Travh20, you made this post in another string. I'm not sure what the policy is on this board, but I didn't want to change the subject of the string so I started this as a new one.

"Somehow the homosexuals have convinced people that anyone who speaks out against them is somehow scared of them or secretly gay themselves."

Please explain to me what exactly it is that you have against homosexuals and why you are so concerned with what two consenting adults do with each other in private?

You dissed my statement that you were just insecure about your own sexuality so I am curious as to why this even bothers you.

I dont care if 2 guys are getting it on in their home. I dont care if someone is gay. I do care about having to explain to my son why those 2 guys are holding hands and kissing, and how everything has become gay. I dont personally agree with it, and I think it is not something to be celebrated and just accepted because we are supposed to accept it. I dont like being made out to be some kind of KKK memeber becasue I dont accept homosexuality as just fine and dandy. In this day and age if you tell your kids anything besides how great and just totally normal homsexuality is you re some kind of monster. 2 men engaging in anal sex is not normal, no matter how often they tell me it is. That doesnt mean I want to kill all gays, or anything like that, it just means I dont agree with it, and dont appreciate it being forced down my throat day in and day out. if your gay, fine, be gay, jsut shut up about it already.

WARNING - This post is a bit sexualy explicit.

An honest answer. Even it it is a bit overstated. Not "everything" is gay these days. But I think I understand what you are trying to say. (I have similar feelings about christianity). Do you feel the same way about lesbians?

Why would it bother you to explain why two people are holding hands? Does your son ask why opposite sex couples hold hands? Why not give him the same answer. "Because they care about each other".

You stated that two men engaging in anal sex is not normal. Do you feel the same way about opposite gender couples engaging in anal sex? That is not "normal" by definition because that particular orifice was never meant for use in that way. Are you against that kind of sex?

But mostly I am curious as to why you believe it isn't normal. Actually, for purposes of this discussion we should probubly define the word "NORMAL" or we wont get anywhere. So what is your definition of "normal"?

Echo,

We've covered this issue in the other gay thread just a few threads below this one. Also, there is another thread in either the science or religion forum that covers this topic extensively.

Yeah, but you all avoid the questions of why you actually give a shit. All we hear is about the "Gay agenda", how they're shoving everything down your throats and how evil they are. You never give us any good reasons as to why you actually care.

TRAV wrote:
I do care about having to explain to my son why those 2 guys are holding hands and kissing

I'm so sick of this argument. Do you always have to give a detailed explaination to your kid no matter what the topic is? Try telling your son "I will explain that when you are older".


2 men engaging in anal sex is not normal, no matter how often they tell me it is.

I agree with Echo, you should define normal. Do you mean "most people don't do it" or do you mean "they are abnormal freaks"? Also, the fact that you only mentioned "2 men engaging in anal sex is not normal" instead of "any people engaging in anal sex is not normal"? Why the distinction?

Trav I’ve noticed from many of your posts, that you always seem to comment on me and my sexuality, yet you think I should shut up about it? It just doesn’t work both ways, when you continue to question, ask, and poke at it. If you want people to stop having pride in their sexuality, don’t encourage it.

And why do you feel you’re children shouldn’t be subjected to homosexuality? If you see two men kissing, how does it emotionally affect them or you? Can’t you just have the same response if it were a heterosexual couple? That the reason being, is because they love each other.

The “Gay Agenda” is false. Nothing is being shoved down your throat. If you would just accept homosexuality, then we wouldn’t feel so keen in exploiting it and making it apparent. The minority always has to make a larger impact, because they are well, the minority. Which thus forces them to make a larger, and louder stand…especially when there is intolerance towards them.

As I'm only bi, I guess I don't get invited to the gay agenda meetings. If any of the gay people on the board would mind teaching me how to "shove it down people's throats", I'd really appreciate it ^_^.

see what I mean? how dare I not teach my children that homosexuals are anything but normal. and the day you see as many christian shows on TV as gay shows you let me know.

There are whole TV Networks that are dedicated to God and Christianity. So you tell me when there are tons of homosexual Networks.

and the day you see as many christian shows on TV as gay shows you let me know.

Todays the day, I'm letting you know. Please tell me all the gay shows you that you say are everywhere. I can only think of few (and don't say "Will and Grace", its not a "gay" show, its about one straight women and straight friend and one gay man and his gay friend...its just as much a "hetero" show as a "gay" one). The other two shows are Queer as Folk (which is on a pay channel) and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy (which is hosted by 5 gay guys, but its about design, style, and fashion...not sex). Please tell me all the other "gay" shows you are watching because I haven't heard of them.

And once again, your definition of "normal" is....?

TRAV, the following was posted by you in the Religion forum:
tell me how the government has "shoved religon down your throat?" is a simple display considered "shoving down your throat".

So, is a simple display of 2 homosexuals kissing or holding hands "shoving it down your throat"?

Everyone has made some good points, but I think the main problem is that the people who have the most trouble accepting gays are the ones who see them as the most "different" from themselves. This may be stating the obvious, but I think it's an important point.

They don't see two gay guys holding hands or kissing as a simple sign of affection, they see it as a sex act, because gays can't possibly want to show affection...just sexual lust.

When they see any reference to gays, it's an attempt to force the whole gay lifestyle on them.

The truth is that they have learned to view gays as fundamentally different. So much so that they can't even conceive that they have anything in common with a gay person.

This manifestes itself in the belief that Heterosexuals are born that way "naturally", yet Homosexuals "choose" to be homosexual. It also leads them to wonder at why gay people do or want anything. They can't bring themselves to believe that the motivations and desires of gay people are even similar to their own. They ask themselves "why do gays even want to get married?" Not for a moment realizing it's for the same reasons they may want to marry, to raise a family, companionship and love, and because we don't want to die alone.

I think they want to distance themselves from the similarities as much as possible because they don't want to face the fact that if we are the same as they are...that means they are very much like a gay person...and that's just not an idea they want to accept.

I really don't want to get into a bash this or bash that, but you asked when is it pushed on others, how about the gay parade. When is the last time we had a hetero parade?

You never give us any good reasons as to why you actually care.

For me, it's simply a subject where the truth is shrouded. In cases of race and sex, an actual physical difference exists where a minority boundary can be easily drawn.

Homosexuality is a minority that has been very recently been created. Not only is it drawing an unnecessarily large amount of attention by the gay community themselves, they have special interests that are aggressively pursued in the political arena. So I have a problem with it.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Everyone has made some good points, but I think the main problem is that the people who have the most trouble accepting gays are the ones who see them as the most "different" from themselves.

(…)

I think they want to distance themselves from the similarities as much as possible because they don't want to face the fact that if we are the same as they are...that means they are very much like a gay person...and that's just not an idea they want to accept.

Very right. Quite the same with racists.

Being gay has NOTHING to do with race.

I really don't want to get into a bash this or bash that, but you asked when is it pushed on others, how about the gay parade. When is the last time we had a hetero parade?

When was the last time a parade (gay or Macy's) was "pushed on" anyone?

you see, this is what I was talking about. now we are the same as racists. it is just not acceptable to just not agree with or not support homosexuality. there is always some reason or excuse why. Like, we dont like gays because we are gay ourselves, or afraid of gays, its just silly. then there has to be a reason why we dont like gays . "whats your reason, you never gave us a reasonw hy you dont like gays" why does my reason have be OK with you?? why does EVERYONE have to like you? I am not out seeking gays to attack. I simpl y dont want to hear about thier "issues" anymore. If you want to get married, go find some priest to marry you and shut the hell up already. go be gay by yourself, dont include me anymore.

That's a very good point, Trav

Originally posted by Travh20
you see, this is what I was talking about. now we are the same as racists. it is just not acceptable to just not agree with or not support homosexuality.

The reason it's similar to racism is because in both cases people are discriminated against based on "perceived" differences. Certainly in the case of race, it's generally easier to see the difference with your eyes, but in both cases, the "differerence" is used to justify all manner of discrimination, and sometimes even violence.

In addition to the "perceived" differences, the discriminating party often attaches "imagined" differences, usually very negative ones, to the minority in question. Examples would be, "gays are child molesters", or "blacks are less intelligent". I'm sure you can think of more stereotypes that are unrealistically attached to minority groups.

there is always some reason or excuse why. Like, we dont like gays because we are gay ourselves, or afraid of gays, its just silly. then there has to be a reason why we dont like gays . "whats your reason, you never gave us a reasonw hy you dont like gays" why does my reason have be OK with you?? why does EVERYONE have to like you? I am not out seeking gays to attack. I simpl y dont want to hear about thier "issues" anymore. If you want to get married, go find some priest to marry you and shut the hell up already. go be gay by yourself, dont include me anymore.

Why do we ask for reasons, and not accept your reasons as ok?

That's an easy one. Because your "reasons" are "unreasonable".

I know some people take offense, or cry foul, when discrimination against gays is compared to racism, but the comparison is a valid one. As stated previously, people are discriminated against for reasons that are perceived, but not real. The only difference between a black man and a white man is the color of their skin, nothing more. The differences between a gay person and a straight person is who they have sex with, nothing more. Yet people who would not think of denying a black man a job because of the color of his skin, believe it's their right to deny a gay person a job, to "protect" children from being "exposed" to homosexuality, or they are afraid the gay person is a molester. The same person might refuse to rent an apartment to a gay couple because they believe that being gay is a "sin".

I'm not trying to show you that your reasons aren't ok in an attempt to make you look stupid...I'm trying to show you your "reasons" are non-existent, that the differences you see between yourself and gays, are largely in your imagination.

In short, if you are going to treat gays differently under the law, even if it's to deny them the right to be "married", and by this I mean not "civilly unioned", then your "reasons" can't be imaginary.

One of the main reasons that gays are demanding that laws be changed to exclude all forms of discrimination, no matter how slight, is that discrimination when codified into law, perpetuates that discrimination.

It was once illegal in this country to teach black slaves how to read This was because an educated slave is more dangerous than an uneducated one, but it also served to perpetuate the myth that blacks were unintelligent. Similarly any form of legal discrimination, no matter how slight, perpetuates the myth that gays are "different" in some meaningful way, and deserve to be treated differently.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
The reason it's similar to racism is because in both cases people are discriminated against based on "perceived" differences. Certainly in the case of race, it's generally easier to see the difference with your eyes, but in both cases, the "differerence" is used to justify all manner of discrimination, and sometimes even violence.

In addition to the "perceived" differences, the discriminating party often attaches "imagined" differences, usually very negative ones, to the minority in question. Examples would be, "gays are child molesters", or "blacks are less intelligent". I'm sure you can think of more stereotypes that are unrealistically attached to minority groups.


Why do we ask for reasons, and not accept your reasons as ok?

That's an easy one. Because your "reasons" are "unreasonable".

I know some people take offense, or cry foul, when discrimination against gays is compared to racism, but the comparison is a valid one. As stated previously, people are discriminated against for reasons that are perceived, but not real. The only difference between a black man and a white man is the color of their skin, nothing more. The differences between a gay person and a straight person is who they have sex with, nothing more. Yet people who would not think of denying a black man a job because of the color of his skin, believe it's their right to deny a gay person a job, to "protect" children from being "exposed" to homosexuality, or they are afraid the gay person is a molester. The same person might refuse to rent an apartment to a gay couple because they believe that being gay is a "sin".

I'm not trying to show you that your reasons aren't ok in an attempt to make you look stupid...I'm trying to show you your "reasons" are non-existent, that the differences you see between yourself and gays, are largely in your imagination.

In short, if you are going to treat gays differently under the law, even if it's to deny them the right to be "married", and by this I mean not "civilly unioned", then your "reasons" can't be imaginary.

One of the main reasons that gays are demanding that laws be changed to exclude all forms of discrimination, no matter how slight, is that discrimination when codified into law, perpetuates that discrimination.

It was once illegal in this country to teach black slaves how to read This was because an educated slave is more dangerous than an uneducated one, but it also served to perpetuate the myth that blacks were unintelligent. Similarly any form of legal discrimination, no matter how slight, perpetuates the myth that gays are "different" in some meaningful way, and deserve to be treated differently.

Vile,

First off, I want to say that, of all the people on this board, you are one of the ones I respect the most. This is despite the fact that we are frequently opposing one another.

However, you're just flat wrong in your comparison of homosexual discrimination to racial-based discrimination.

Not all discrimination in our society is considered wrong. We, as a society, constantly discriminate versus alcoholics, smokers, criminals, and many others without giving such discrimination a second thought.

So the question is: How do we distinguish what characteristics may be discriminated against? This question has long been established in our judicial system, and I'm in agreement with them. The principle is this: We as a society should not discriminate against people for physical, immutable characteristics.

Homosexuality is certainly not a physical characteristic, and we have spent plenty of time debating its mutability. THAT is why the comparison to racial discrimination is not "valid," as you've asserted. Homosexuals are akin to alcoholics, smokers, and criminals in that homosexuals, as a class, are distinguished by behavioral characteristics, not by physical characteristics. And for the same reason, homosexuals are NOT akin to blacks or any other race.

If that comes off sounding bigotry I really don't want it to, I'm just replying the whole conversation on gay's shoving it down your throat (I think thats an odd choice of words for Gay...made me laugh)

Anyhow...it does seem to me, that there is a little I dont know...."gay propaganda shift" going on around the country. Television shows, gay apparel lines, rally's by Gay's. It does seem a tad bit like they are saying WE ARE GAY AND THERES NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT SO HA!!!

And about him telling his son....I think as a father he has more than the right to tell his son about it. And well he should. And the fact that some people think he shouldnt tell his son about it, shows that they think its not appropriate. Now before anyone posts the argument about telling your children about sex, it is tought now that the earlier the better....but you want him to wait to tell his son about homosexuality and why these men and women are doing it.

It can be down both sides of the street.

Originally posted by Leper
Vile,

First off, I want to say that, of all the people on this board, you are one of the ones I respect the most. This is despite the fact that we are frequently opposing one another.

Thank you Leper. Likewise.


Not all discrimination in our society is considered wrong. We, as a society, constantly discriminate versus alcoholics, smokers, criminals, and many others without giving such discrimination a second thought.

I would suggest that alcoholics, smokers, and criminals all have one thing in common. They harm our society in a tangible way.

The principle is this: We as a society should not discriminate against people for physical, immutable characteristics.

Agreed.

Homosexuality is certainly not a physical characteristic, and we have spent plenty of time debating its mutability.

We have also debated whether or not being gay is a physical characteristic, and have come to no definitive conclusion. I believe there is a genetic factor involved, which would certainly qualify as a physical characteristic.

THAT is why the comparison to racial discrimination is not "valid," as you've asserted. Homosexuals are akin to alcoholics, smokers, and criminals in that homosexuals, as a class, are distinguished by behavioral characteristics, not by physical characteristics.

Again, I believe that there is a genetic difference in gays that goes beyond behavioral differences.

And for the same reason, homosexuals are NOT akin to blacks or any other race.

We have debated whether or not being gay is entirely genetic (physical), or entirely a choice (behavioral), and I thought we came to some agreement that there are elements of both that determine a persons sexual preference.

If this is true, then I submit that there is no basis for discrimination, and that it would be wrong for the law to discriminate against gays.

Another point. You claim that it is allright to discriminate against someone based solely on their behavior, as long as you're not doing so based on an uncontrollable physical characteristic. Does this mean you believe it's allright to discriminate against someone for their religious beliefs? If someone had a physical characteristic that was changeable, such as poor eyesight, would you think it was right to discriminate against them until they had it corrected?

Leper, your contention that it is acceptable to discriminate against someone because they engage in a certain behavior, when that behavior doesn't harm society in any tangible way, is just wrong.

smokers dont harm anybody in a tangible way either. the smoke makes people uncomfortable, just as the site of homosexual affection makes people uncomfortable. dont argue 2nd hand smoke cancer either, because thats not a fact, and even if it iwas, its takes many decades. A

And gaysa re not held down as a whole in society. there are many successful gay people, and many things that celebrate homosexuality very publicly. when backs were being oppressed, there were very few succesful blacks, very little exposure to black society. it is not even close to compare the two. it is only done to try and give the gay cause some credibility, and make them seem like victims. there is NOTHING stopping a gay man from becoming a succesful, famous millionaire. in the time before the civil rights movement, you could not say the same thing about a black man. Thre is nothing stopping gays from recieving all the beneifits afforded to straight married couples. it is all a sham. we are supposed to beleive the poor gays are so downtrodden and oppresed.

Originally posted by Travh20
smokers dont harm anybody in a tangible way either. the smoke makes people uncomfortable, just as the site of homosexual affection makes people uncomfortable. dont argue 2nd hand smoke cancer either, because thats not a fact, and even if it iwas, its takes many decades.

Trav, I'm a smoker, and even I know that cigarette smoking causes massive harm in our society. Hundreds of thousands of people die every year, and untold millions of dollars are spent on health care for smoking related illnesses.

And gaysa re not held down as a whole in society.

They are however routinely denied the same rights as straight people.

there are many successful gay people, and many things that celebrate homosexuality very publicly.

Yes, there are many successful gay people, and they aren't allowed to marry either.

I don't want you to celebrate anything Trav, I just want equal rights, not separate but equal rights.

when backs were being oppressed, there were very few succesful blacks, very little exposure to black society. it is not even close to compare the two. it is only done to try and give the gay cause some credibility, and make them seem like victims.

I made no attempt to quantify the amount of "suffering" by blacks and gays so get off it.

there is NOTHING stopping a gay man from becoming a succesful, famous millionaire.

As long as he's an unmarried millionaire.

Is being rich and famous supposed to make someone happy that they don't have the same rights as you?

Thre is nothing stopping gays from recieving all the beneifits afforded to straight married couples.

Yes there is, the unwillingness of gays to accept having their relationships designated as something different from straight marriages under the law.

it is all a sham. we are supposed to beleive the poor gays are so downtrodden and oppresed.

No Trav...you are supposed to understand why gays don't want any part of the "separate but equal" farce being offered by the right.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Trav, I'm a smoker, and even I know that cigarette smoking causes massive harm in our society. Hundreds of thousands of people die every year, and untold millions of dollars are spent on health care for smoking related illnesses.

Ya I know smoking is bad for the smoker. it isnt bad for the non smoker, bt makes them uncomfortable witht he smell and all, jsut as being gay isnt going to hurt the non gay person, it is uncomfortable for them. you were the one who brought up the comparison, not me.


Originally posted by Vilepagan
They are however routinely denied the same rights as straight people.

and I am denied the rights a lot fo people get too, life isnt fair.


Originally posted by Vilepagan
Yes, there are many successful gay people, and they aren't allowed to marry either.

yes they are. you can go down and get married to your gay lover by a priest with the ceremony and everything if you wanted to.

Originally posted by Vilepagan
Yes there is, the unwillingness of gays to accept having their relationships designated as something different from straight marriages under the law.

theres where the problem lies. you see, homosexual "marriage" IS different then heterosexual marriage. 2 men getting married is very different froom a man marrying a woman. YOu are not going to convince 2 dog breeders taht their 2 male Labs is the same thing as a male and female lab. its not the same thing no matter how you slice it. different things can not be made to be the same. a round peg wont fit in a square hole pagan. I dont see why you cant get the benefits of a marriage, then go down to your local church and have the ceremony.

Originally posted by Travh20
you were the one who brought up the comparison, not me.

Actually it was Leper.

and I am denied the rights a lot fo people get too, life isnt fair.

For instance?

yes they are. you can go down and get married to your gay lover by a priest with the ceremony and everything if you wanted to.

Everything? Like tax breaks for being married? Don't act stupid Trav...

theres where the problem lies. you see, homosexual "marriage" IS different then heterosexual marriage. 2 men getting married is very different froom a man marrying a woman. YOu are not going to convince 2 dog breeders taht their 2 male Labs is the same thing as a male and female lab. its not the same thing no matter how you slice it. different things can not be made to be the same. a round peg wont fit in a square hole pagan. I dont see why you cant get the benefits of a marriage, then go down to your local church and have the ceremony.

Trav, the whole concept of "separate but equal" has been explained to you numerous times...and how can you be so dense as to suggest that gays will be given equal rights when you know that they won't get the same tax breaks as straights even if they are allowed "civil unions"?

pagan, if gays could get their governmental "civil union", complete with tax breaks and other things maried couples get, tehn go down to their church and get a ceremony, they are married. if you went so proud as to see thats your fault. as far as rights I dont have, I dont have the right to marry a guy either. I dont have the right to a job based on the color of my skin. I dont have the right to force my girlfriend to get an abortion. I dont have the right to be "protected" by hate crimes legislation. No one ahs rights to any of this, and getting married is not a right either. if its only about the benefits take your civiil union and move.

Originally posted by Travh20
see what I mean? how dare I not teach my children that homosexuals are anything but normal.

I see exactly what you meen. Instead of trying to understand your point of view and possibly get some insight and give some insight they are jumping all over you like you fly's on shit.

You guys should be ashamed of yourselfs. First off, There is nothing wrong with not being comfortable talking about sexuality with a child. So the fact that Trav is uncomfortable talking about homosexuality to his son is not unreasonable. He also has the right to believe it is sinfull or whatever his religion teaches. You guys invalidate his feelings just because you don't agree with him. I don't agree with him on this issue either, but I understand how he could feel this way.

Have none of you ever had ambiguous feelings about some group of people or life style? Have you always been so enlightened? Did it never take you a while to come around to seeing that maybe your feelings about someting were a little too far to one side? Have none of you ever felt that society was trying to push its values on you faster than you were ready to accept them?

You will not help him to find a common ground between his feelings and society's quickly changeing values about this subject, by discounting his feelings and getting in his face.

[QUOTE] [B]and the day you see as many christian shows on TV as gay shows you let me know.[B][QUOTE]

I will argue this point with you however. Christianity is EVERWHERE in this country. On our money, in our songs, heck, people say "bless you" whenever anyone sneezes. Fanatics are even trying to get prayer back in school, it permeates our politics, our views of men and women, our sexual mores, our dress codes, our medical care, our manners. Christianity offends me, just as homosexuality offends you. I see it as evil and a curse on humankind. But like you and homosexuality, I just have to put up with it because that is the way of this culture is and I have no intention of living in any other country.

So anyway, Trav, back to the original subject. What measurable negative impact do you think allowing gays to marry will have on you as an individual? What measurable negative impact do you think it will have on society? Please don't respond with religious doctrine because scripture holds as much weight with me as quoting something from the Wizard of Oz. lol

Originally posted by Echo2
I see exactly what you meen. Instead of trying to understand your point of view and possibly get some insight and give some insight they are jumping all over you like you fly's on shit.

You guys should be ashamed of yourselfs.

Echo, I respect your opinion, but I think if you want to gain some insight as to Trav's opinions on gays, and the responses of others, you might try reading some of the posts in several previous threads on the subject of gay marriage. And please, until you do, don't tell me I should be ashamed of myself.

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5491&highlight=Marriage

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=6420&highlight=Marriage

http://www.allforums.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4081&highlight=Marriage



First off, There is nothing wrong with not being comfortable talking about sexuality with a child. So the fact that Trav is uncomfortable talking about homosexuality to his son is not unreasonable.

Of course not, but his reluctance to discuss sex with his child is irrelevant to the subject.

He also has the right to believe it is sinfull or whatever his religion teaches. You guys invalidate his feelings just because you don't agree with him. I don't agree with him on this issue either, but I understand how he could feel this way.

As has been repeatedly said to Trav in the past, he has every right to his religious beliefs, but his religious beliefs have no bearing on the law.

Have none of you ever had ambiguous feelings about some group of people or life style? Have you always been so enlightened? Did it never take you a while to come around to seeing that maybe your feelings about someting were a little too far to one side? Have none of you ever felt that society was trying to push its values on you faster than you were ready to accept them?

You will not help him to find a common ground between his feelings and society's quickly changeing values about this subject, by discounting his feelings and getting in his face.

Echo, you must realize that this is not a new subject of debate here. Read some old posts and then you'll understand who gets in who's "face" on this board.

Well, thank you for taking the time to enlighten me. However I have read many of those strings and I believe I know exactly where Trav stands.

My intention was to make you guys take a look at your behavior. Apparantly something you are unable or unwilling to do. The point was, if you want to make an impact on Travs thinking. i.e. give him a reason to question what he believes, jumping down his throat, calling him names and putting him on the defensive is not the way to do it. I know this because it wasn't very long ago that I felt the same way he did about gays. Talking to him as an equal and asking him questions that will make him think about his values are better ways to get someone to question their position. He may not ever do it, but jumping in his face and calling him names certainly isn't the way to have a intellegent conversation about anything.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't answer for him. Answer for yourself all you want, but not for others. I'm sure you wouldn't want him answering for you in a debate that you disagreed with him on. (was that a real sentence? lol)

Trav - this seams to have become a discussion about you in the third person and I appologize for that. If you want to continue this in private PM's where you wont get ganged up on let me know.

first of all, my son is 4 years old. second of all I am used to getting ganged up on. and I dont care if pagan answers for me becuase he and I have gone round and round with this for months.

pagan - I stand corrected.

Originally posted by Echo2
Well, thank you for taking the time to enlighten me. However I have read many of those strings and I believe I know exactly where Trav stands.

My intention was to make you guys take a look at your behavior. Apparantly something you are unable or unwilling to do.

Thank you for making that rather arrogant assumption about me. Coming from someone who's been on the board for all of 4 days, I'll certainly excuse the error.

I don't believe my behavior on this board has been anything but exemplary, however if you have any examples of misbehavior on my part I'd be happy to have you quote them.

The point was, if you want to make an impact on Travs thinking. i.e. give him a reason to question what he believes, jumping down his throat, calling him names and putting him on the defensive is not the way to do it.

Echo, if you have in fact read through just the threads I've posted for you, you must be aware that ideas have often been presented to Trav in a very civil manner. You would also be aware that jumping down people's throats, and name-calling are Trav's forte, not mine. Trav is infrequently on the defensive, rather he's often offensive. All this notwithstanding, Trav and I have had many lively debates, which I have enjoyed. I appreciate and respect his perspective, and forgive me if this sounds rude, but I really don't need your advice on how to deal with Trav. I think we have come to understand each other over the past several months.

I know this because it wasn't very long ago that I felt the same way he did about gays.

I'm glad you were able to change your outlook, and I hope that perhaps you can change others as well.

Talking to him as an equal and asking him questions that will make him think about his values are better ways to get someone to question their position.

I have never treated Trav as anything but an equal, and have asked him numerous questions designed to get him to re-think his feelings about gays.

He may not ever do it, but jumping in his face and calling him names certainly isn't the way to have a intellegent conversation about anything.

Thank you for your advice.

I would appreciate it if you wouldn't answer for him. Answer for yourself all you want, but not for others. I'm sure you wouldn't want him answering for you in a debate that you disagreed with him on.

I don't believe I did answer for him, and it certainly wouldn't occur to me.

Trav - this seams to have become a discussion about you in the third person and I appologize for that.

I apologize as well Trav, I'm sorry the subject was raised.

As I previously posted, I was wrong. And pagan, I appologise to you if I was out of line.

I will crawl off into my lair now.

Originally posted by Echo2
pagan - I stand corrected.

No sweat echo...I hope you realize that I was composing my last post while you were posting this. I look forward to your posts because if they're anything like your post in the Religion forum (I forget which thread) I'm sure you have much wisdom and insight to offer here on allforums.

TRAV wrote:
dont argue 2nd hand smoke cancer either, because thats not a fact….it isnt bad for the non smoker,

No offense, but that has to be the most ignorant comment I've ever seen on this board. Try telling that to the millions of people who have died from 2nd hand smoke. Its smoke...inhaling smoke is not good for you. If your still gonna ignore the obvious and assume 2nd smoke is harmless, then let someone blow 20 cigarretes worth of smoke in your 4 year old's face every day...you should have nothing to fear.

you can go down and get married to your gay lover by a priest with the ceremony and everything if you wanted to.

In which states is this legal?


JEREJEREBINKS wrote: And about him telling his son....I think as a father he has more than the right to tell his son about it. And well he should. And the fact that some people think he shouldnt tell his son about it, shows that they think its not appropriate. Now before anyone posts the argument about telling your children about sex, it is tought now that the earlier the better....but you want him to wait to tell his son about homosexuality and why these men and women are doing it.

I never said he should NOT tell his son. He was the one complaining about having to tell his son. I just suggested that one option would be to wait until he is older. That does not mean that I think 2 men holding hands is innapropriate, I just think this is an adult matter, just like if his son asked "why is that man holding that woman's hand". Either tell them "you'll explain when they are older" or "they care about each other" or go into graphic detail about what they do in their bedroom...I don't care, you're the parent. Just stop telling people to act any different than you do in public because you don't feel like playing your parental role.


LEPER wrote:
Homosexuals are akin to alcoholics, smokers, and criminals in that homosexuals, as a class, are distinguished by behavioral characteristics, not by physical characteristics.

You're right Leper, we did discuss this in another thread. And there was plenty of discussion about how your sexuality is NOT a behavior, it is about who you are.

Originally posted by dnamertz
You're right Leper, we did discuss this in another thread. And there was plenty of discussion about how your sexuality is NOT a behavior, it is about who you are.

I think it's clear from the context of my comment but just for you, I'll elaborate further by saying that by "homosexuals," I mean people who behave in a homosexual manner, just as I'm talking about criminals who commit criminal acts and alcoholics who drink too much.

Originally posted by Leper
Vile,
So the question is: How do we distinguish what characteristics may be discriminated against? This question has long been established in our judicial system, and I'm in agreement with them. The principle is this: We as a society should not discriminate against people for physical, immutable characteristics.

Homosexuality is certainly not a physical characteristic, and we have spent plenty of time debating its mutability. THAT is why the comparison to racial discrimination is not "valid," as you've asserted. Homosexuals are akin to alcoholics, smokers, and criminals in that homosexuals, as a class, are distinguished by behavioral characteristics, not by physical characteristics. And for the same reason, homosexuals are NOT akin to blacks or any other race.

Leper,

I'm returning to this question because I think it's an important one, and I think it got lost in the discussion of whether or not being gay is a physical characteristic or a behavior.

Assuming for the sake of this discussion that being gay is simply a behavior, do you think it's ok to discriminate against gays on that basis alone?

I contend that while we do discriminate against criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts et. al., on the basis of their behavior, it's because their behavior has a tangible negative impact on our society. I further contend, that to discriminate against gays, society must first demonstrate that gays have a tangible negative impact on society, something which I think would be very difficult to demonstrate. If we allow discrimination based on behavior that has no such negative effect on society, then we must allow people to discriminate based on a person's religious beliefs, which is something I think you'll agree would be wrong.

I contend that while we do discriminate against criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts et. al., on the basis of their behavior, it's because their behavior has a tangible negative impact on our society. I further contend, that to discriminate against gays, society must first demonstrate that gays have a tangible negative impact on society, something which I think would be very difficult to demonstrate. If we allow discrimination based on behavior that has no such negative effect on society, then we must allow people to discriminate based on a person's religious beliefs, which is something I think you'll agree would be wrong.

Interesting point, but I feel that the validity of such a comparison is somewhat lacking. While alcoholics and drug addicts are afflicted with an addiction that is socially crippling to themselves, it in no way harms society as a whole. Not saying that their addictions might not lead to criminal activity, but the disease itself isn't enough to condemn the society in which they live. It might be devastating to their respective families, but then again, so would homosexuality or multiple sclerosis, for that matter. My point being that you hit the nail on the head…it doesn’t always have to have a negative impact on society for society to condemn it. Some people view homosexuality as a dangerous condition that leaves the recipient of such a genetic disorder at higher risk for contracting and spreading the aids virus, pedophilia, and agenda spreading. Common society frowns upon these traits, and as long as issues such as homosexuality, criminal activity, drug taking, or alcoholism stay in a minority setting, there's nothing you can do to get most people to accept it. It just WON’T happen, because, inherently, they don't want to and they don't have to. i.e. it's not their problem...

All this talk about gay rights and privledges makes me remember about a debate about gay marriage I gave in college. One of the things I presented was that all men and women have the right to marry, the fact of the matter is that we were made to reproduce and as a matter of fact gays and lesbians cannot reproduce, they need a man or a woman to do so.

The law cannot regulate love, the law cannot regulate feelings. The law can regulate the proper relationships that people may have. The government says that children cannot have sex with parents, that close relatives cannot have sex or marry.

Being that we live in a selfish society, we want to think about what is good for us. I find it seriously odd that gays and lesbians "want" the privildges of marriage, but less than 5 % have taken advantage of those privledges that were in effect before. What makes us think that they really will take on the responsiblities of marriage and stay with one person when many gays and lesbians have multiple partners in their lifetimes?

It sounds more likely that these people want to change the traditional definition of marriage to whatever they want. In an article entitled "Why gay marriage would be Harmful", Author Robert Benne states that the fundamental tradtional view of marriage has been that marriage is between one man and one woman, anything that contradicts or changes that view is in essence trying to change the definition of marriage.

As to the claim about being born gay, that has also been refuted as well. In a study named "The Innate-Immutable argument finds no basis in Science", Drs Byrd and Cox have said that homosexuality is not genetic, environmental factors play a role, there is not a single master "gay gene".

Further the article goes on with several gay researchers that have not found one shred of evidence in the gay gene or gay part of the brain.

Being gay is a choice, you can marry a man or a woman, for that matter you can find another gay or lesbian couple who will agree to marry one another, nothing says that you have to have sex with the person to be married to them.

If you want the privlidges of marriage then take them, nothing is stopping you. Public displays of affection are of bad taste in any situation, whether gay or straight.

Children should not be exposed to the sexual messages of the time until they are ready when the parents and not the public deem they are ready.

Originally posted by The Praetorian
Interesting point, but I feel that the validity of such a comparison is somewhat lacking. While alcoholics and drug addicts are afflicted with an addiction that is socially crippling to themselves, it in no way harms society as a whole. Not saying that their addictions might not lead to criminal activity, but the disease itself isn't enough to condemn the society in which they live.

Of course alcoholism and drug addiction have a negative impact on society as a whole. Millions of tax dollars are spent every year combatting these problems. This doesn't include dollars spent by the private sector, or higher insurance premiums we all pay. How can we even calculate the cost of all the people killed by drunk drivers.

It might be devastating to their respective families, but then again, so would homosexuality or multiple sclerosis, for that matter.

Exactly how would homosexuality be "devastating" to someone's family? Remember we're talking about "tangible" effect here, not the fact that someone might be shocked to find out a family member was gay.

My point being that you hit the nail on the head…it doesn’t always have to have a negative impact on society for society to condemn it.

When it comes to the law, it's generally recognized by the courts that the government must show a "compelling interest" to outlaw specific behaviors.

Some people view homosexuality as a dangerous condition that leaves the recipient of such a genetic disorder at higher risk for contracting and spreading the aids virus, pedophilia, and agenda spreading.

Those people would be wrong. Being gay is not a genetic "disorder". Being gay doesn't put you at a higher risk for contracting the AIDS virus, engaging in unsafe sex does. Most pedophiles are not gay, and I can only assume "agenda spreading" was a joke.

Common society frowns upon these traits, and as long as issues such as homosexuality, criminal activity, drug taking, or alcoholism stay in a minority setting, there's nothing you can do to get most people to accept it. It just WON’T happen, because, inherently, they don't want to and they don't have to. i.e. it's not their problem...

When the law is changed to allow gay marriage, people will have to accept it.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
One of the things I presented was that all men and women have the right to marry, the fact of the matter is that we were made to reproduce and as a matter of fact gays and lesbians cannot reproduce, they need a man or a woman to do so.

Are you suggesting that people who are unable or unwilling to reproduce should be banned from marrying? Do you think the law should be changed to require married couples to have children? Your suggestion that marriage is about reproduction is patently false.

The law cannot regulate love, the law cannot regulate feelings. The law can regulate the proper relationships that people may have. The government says that children cannot have sex with parents, that close relatives cannot have sex or marry.

Quite true, the government can regulate marriage to prevent marriages between close relatives, in order to prevent birth defects. What the law can't do is prevent marriages between people based on a perceived but non-existent danger to society. When interracial couples petitioned the courts to marry, the opponents of interracial marriage tried to convince the court that it was neccessary to preserve "racial purity". The argument was thrown out as a spurious one because it was an imaginary danger. Similarly, society is not in danger because some people view gay marriage as "improper" or "sinful".

I find it seriously odd that gays and lesbians "want" the privildges of marriage, but less than 5 % have taken advantage of those privledges that were in effect before. What makes us think that they really will take on the responsiblities of marriage and stay with one person when many gays and lesbians have multiple partners in their lifetimes?

Many heterosexuals have multiple partners in their lifetimes as well, yet we grant them the right to marry. Similarly many heterosexuals don't live up to their marriage vows, yet we don't deny others the right to marry.

[QUOTE][B]
As to the claim about being born gay, that has also been refuted as well. In a study named "The Innate-Immutable argument finds no basis in Science", Drs Byrd and Cox have said that homosexuality is not genetic, environmental factors play a role, there is not a single master "gay gene".

Further the article goes on with several gay researchers that have not found one shred of evidence in the gay gene or gay part of the brain.

We've discussed this issue in other threads, and the conclusions of various studies are not definitive, contrary to what you might think.

Children should not be exposed to the sexual messages of the time until they are ready when the parents and not the public deem they are ready.

Agreed.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
One of the things I presented was that all men and women have the right to marry
Marriage endorses couples, which thus takes rights away from homosexual couples.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
the fact of the matter is that we were made to reproduce and as a matter of fact gays and lesbians cannot reproduce, they need a man or a woman to do so.
Marriage is not always about reproducing, it’s about sharing your life with someone you love. Many married couples have medical defects that stop them from having a child, or they just don’t want a child. Which means that your argument of they need to reproduce is just unethical.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
I find it seriously odd that gays and lesbians "want" the privildges of marriage, but less than 5 % have taken advantage of those privledges that were in effect before.
What was in affect before?

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
It sounds more likely that these people want to change the traditional definition of marriage to whatever they want.
Many states have it to where it says between two consenting adults…so actually there is no complete definition of marriage. Also, as my cousin pointed out earlier, marriage use to be about gaining wealth, increasing social status, and continuing the blood line.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
As to the claim about being born gay, that has also been refuted as well.
Links…?

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
Being gay is a choice
Did you choose to be heterosexual?

Overdose, don't make me pull links out on you again. Can you simply just go back to the previous thread instead of fencing with people and asking for links that you have already been provided?

I’ve already debated you on this issue, and I was asking for the link of his report that was from a specific doctor…something I don’t believe you gave me.

CONSERVATIVE MAN wrote:
Being gay is a choice,

Actuall, its NOT a choice, demonstrated by the fact that all gay people I've asked said they did not choose it (just like the fact that hetero people did not choose their sexuality either).

many gays and lesbians have multiple partners in their lifetimes?

Then you are in favor or gay marriage, since marriage stabilizes relationships which would make them more commited to one partner.

if anyone qwants to see examples of gay pushines and shoving things down people throats look no farther then overdoses signature. he knows that sort of thing is offensive to many but doesnt care. I havent seen any christian signatures of any type yet.

Originally posted by Travh20
if anyone qwants to see examples of gay pushines and shoving things down people throats look no farther then overdoses signature. he knows that sort of thing is offensive to many but doesnt care. I havent seen any christian signatures of any type yet.

If it bothers you that much, you can turn images off in your control panel. Many of us like the picture, I'm sorry that it offends you.

You know that things you say are offensive to many, and you don't care. it's called free speech!

if anyone qwants to see examples of gay pushines and shoving things down people throats look no farther then overdoses signature. he knows that sort of thing is offensive to many but doesnt care. I havent seen any christian signatures of any type yet.

Whats this? A righty complaining about being offended? Your anti-liberal signatures are offensive to some.

While we're at it, quit shoving Beavis & Butthead down people's throats...many people were offended by that show.

LMAO, so predictable. "you an always turn it off!" so quick to say, so slow to realize it works both ways.

LMAO, so predictable. "you an always turn it off!" so quick to say, so slow to realize it works both ways.

Listen Beavis, I challenge you to show me when I ever said "always turn it off". I never complained about being offended about anything, people are too sensitive these days. You are the one who doesn't realize it works both ways. You comlain when people say they are offended about seing religion in their face, but then you get offended by seing 2 men holding hands, or that picture in ODs post.

Originally posted by dnamertz
Listen Beavis, I challenge you to show me when I ever said "always turn it off". I never complained about being offended about anything, people are too sensitive these days. You are the one who doesn't realize it works both ways. You comlain when people say they are offended about seing religion in their face, but then you get offended by seing 2 men holding hands, or that picture in ODs post. I believe Travh was talking about Idiot's post. The other idiot, i mean.

I believe these jerks think they are the only ones allowed to have free speech. Its always their rights being trampled on, its always them people are trying to silence. when anyone else complains they simply tell them to shut up or turn it off. "oh, you dont like what you see? you can always turn it off" If we complain about the picture overdose puts on his sig we are trying to silence his right to free speech.

Originally posted by Travh20
I believe these jerks think they are the only ones allowed to have free speech. Its always their rights being trampled on, its always them people are trying to silence. when anyone else complains they simply tell them to shut up or turn it off. "oh, you dont like what you see? you can always turn it off"

Trav, you have every right to complain, but the truth is that you say offensive things all the time, and unless they are particularly nasty, nobody tries to silence you. Who told you to shut up?

You complain about censorship far more than any "leftist" I've seen on this board. You constantly say that the "left" tries to censor the "right", but it's just not true. You have every right to post whatever picture you want, although I suppose the mod's or the Admin might remove a pornographic image, or something that was graphically violent.


If we complain about the picture overdose puts on his sig we are trying to silence his right to free speech.

If you don't want him to remove it, why are you complaining about it?

BTW, Like my new avatar? :D

But you are trying to stifle his free speech! You can put whatever you want on your signature, and so can he. It's not a liberal or conservative thing. I don't see why there's even an argument about this! If you can "turn it off" and opt not to see it, then why don't you, instead of whining about how you're "offended"? Or, if you want to be a little more agressive, find something that OD is offended by and put a picture of that on your signature.

Those actions would make sense therefore trav is unable to think of them on his own.

you people are so preoccupied with your own superior intellects that you dont even understand what this is all about. Once again its all about you. I dont give a flying fuck what some homosexual has on his signature in an internet forum, thats not the point. It is a tiny symbol of the greater problems of double standards in this country. Whenever someone says there is to much sex on TV, they re told to turn it off. When there is a cross on a city seal the same people who tell people to turn off their TV scream bloody murder. They claim it s a constitutional thing, but seem to only want to protect the parts that serve them. They love the part that they interpret to mean no signs of christianity anywhere on public buildings, since they hate religion (yes, echo does hate relgion, look at his posts in the religion topic), they hate the second ammendment (except pagan), they hate the electoral college. its so freaking transparent that you only like parts of the constitution, the parts that you agree with. Lets see, I dont like relgion, so that part is good, I dont like guns, so that part is bad, my candidate lost ecasue of the electoral college, so that has to go. its a bunch of bullshit.

All men are created equal - that part seems to elude you. You want to deny gay people the right to marry the person they love.

Originally posted by Echo2
All men are created equal - that part seems to elude you. You want to deny gay people the right to marry the person they love.

Echo...I have to disagree with you here...as a gay man I can assure you...all men are not created equal...:D

Originally posted by Echo2
All men are created equal - that part seems to elude you. You want to deny gay people the right to marry the person they love.

No, I want keep society from having to accept it because it will change the very definition of marriage, which you can not deny it will. If two gay guys want to go find a priest to marry them in a ceremony so be it, I dont think society should have to honor it though. WE can give the gay couple the rights and breaks reagualr married couples get but it should not be considered a traditional marriage, because it is not. it is something different. why are we going over this again? someone just shoot me now. Take off the gun lock and pull the trigger.

Originally posted by Travh20
It is a tiny symbol of the greater problems of double standards in this country. Whenever someone says there is to much sex on TV, they re told to turn it off. When there is a cross on a city seal the same people who tell people to turn off their TV scream bloody murder.

There is a big difference Trav and you know it. If you or I are offended by something on TV or in print, we simply don't have to watch, or read the offensive thing. When someone attempts tp put a religious symbol on government property, it's not about the symbol being offensive, it's about the fact that it's on a government building. I don't find the Ten Commandments "offensive" in any way, but they don't belong on our government buildings because that constitutes the government respecting an establishment of one religion over another. Favoritism.

They claim it s a constitutional thing, but seem to only want to protect the parts that serve them. They love the part that they interpret to mean no signs of christianity anywhere on public buildings, since they hate religion (yes, echo does hate relgion, look at his posts in the religion topic), they hate the second ammendment (except pagan), they hate the electoral college. its so freaking transparent that you only like parts of the constitution, the parts that you agree with. Lets see, I dont like relgion, so that part is good, I dont like guns, so that part is bad, my candidate lost ecasue of the electoral college, so that has to go. its a bunch of bullshit.

Trav, I suspect that if it was in your power, there would be things about the Constitution you'd change or at least clarify. There's nothing wrong with wanting to change the Constitution as long as you're willing to do it using the proper process. You've stated that you are in favor of a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. Does this mean you only want to change the parts of the Constitution you disagree with? Yes, and that's a perfectly acceptable attitude.

I know you don't like the statement that the constitution is a "living document", but it's true and hopefully it always will be. As our society grows and matures, our Constitution will grow and mature with it. You may feel we need to add a section banning gay marriage, and I may feel that the Electoral College is outdated, and we both may agree that the 2nd Amendment is just fine the way it is, but it doesn't mean either one of us is being hypocritical.

Originally posted by Travh20
I dont care if 2 guys are getting it on in their home. I dont care if someone is gay. I do care about having to explain to my son why those 2 guys are holding hands and kissing, and how everything has become gay. I dont personally agree with it, and I think it is not something to be celebrated and just accepted because we are supposed to accept it. I dont like being made out to be some kind of KKK memeber becasue I dont accept homosexuality as just fine and dandy. In this day and age if you tell your kids anything besides how great and just totally normal homsexuality is you re some kind of monster. 2 men engaging in anal sex is not normal, no matter how often they tell me it is. That doesnt mean I want to kill all gays, or anything like that, it just means I dont agree with it, and dont appreciate it being forced down my throat day in and day out. if your gay, fine, be gay, jsut shut up about it already. travh, your 2 for 2 with me today. i feel the same way.....i honestly think that this could open things up in schools , and i dont want anyone that my child has to learn from, giving the opinion that this is ok. people must get a different interpretation from soddom and gomorrah. this is an abomination to god, and gays talk like this is ok with god.............its not

Originally posted by Travh20
No, I want keep society from having to accept it because it will change the very definition of marriage, which you can not deny it will. If two gay guys want to go find a priest to marry them in a ceremony so be it, I dont think society should have to honor it though. WE can give the gay couple the rights and breaks reagualr married couples get but it should not be considered a traditional marriage, because it is not. it is something different. why are we going over this again? someone just shoot me now. Take off the gun lock and pull the trigger. POW ! ......LOL......but once again travh, i agree

Note what trav has as his aviator. Is he not spreading hate? Does he not post hate filled diatrabes about groups of people he doesn't like. His posts show us that he hates everyone that doesn't believe bush is a great and wonderfull man that never lies. He hates people who don't think kerry is a liar and a war criminal. He says he doesn't care about gays but he constantly screams about the fact that they exist and he has to see them.

I don't care what they do, I just don't want to have to see them or be around them or be reminded they exist.

How is it going to effect you if the definition of marraige is changed?

please shoot me now, have mercy on me and put me out of my misery before i go off on this jackass

Originally posted by Travh20
please shoot me now, have mercy on me and put me out of my misery before i go off on this jackass pow, pow, bang, pow !

Originally posted by Vilepagan


Assuming for the sake of this discussion that being gay is simply a behavior, do you think it's ok to discriminate against gays on that basis alone?

I contend that while we do discriminate against criminals, alcoholics, drug addicts et. al., on the basis of their behavior, it's because their behavior has a tangible negative impact on our society. I further contend, that to discriminate against gays, society must first demonstrate that gays have a tangible negative impact on society, something which I think would be very difficult to demonstrate. If we allow discrimination based on behavior that has no such negative effect on society, then we must allow people to discriminate based on a person's religious beliefs, which is something I think you'll agree would be wrong.

I agree and disagree with you, Vile. That is, I think you are right to distinguish behavior according to whether the behavior is harmful to society in order to be able to discriminate against it.

But the part I disagree with is whether homosexuality is harmful to society. As you've heard me point out before, I think it is harmful to society's reproductive capacity, and secondarily, gay behavior results in the quicker spread of STD's. With that said, I would agree that this behavior is less harmful than crime, drinking, and even smoking, and thus, I have very limited support for law that discriminates versus homosexuals. Nevertheless, I do support some lesser discrimination versus homosexuals, such as discouraging the behavior in children through simple parenting techniques, but definitely nothing so severe as criminalizing it.

No one said you were the same as racists. What was said was that these people want to distance themselfs from homosexuals just as people used to want to distance themselfs from blacks. That doesn't even come close to calling anyone a racist.

"such as discouraging the behavior in children through simple parenting techniques,"

Pretty much what was done throuout history untill the late 80's early 90's and it didn't stop homosexuality because you can't "discourage" someone from being what they are.

If my parents had tried to discourage me from being heterosexual, and society had enforced that heterosexuality was wrong, and religions backed that up, I can state unequivically that I would still be heterosexual. I can't change that. It is who I am. I am attracted to the oppositer sex, I couldn't even fake being attracted to the same sex, they just hold no interest to me. What many people don't understand is that we don't have a choice as to who we are attracted to. It is hard wired in our brains.

TRAV wrote:
It is a tiny symbol of the greater problems of double standards in this country. Whenever someone says there is to much sex on TV, they re told to turn it off. When there is a cross on a city seal the same people who tell people to turn off their TV scream bloody murder.

Where you are wrong is that the double standard goes both ways. Whenever people complain about a cross on a city seal, they are told to live with it or ignore it, but when there is sex on TV, the same people who say to ignore the cross scream bloody murder. So, it appears to be all about you in this case.

i honestly think that this could open things up in schools , and i dont want anyone that my child has to learn from, giving the opinion that this is ok. people must get a different interpretation from soddom and gomorrah. this is an abomination to god, and gays talk like this is ok with god.............its not

Why should God's opinion on a subject decide whether it is mentioned in a public school?

gay behavior results in the quicker spread of STD's.

I've been over this before, but here it is once again. "Gay behavior" does not result in more STDs. It is true that anal sex leads to more diseases than other types of sex, but this is equally true whether its between heterosexual or homosexual people. However, anal sex is not possible between 2 GAY women. The type of sex gay women have is no more prone to disease then heterosexual couples who perform the same act (and most of them do)...In fact, gay women are even less prone because there are some things they can't even do that heterosexuals can do. Therefore, its not the "gay" aspect that is more dangerous.

I guess one question I have is what will happen to marriage and divorce, I have seen more than one gay person and a lesbian I know leave their long time person for someone who was "better and hotter", even if this isnt a prevalent attitude within the gay community isnt this kind of attitude in marriage where you are to give yourself completely and wholly to one person inherently dangerous to homes with children? I have read in articles by conservatives and gays alike that many gays have permissiveness in their relationships, meaning that the partners allow sexual contact with not just each other. What are the consequences on the gay community where there is such said permissiveness. What does this do to marriage and relationships?

Now assuming again that this is not a widespread attitude in the gay community what does this do to marriage and eventually child rearing in gay homes. One thing that comes to mind is how do children in gay homes learn to relate to the opposite sex when "more tradtional gender roles" for the lack of a better term are not displayed in front of them. Do children in a same sex home become more apt to become homosexuals themselves?

Originally posted by Leper

But the part I disagree with is whether homosexuality is harmful to society. As you've heard me point out before, I think it is harmful to society's reproductive capacity,

That may be true, but I think it has a neglible effect on our population growth, and at any rate, no amount of discrimination is going to make gays reproduce.

and secondarily, gay behavior results in the quicker spread of STD's.

I can understand why you say this, but in reality it's not "gay" behavior that spreads STD's it's "unsafe sex" that does. If gays are allowed to form more stable relationships within our society, and these relationships are recognized, then you will see fewer gays who engage in such unsafe practices. Gays are not naturally more promiscuous then heterosexuals, despite the stereotype. It's only because our relationships are not officially recognized that such behavior became acceptable in the gay community. In heterosexual society there are people who engage is high-risk promiscuous sex, and they are ostracized by the rest of heterosexual society to a certain degree, and if homosexual relationships are recognized, you will see the same shift in behavior in gays towards those gays who continue to engage in this kind of behavior.

Originally posted by korg
travh, your 2 for 2 with me today. i feel the same way.....i honestly think that this could open things up in schools , and i dont want anyone that my child has to learn from, giving the opinion that this is ok. people must get a different interpretation from soddom and gomorrah. this is an abomination to god, and gays talk like this is ok with god.............its not

Your religious beliefs are very quaint Korg. It's a shame that you can use the bible to justify your dislike of gay people.

Sodom and Gomorrah...hmmm...all in all a pretty dreadful story, and a very poor tale of morality. It might have been more effective had the writers of the Bible left out the part about Lot's daughters, who immediately after being spared the "fire and brimstone" of God's wrath because of their pure and virtuous ways, got their father drunk and had sex with him. If you want to teach your children about how the story of Sodom and Gomorrah shows God's feelings towards gays, be sure to tell them about Lot's daughters too. I wouldn't want them growing up thinking that incest was wrong.

BTW, eating shrimp and oysters is also an "abomination" before God, and I don't see you suggesting we close down seafood restaurants.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
I guess one question I have is what will happen to marriage and divorce, I have seen more than one gay person and a lesbian I know leave their long time person for someone who was "better and hotter", even if this isnt a prevalent attitude within the gay community isnt this kind of attitude in marriage where you are to give yourself completely and wholly to one person inherently dangerous to homes with children?

This type of behavior is not something associated with being gay. Since gays represent maybe 5% of the population, this behavior happens far more often in heterosexual relationships than it does in gay ones. The chance that it may happen in "some" gay relationships is certainly no justification for denying gays the right to marry.

I have read in articles by conservatives and gays alike that many gays have permissiveness in their relationships, meaning that the partners allow sexual contact with not just each other. What are the consequences on the gay community where there is such said permissiveness. What does this do to marriage and relationships?

Again, considering that gays represent 5% of the population, this sort of "open relationship" occurs far more frequently in heterosexual relationships than it does in gay ones, and as far as the effects of such behavior go, it would be no more or less detrimental to a gay relationship or family, than it would to a "traditional" one.

Now assuming again that this is not a widespread attitude in the gay community what does this do to marriage and eventually child rearing in gay homes.

The same thing it does to heterosexual homes.

One thing that comes to mind is how do children in gay homes learn to relate to the opposite sex when "more tradtional gender roles" for the lack of a better term are not displayed in front of them. Do children in a same sex home become more apt to become homosexuals themselves?

Very few studies have been done on this question since it's been only recently that gays have been allowed to adopt and raise children. Even those who have had children of their own, up until recently have had to hide their sexuality from the authorities, lest these children be taken away by the state for the "protection" of the child. What studies have been done show that there is no evidence to suggest that being raised by gay parents causes an increase in the incidence of homosexuality in the children. Children have ample opportunity to be exposed to "traditional gender roles" in our society, and despite the complaints that we are constantly baombarded by gay imagry in the media, children can hardly escape seeing heterosexuality displayed every day.

I guess one question I have is what will happen to marriage and divorce, I have seen more than one gay person and a lesbian I know leave their long time person for someone who was "better and hotter", even if this isnt a prevalent attitude within the gay community isnt this kind of attitude in marriage where you are to give yourself completely and wholly to one person inherently dangerous to homes with children?

I have seen more than many heterosexual people (mostly men) leave their long time partner and kids for someone who was "better and hotter", so if this is a reason for not allowing a group of people to marry, then you should be against all marriages. The same thing would happen with marriage and divorce in gay marriages that happens in hetero marriages.

I am not talking about hetrosexual couples. I am talking exclusively about homosexuals.

Plus in reality homosexuals only comprise of 1-2% of our population according to a study done by the National Opinion Research Center, 1.4 percent of women and 2.8 percent of men respectively.

In all seriousness the problem with homosexual relationships is that a third of gays and half of lesbians already live with a lover, many are short relationships meaning that in marriage there would be many more divorces in "gay marriages".

In doing some web research in the past few days I have found studies, mainly one by Paul Cameron that shows that children in homosexual homes are much more prone to have sex with a parent, they are also much more prone to the domestic violence that happens in homosexual homes, while hetero couples acount for about 5% of domestic violence calls a year, homosexual couples account for more than 20% of domestic violence calls a year.

Conservativeman could you give us the links to support your statements? You can say and throw these ideals out all you want, but without links it’s meaningless.

www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet7.html
www.traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php
www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS01J3
www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IS04C02

I also give you all you need to go looking for yourself. I give you the name of the researchers and the studies. Thats all you should need.

yay! Bias sites...always good to have on your side.

I would like to see something that is not liberal slanted that proports what you are saying. I know that there are links and independant evidence to what I am saying, look at the end of the articles and look them up.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan

Plus in reality homosexuals only comprise of 1-2% of our population according to a study done by the National Opinion Research Center, 1.4 percent of women and 2.8 percent of men respectively.

Most studies and polls show a figure closer to 5%.

In doing some web research in the past few days I have found studies, mainly one by Paul Cameron that shows that children in homosexual homes are much more prone to have sex with a parent, they are also much more prone to the domestic violence that happens in homosexual homes, while hetero couples acount for about 5% of domestic violence calls a year, homosexual couples account for more than 20% of domestic violence calls a year.

If you want accurate information about gays, you should avoid Paul Cameron like the plague. He has been widely denounced, and his "research" has been described widely as fraudulent.

In 1985, the American Sociological Association (ASA) adopted a resolution which asserted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented sociological research on sexuality, homosexuality, and lesbianism" and noted that "Dr. Paul Cameron has repeatedly campaigned for the abrogation of the civil rights of lesbians and gay men, substantiating his call on the basis of his distorted interpretation of this research."7 The resolution formally charged an ASA committee with the task of "critically evaluating and publicly responding to the work of Dr. Paul Cameron."[/B]

In short, the man manipulated his data to support his anti-gay agenda. The ASA kicked him out for it.

Here is a link to a website by UC Davis.. I hope it's not too "liberal".

BTW, the "Family Research Council" that you posted three links to, was founded by Paul Cameron.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron_sheet.html

CONSERVATIVE MAN wrote:
I am not talking about hetrosexual couples. I am talking exclusively about homosexuals.

Of course you don't want to include heterosexual couples in the discussion because it destroys your theory that letting gay people get married, some of whom are not monogamous, will be disasterous. But, since heterosexuals cheat in their relationships as well, married or not, then it is relevant.

Plus in reality homosexuals only comprise of 1-2% of our population according to a study done by the National Opinion Research Center, 1.4 percent of women and 2.8 percent of men respectively.

I'm not sure how one study makes it "reality" but there are studies at the other extreme that say it is near 10%. I believe the studies that put it at 5-6% since its between the 2 extremes and it matches the amount of gay people you come across in real life. Even Bill O'reilly has stated that "most studies put the gay population at around 5%".

In all seriousness the problem with homosexual relationships is that a third of gays and half of lesbians already live with a lover, many are short relationships meaning that in marriage there would be many more divorces in "gay marriages".

That statement doesn't even make sense. What was you point here? What does the percentage of gay people already living with a lover have to do with anything? Some of those would get married and some would not, and getting married would probably make the relationship even longer and more stable. The ones who are in short relationships would probalby not end up getting married if it became legal, so it would not mean more divorces. Just like the many heterosexual people who date different people in short term relationships, they usually don't end up marrying that person.

while hetero couples acount for about 5% of domestic violence calls a year, homosexual couples account for more than 20% of domestic violence calls a year.

I'm no math wizard here, but if heterosexuals account for 5% and homosexuals account for 20%, where is the other 75% coming from? Are they single people beating up themselves?

In all seriousness the problem with homosexual relationships is that a third of gays and half of lesbians already live with a lover, many are short relationships meaning that in marriage there would be many more divorces in "gay marriages".

I've heard people in the past claim that gay people don't stay in commited relationships as long as heterosexual people, as if to imply that they are less capable of staying commited or just want to jump from relationship to relationship. But, even IF it was true that gay people have shorter relationships, if you use any logic you could see why.

The main reason gay relationships would be shorter (if it is true) is because finding a compatible companion is a numbers game. The less people you have to choose from, the less chance you have of finding one that you want to be with long term (not to mention the rest of your life). For example when heterosexual women are looking for Mr Right, they have about 142.5 million straight men to choose from (given 300,000,000 people in the US, half of which are men, and about 95% of which are straight men). On the other hand, gay men only have the other 5% to choose from, which would be about 7.5 million. Its much easier to find someone that has all the traits and characteristics that you like when there are 142.5 million to choose from than when there are only 7.5 million.

OK! Time for my opinion. This issue is one of the ones which I am very very liberal on. Now to refuting the consrvative arguments!

Firstly, what I think is the stupidest argument: "Marriage is for reproduction." What about all the straight people who are physically unable to have children or who don't want them? Should they be denied the right to marriage as well?

Secondly, "Gays would cheat on eachother and get more divorces." This is just asinine. Even if gays were more likely to cheat or divorce (something I don't agree with), it would barely make a difference since they are so much a minority! Supposedly, and I don't really know the statistic here, more than half of all marriages in the U.S. end in divorce anyway. And as for the cheating, many more straight married people would still be cheating on their spouses than gay people, so why does it matter so much?

"while hetero couples acount for about 5% of domestic violence calls a year, homosexual couples account for more than 20% of domestic violence calls a year." Use common sense. If we assume that 95% of the population are straight, that is 19 times as many straight people as gay people. It's possible, but extremely unlikely, that gays would accout for four times as much domestic violence. That's not even to mention the question of where the other 75% supposedly come from.

I don't understand why it would be more ok to discriminate against gays if being gay was "a behavioral trait" instead of "a physical trait". If this logic was true, it would be more ok to discriminate against, say, Jewish people than it would to discriminate against, say, blind people. Tell me, how does that make any sense at all?

And now for the obvious one: Religion. If marriage were purely religious, then atheist or otherwise non-religious people would not and could not get married. It's just a stupid argument, and it is forcing your religious viewpoints onto others. Separation of church and state, people!

All that said, I sincerely think that I am being civilized here. I'm not trying to shove anything down anyone's throats, to use the words of certain conservative individuals. I would also like to say that I very much respect the viewpoints of all the people with valid arguments, liberal and conservative alike. :D

HAH! It said I wasn't logged in when I tried to post this before, but luckily I had to foresight to copy it in case that happened... Just wanted to gloat about that.... lol...

You see this is exactly what I mean. I present evidence to support why I dont support homosexuality and it is competely ignored.

Anyone who does not believe in homosexuality are seen as liars why when we present evidence is it completely ignored. Why do people see homosexuality as right, if it were why would we not be born with both sets of parts?


I just have the problem seeing why people think it is so right. I am gonna end this before I start saying things I might regret.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
You see this is exactly what I mean. I present evidence to support why I dont support homosexuality and it is competely ignored.

Your evidence was NOT ignored, it was shown to be faulty.

To repeat, Paul Cameron, whose study you cited, is a fraud. He was kicked out of the American Sociological Association for manipulating data, and using these manipulated figures to support his anti-gay agenda. He is NOT a reputable scientist and his findings are fraudulent. On his website he asserts that he resigned from the ASA, and this too is a lie. He was kicked out. No reputable scientist would use the data he gathered because it is FALSE DATA.

Psychologist Paul Cameron has used his own studies to claim that homosexuals threaten public health, social order, and the well-being of children. His conclusions are generally at odds with other published research, and objective indices show that his work has had no apparent impact on scientific research on sexual orientation.

Although Cameron has been criticized in the popular press, extensive scientific critiques of his group's research have not been widely available. Those that have been published have been brief or appeared in obscure journals. This inattention by the scientific community is perhaps not surprising, given the poor quality of the Cameron group's data and the low prestige of the journals in which they have published. Most scientists have simply ignored the Cameron studies.

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_cameron.html


Anyone who does not believe in homosexuality are seen as liars why when we present evidence is it completely ignored.

No one called you a liar, and again, your evidence was not ignored.

Why do people see homosexuality as right, if it were why would we not be born with both sets of parts?

And if man were meant to fly he'd have wings.

I just have the problem seeing why people think it is so right. I am gonna end this before I start saying things I might regret.

Why do you think it's "wrong"?

of course there is always a giant anti-gay agenda, but mention a pro gay agenda and they laugh you out of the building.

Originally posted by Travh20
of course there is always a giant anti-gay agenda, but mention a pro gay agenda and they laugh you out of the building.

Trav, I'll explain this so even you can understand. In my post I referred to Paul Cameron's agenda, as in the phrase "personal agenda". I did not say anything about a "giant" anti-gay agenda, despite your misleading comment to the contrary. It is certainly possible for a person, or a group, or organization to have an "agenda". You on the other hand, seem to believe that all gay people, and gay groups, are following some common "gay agenda" that is being promulgated in secret. That's laughable.

One reason you are not taken seriously Trav, is because you constantly misrepresent what other people say. It does nothing but harm your credibility.

This wouldn't even be an issue if some people weren't so uptight about what other adults are doing with each other. It just doesn't make sense. So what of they marry? Is it going to effect your marraige? Is your marraige so weak and pitiful that letting gays marry is going to ruin it? Is it going to effect your life in anyway at all? Other than seeing gays holding hands, which we already see, just how is it going to measurable effect your life?

Unless you have a business that makes the little brides and grooms that top wedding cakes I can't see how letting someone get marraied will effect anyone but the people doing it.

All of the arguments put forth are based on fear. Fear that marraige will colapse, fear that domestic violence will go up, fear that you will have to see gays holding hands even more than you do now. Fear of homosexuals having the same rights as everyone else.

pagan, you said anti-gay agenda, not personal anti gay agenda. this implies he is part of a bigger anti gay agenda. I never said ALL gays were in on some secret society bent on world conquest. There are radical gays, as there are radial anti gays. how esle would you explain such a small part of the population attracting so much attention day in and day out? there has ben a concerted effort to bring homosexuals to prominence in this country, I can assure you anti gays didnt do it, so that leaves the pro gay agenda crowd left, who are doing it.

I think one of the major points made by ConservativeMan was ignored on the previous page, while it was refuted by the likes of DarkFantasy and Vilepagan. It touched on the promiscuous behavior of homosexuals, and he (CM) claimed that promiscuity was a fairly common occurrence in gay relationships, and others quickly debased this statement by arguing that it’s an occurrence in heterosexual relationships, too. As a matter of fact, this behavior was dismissed almost entirely with the caveat that homosexuals represent such a small percentage of the populous, that even if there was rampant infidelity in their relationships, it was of little to no consequence at all. I don’t think that was the point of his statement, and I’d like to take the time to mention that, proportionally, the incidence of partner swapping in gay relationships is significantly higher due to the sexual nature of gays. I’ve always heard that gay clubs, and gay social gatherings, are havens for sexual encounters. (REF: Mr. Garrison, of South Park, Colorado – a professor of social studies, and gay, himself)

His point was, they go to bars, and they hook up, even if they’re involved in “steady” relationships. Yes, they represent 5 or so percent of the populous, but the incidence of aids and other sexually transmitted diseases or of a significantly higher PERCENTAGE than in hetero relationships. Because of their inherent nature, I think letting them get married is a little premature at this time.

Originally posted by Travh20
pagan, you said anti-gay agenda, not personal anti gay agenda. this implies he is part of a bigger anti gay agenda.

I implied nothing of the kind.

Here is what I said:

In short, the man manipulated his data to support his anti-gay agenda. The ASA kicked him out for it.

Now, that statement specifically refers to his personal agenda. How could you possibly interpret it to be referring to anything other than that?

Originally posted by The Praetorian
I don’t think that was the point of his statement, and I’d like to take the time to mention that, proportionally, the incidence of partner swapping in gay relationships is significantly higher due to the sexual nature of gays.

Praetorian, why don't you tell me all about the "sexual nature" of gays?

I’ve always heard that gay clubs, and gay social gatherings, are havens for sexual encounters. (REF: Mr. Garrison, of South Park, Colorado – a professor of social studies, and gay, himself)

What you've "heard" is wrong.

Because of their inherent nature, I think letting them get married is a little premature at this time.

Inherent nature? That's an incredibly vague statement.

The idea that gays are sex fiends is nothing new, but it is sad that so many people still believe this ridiculous idea. I think it's easiest to believe by those looking to justify their already negative attitudes towards gays. Gay bars are, for the most part not "sex clubs". They are subject to the same laws that govern behavior in other bars and nightclubs. People go there to meet friends, have a few drinks, unwind after work, go dancing, and yes, to meet people and possibly date them.

Are there gay "sex clubs"? Sure. There are hetero "sex clubs" as well, but when you've already convinced yourselves that gay relationships are about lust, and not love, it's just natural to believe that gays hang out in bars to have sex, and to meet people to have sex with.

the fact that they kicked him out for his opinion says a lot about them

the fact that they kicked him out for his opinion says a lot about them
Ahem...
"In short, the man manipulated his data to support his anti-gay agenda. The ASA kicked him out for it."

I present evidence to support why I dont support homosexuality and it is competely ignored.

What do mean "ignored"? It was rebutted with logic, in my opinion.

I’ve always heard that gay clubs, and gay social gatherings, are havens for sexual encounters. (REF: Mr. Garrison, of South Park, Colorado – a professor of social studies, and gay, himself)

First of all, if you are using a South Park character as an example of how gay people act, then look at how heterosexuals act (REF: Kyle's mom, and Chef...they'll have sex with anyone). Get real!

Instead of "hearing" about gay clubs, try going to some before you say what they are like. I've been to a few "straight" night clubs and one "gay club", and the behavior was the same in both. I saw no sexual activities.

His point was, they go to bars, and they hook up, even if they’re involved in “steady” relationships.

Who are "they"? None of the gay people I've ever know have hooked up with other people while in a steady relationships. Sure some gay people sleep around just like some heterosexuals do (2 were in the news today, Scott Peterson & Kobe Bryant). So, if you are against people who cheat from getting married, then be against that. Don't hide behind the "I don't like promiscuity" argument as a way to prevent only ONE of the promiscuous groups (gays) from getting married and not the other promiscous group (heteros).

Yes, they represent 5 or so percent of the populous, but the incidence of aids and other sexually transmitted diseases or of a significantly higher PERCENTAGE than in hetero relationships.

What? Gay women get aids at a higher percentage than heteo women??? Where did you come up with that? Please explain how that is the case?

Because of their inherent nature, I think letting them get married is a little premature at this time.