that goes with it.

You need to get over this idea that Christians in this country are anywhere close to being a monolithic entity. The denomination I married into allows gay marriage.
That's an excellent point, Lionel - so does mine. The Methodists have always been pretty liberal (with the exception of gambling, but who cares?).

FT, the way you rail against religion makes me think you were repeatedly raped and beaten with a bible by your whacked-out uber-religious, nut job uncle.

You need to get over this idea that Christians in this country are anywhere close to being a monolithic entity. The denomination I married into allows gay marriage.

That's an excellent point, Lionel.

Gosh!.........it sure is!

Why, I'll bet that that particular denomination represents a huge percentage of the Christian community in America.

With such an IMMENSE number of accepting Christians in this country, they'll be passing laws in all 50 states allowing gay marriage in no time.

FT - you miss the point. Christians are for the most part against gay marriage, but there is a difference between passively being against it & be an activist against it. You paint them all to be activists. That's just nuts.

Were you abused by a Priest?

Gosh!.........it sure is!

Why, I'll bet that that particular denomination represents a huge percentage of the Christian community in America.

With such an IMMENSE number of accepting Christians in this country, they'll be passing laws in all 50 states allowing gay marriage in no time.
Hey, here's a real mind-bender for you: do the Red Communists in China allow gay marriage to take place? If not, then I wonder when president Hu tuned in to listen to "the Grahams, the Falwells, the LaHayes, the Schaflys, the Thomases, the Robertsons, the Roberts, the Tiltons, the Agees, and the Schlessingers" before he made his decision to ban it?

Were you abused by a Priest?
That thought went through my head, too...

FT - you miss the point. Christians are for the most part against gay marriage....

GASP!!!!!!

How can that be????!?!

They don't care what gay people do!!

....but there is a difference between passively being against it & be an activist against it. You paint them all to be activists.

I have not made the slightest intimation that --"they are all activists".

I said previously that Christians in America --collectively-- are disapproving of gays and the gay lifestyle. Period.

Here, word for word, is exactly what my stated position is ----

""The Christian community in America, taken as a whole, does not approve of gays or the gay lifestyle.""

In the very next post, you said that you disagree with that statement.

Fine.

You keep on believing that if it makes you happy.

Hey, here's a real mind-bender for you: do the Red Communists in China allow gay marriage to take place? If not, then I wonder when president Hu tuned in to listen to "the Grahams, the Falwells, the LaHayes, the Schaflys, the Thomases, the Robertsons, the Roberts, the Tiltons, the Agees, and the Schlessingers" before he made his decision to ban it?

Wow.

If that is an example of the way your mind works, the capability of rational thought obviously eludes you.

GASP!!!!!!

How can that be????!?!

They don't care what gay people do!!



I have not made the slightest intimation that --"they are all activists".

I said previously that Christians in America --collectively-- are disapproving of gays and the gay lifestyle. Period.

Here, word for word, is exactly what my stated position is ----

""The Christian community in America, taken as a whole, does not approve of gays or the gay lifestyle.""

In the very next post, you said that you disagree with that statement.

Fine.

You keep on believing that if it makes you happy.

Man, you're dumb.

Just because Christians disaprove doesn't mean that 99% of them if it happened would give 2 shits. Most would just say oh well & move on.

Man, you're dumb. Just because Christians disaprove doesn't mean that 99% of them if it happened would give 2 shits.

Again, i guess we just disagee.

I will, however, have to point out that the stupidest human being I ever encountered would STILL possess more intelligence than to make the preposterous claim that 99% of the Christians in America "don't give 2 shits" that gays are having sex with one another.

There is a difference between disliking the idea of something & caring about it enough to actually do something about it. It's patently obvious that 99.999% of US christians fall into that camp.

Free, I think the more you believe other people are bad, the more of a super guy that makes you.
It seems like most of your human contact takes place on AllForums so you believe most Americans give a crap about issues. But the fact is, most people (and yes, Christians fall into that category) don't even know this issue is being debated.