I just don't get the gay marriage debate. I really don't.
I'm going to start with a statistic. 91% of young people say they frequently hear things being referred to as "gay" that are bad - negative, things they don't like. A survey found 84% of young people say they frequently hear the words "faggot" and "dyke" in reference to other students (In The Life, Logo Channel). In a piece where I'm addressing gay marriage, you'd think those things aren't necessarily important. But that is my point. Often when debating the issue of gay marriage, or the issue of gays in the military, or any other gay rights issue, we are arguing the topic and not the issue. …
Article comments
— go to most recent comments376 - Chris Evans
Whaa'? Who EVER said that heterosexual men are secretly gay. What are you TALKING about? You're completely pulling this out of your ass. Are there men who claim to be straight but are denying their homosexual NATURE? Yes. But the only reason they have to hide it is because of people. like. you.
You show that you completely have ignored what we've said in previous comments if you're going to sit there and compare homosexuality to murder. You still have yet to prove why the two are comparable. In what way is homosexuality directly hurting anyone? You've yet to answer that with a solid answer.
You as a straight man do not choose to feel sexual love for women--so why do you think gays choose to feel sexual love for their same sex?
You've shown time and time again that you have no idea what you're talking about, and I've been trying and trying to show you the light but you simply are not even listening to what anyone has to say.
377 - Jet in Columbus
Out of all this what have you accomplished Chris, do you actually believe you're going to change his mind?
378 - Doma
Ruvy in Jerusalem
quote: Finally, you argue that two of the founders were Christians in fact and not merely nominal Christians. Two out of all the signers of the American declaration of indepedence, and of the delegates to the continental congress and the convention that adopted the present constitution of your country. I'll not quibble with you, even if others do.
reply: Actually many were theologians, and more were christians worldnetdaily.com:
While it's true that the vast majority of the Founding Fathers were Christians -nearly half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were theologians dakotavoice.com
almost all of the 250 Founding Fathers were Christians, and notes that of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, 34 were Anglicans, 13 were Congregationalists, six were Presbyterians, one a Baptist, one a Roman Catholic, and one a Quaker. Also, many of the men who helped frame the Constitution founded Bible societies, were members of the clergy and theologians mfc.org
Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, 24 held what today we would consider seminary or Bible school degrees. Men like these were intimately involved in the forming of our nation's early laws and policies. In fact, many ministers and theologians were members of Congress and their state assemblies.
[DOMA: Please make URLs active when you post them. Also, you might want to put a "http://" before your own url in the comments box. This will create an active link to your site but without it it just goes to a dead end. Thanks. Comments Editor]
379 - Jet in Columbus
While it's obvious that Prima Doma has good knowledge of Google, she still has no idea what she's talking about.
Do you really expect someone to read something that long that could instead be summed up in a few sentences.
I'm still waiting for someone to address comment 338, silly of me isn't it?
380 - Silas Kain
All men are a shot of tequila away from a gay experience, Richard. Somehow I think you knew that already.
381 - Clavos
All men are a shot of tequila away from a gay experience
Oh, come on, Silas--that sounds like wishful thinking.
382 - Richard Brodie
You're completely pulling this out of your ass.
This isn't the only BC thread on this topic, and I have encountered this hypocritical tactic on this forum.
Are there men who claim to be straight but are denying their homosexual NATURE? Yes. But the only reason they have to hide it is because of people. like. you.
Well, as you know I don't accept the validity of the concept "homosexual NATURE." But since you do accept that, I'm wondering whether you also believe the converse: that there are men who claim to be gay but are denying their heterosexual nature. And if there are, is it because of "people. like. you."
And my comparing of homosexuality to other behaviors was clearly only regarding the issue of volition - not regarding the issue of hurtfulness.
You as a straight man do not choose to feel sexual love for women
Yes I do. And I also choose not to feel sexual love for men.
You've shown time and time again that you have no idea what you're talking about
Why don't you just say that you disagree with my position, instead of trying to denigrate my intellect?
I've been trying and trying to show you the light but you simply are not even listening to what anyone has to say.
In one respect you are correct. I'm not listening to what you have to say. I'm reading what you have to say. And when you use language like "I've been trying to show you the light", you begin to sound very much like one of those arrogant, condescending, close-minded fundamentalist christians who have been trying to show YOU the light.
383 - Chris Evans
Okay, if you choose to feel sexual love for women and not men...then I want you to choose to feel sexual love for men RIGHT now. If it's some switch that you can turn off and on, I want you to turn your homo light on RIGHT this second. I'm not just talking about actually doing the ACT. Because just having sex with a man does not make you a homosexual. I'm talking about forcing yourself right this second to actually be attracted to men. In ten seconds, when I show you a penis, you need to be hard because it arouses you.
Can you do that?
384 - Chris Evans
And second...your converse theory doesn't make any sense.
What reason would a man have to deny their heterosexual nature? That makes absolutely no sense.
385 - RogerMDillon
"Everyone has the Free Will to choose...to molest children or refrain from molesting them."
So according to Richard, he desires to molest children, but chooses not to do it. That's strength. Luckily, I don't have that desire, so it's not an issue with me.
"I also choose not to feel sexual love for men."
What went into your decision? Try them both and decide you like women better? How do you choose to be aroused by women? How do you command your body to be aroused? Again, it's no choice for me.
You live with a delusion of Free Will, but you really don't have it. Do you choose to breathe? Do you choose to be thirsty?
If your are following the Word of God, where's the Free Will in that? You are motivated by a desire not to go to Hell.
386 - Richard Brodie
I want you to choose ...
I hope you don't take offense, but in this case I choose not to do what you want me to do.
If it's some switch that you can turn off and on
I will leave it in the position I've chosen. It is a switch that one doesn't lightly alter the polarity of. One's choice of which binary state to put it and leave it in, is made not on some random whim, but on the basis of one's value system.
What reason would a man have to deny their heterosexual nature?
So you believe in these "natures", but there is in your mind apparently this radical difference:
a. it is impossible for someone claiming to be gay to have, in reality, a heterosexual nature, whereas
b. it is quite possible for someone claiming to be straight to have, in reality, a homosexual nature.
On what conceivable basis do you posit the existence of such diametrically opposite psychologies in what can only be described as these two fundamentally different genetic varieties within the human species?
387 - Richard Brodie
So according to Richard, he desires to molest children, but chooses not to do it.
No Roger. It goes even deeper than that. Not only do I choose not to molest children, I choose not even to desire to molest children.
What went into your decision [not to feel sexual love for men]?
A lifetime of example, study, thought, and in my case the experience of having been molested at the age of twelve by a homosexual stranger.
Do you choose to breathe? Do you choose to be thirsty?
Free Will applies to the mind, not to involuntary physical bodily functions. (Philosophy 101)
388 - Chris Evans
But my point is, Richard--if you for whatever reasond DID "decide" to be gay, how would you randomly start being attracted to men? How would that work? How would a penis randomly start making you aroused? Just as I could ask you how you would randomly start liking brussel sprouts even though you hate them.
What is wrong with you? How can someone CHOOSE to desire something? That just doesn't make any sense.
My other point is not that it is impossible for someone to claim to be gay even if they are heterosexual in nature--but that no one WOULD. Heterosexually is what is accepted by society. If you are heterosexual in nature, WHY would you "choose" to claim to be gay? Answer THAT question Richard. Answer that.
389 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Richard et al.,
The evidence that I'm aware of shows the following.
1. There is no "homosexual gene." That is to say there is nothing in the DNA matrix of proteins that indicates that one must be gay or not.
2. Homosexuality is not a choice. That is to say that the gay men on this list did not choose to be gay.
Le me suggest the following. It is only a theory based on these two points laid out above. There is a switch in the autonomic part of the brain that determines sexual orientation. The autonomic part of the brain is in the subconscious. One "chooses" to be gay (or straight) in the same way that one chooses to breathe or defecate.
Operating as we nomally do, using 10% or less of our brains, there is no choice at all. But with a far fuller conscious control of the autonomic brain, the conscious choice of sexual orientation may be possible...
Just a thought thrown out to chew on.
390 - RogerMDillon
I'm sorry to hear about the incident, but Free Will is a delusion of your mind over your involuntary physical bodily functions.
You did not choose not to have the desire to molest children. The desire was never in you. Unless you are telling me you used to desire them and then stopped.
391 - Jet in Columbus
Last study I saw, homosexuality is usually determined in the womb in men, because we have both an x and y chromosome, and it's usually caused by an imbalance of estrogen cause by stress.
All men are part women, that's why we have nipples, it's not determined until late in the pregnancy and can go either way.
OR is it that Richard doesn't have nipples or can explain why men do???
392 - SteveS
Discussions can be so odd to me sometimes. We're about at comment 400, I don't think my browser can handle much more, I'll be leaving this page too soon, but I've enjoyed reading.
What's odd here in the discussion of choice (completely neglecting the fact that it doesn't matter if it's choice or genetic if its still consenting adults), is that people like Richard don't see how crude their thoughts are.
Imagine if you, (any straight married man out there reading this), were in a discussion with someone, and one of the premises they put forward was that you could have chosen a better wife. And then they proceeded to spend the next few hours telling you how bad your wife was for you and why he knows who you should have chosen better than you yourself.
Now imagine everybody around you expects this to be a serious discussion with both sides having valid viewpoints worthy of consideration. It does make you just want to yell out sometimes, 'what the fuck do you know about me, my love, and what's best for me?'
It's maddening. Maybe it's just me, sometimes I feel like I fell down the rabbit hole I guess.
393 - Kenny C
I think the intersection of biology and behavior is complex. I don't think there need be only one determinant for all. I enjoy scientific news, and I recall a new study identifying an unusual condition of the chromosomes in mothers of gay sons. Mom's Genetics Could Produce Gay Sons
"Normally, X chromosome inactivation occurs at random: half of the cells in a woman's body will have one X chromosome inactivated, while the other half inactivates the other chromosome. However, when the researchers in the current study examined cells from the 42 mothers who had at least two gay sons, they found that about a quarter of the women in this group showed something different. 'Every single cell that we looked at in these women inactivated the same X chromosome,' Bocklandt told LiveScience. 'That's highly unusual.' In contrast, only 4 percent of mothers with no gay sons and 13 percent of those with just one gay son showed this type of extreme skewing."
There is something in some mothers that in every cell suppressed the same X chromosome, nonrandomly. The presence or absence of genes in her gay sons might not tell the whole story.
394 - Jet in Columbus
You know what it's great being ignored, I believe I just said that, and used up a lot lest space doing it.
395 - Kenny C
"Imagine if you, (any straight married man out there reading this), were in a discussion with someone, and one of the premises they put forward was that you could have chosen a better wife. And then they proceeded to spend the next few hours telling you how bad your wife was for you and why he knows who you should have chosen better than you yourself."
Good analogy. That is kind of like, some years back now, my mother railing that my brother should have tried more women of the same race as he, before settling for the woman he did love. My father, trying to compromise, suggested that my brother keep his girlfriend on as a mistress, while marrying someone more suitable. My brother was shocked and insulted. He and his girlfriend eloped and left the state. There was a rift for years.
I don't think it was at all fair to ask them to prove to anyone else that they could have found no one better to marry. Their marriage was, properly, their choice to make, not ours to make.
396 - Michael J. West
This will be my last comment on this thread, unfortunately. I've enjoyed it, but there are so many comments that I had to reload my browser four times to see them all.
Obviously there are some people who refuse to accept that homosexuality is nature, not choice, despite mountains and mountains of scientific evidence and absolutely no evidence that people choose to be gay. There is no convincing people who have decided that they're right and proof be damned.
There are people who have decided that gay marriage will "undermine the sanctity of traditional marriage," though they can't seem to say why that would be true, how it would hurt marriage or anyone who is married or society in general, or for that matter why it would do more than, say, divorce, spousal abuse, or infidelity to undermine marriage. No convincing them either.
I won't go into the various religious conservatives' denunciations of homosexuality. But I will say this. Let's briefly assume that you're absolutely right: all gay people will burn in Hell for eternity. Why can't you just be satisfied that they'll be miserable in the next world, and stop working so fucking hard to make them miserable in this one?
397 - Jet in Columbus
Chris, at 401 comments, you're great...But I also have to empty my accellarot's temp files every time I try to load this article too and even then it take a lonnnnnnn time. So DON'T let the drop off of responses discourage you.
You're great
Jet
398 - zingzing
i've never see one person dig a hole so deep without any help. richard, you are full of useless dogma. it's quite sick. bordering on absolutely insane. you protest too much. you don't even really read what other people have to say, and when they come up with an irrefutable point, you ignore it. (turn on your "gay light," then, if it's a choice anyone can make. go ahead. you can't. it's impossible, it proves that you are wrong.)
you are wrong and you know it, but you can't admit it because it makes you think too hard about all the other shit that's been crammed into your black, black soul by that fucking bible of yours. have your own mind, not some 2,000 year old perversion of reality. you are nothing but a sewer pipe, spouting off religious waste.
399 - Jon
The reason that marriage traditionalists believe that homosexual marriage defies the "sanctity" of marriage is that it is changing an essential element in the definition of marriage, as unanimously (until now) understood by humanity throughout our history. Obviously marriage has limits to whom can enter it: there are some relationships that are marriages and there are some that are not marriages, even very committed sexual friendships are not always marriages. If it is true that every marriage has a husband and a wife, and that a wife is female, a husband male, than you are actually ending state sanctioned marriage by extending it beyond its essential bounds. This seems debatable, but not arbitrary (since humans have being thinking this forever) or, on the face of it, irrational.
The relationship of Christianity and morals - or more broadly, religion and morals - is a more complicated one than you paint in your brief paragraph regarding this issue. There are moral systems that exclude religion in their formation, and I think nonreligious people can be moral, but these systems (whether Kantian, Aristotelian, etc) are extremely complicated and difficult to understand: most don't, and so the problem is that I don't think parents will be able to answer hard questions. Why do you think you shouldn't kill someone? What will be the consequences if you are not caught? Why is it against your best interest? A religious person has ready answers, whether or not these are true, but others (Kant's being the best I've seen) are a little harder to understand: what is the categorical imperative, and why should I strive to be autonomous rather than heteronomous, and how can I understand that without understanding the prior 20 centuries of ethical debate? It's much less work to be like Nietzche, no? All the same, the point that revelation cannot determine law stands.
There are actually legal philosophical differences - not religious ones alone - that motive people to claim that the courts are being activist. The problem is that, as defined by this Constitution that you love so dearly (and I love it also), the role of the court is to interpret law. Interpretation is an act of understanding what someone else was thinking when they wrote: after all, a word is a sign of a thought in the mind of the author, and we are all just trying to understand each other's thoughts when we're writing (even here!). You really suggest that the framers of the Constitution believed that gay marriage would be in the best interest of our nation? That's unlikely since the concept didn't exist until the second half of the twentieth century. If the court does more than interpret the intentions of the writers of the Constitution, than they are making law, and upsetting the balance of powers that makes our government work.
A lot of these arguments are somewhat pedestrian, they are common and easily found if you read real conservative thinkers (not hot heads like Coulter, et al.). I think that the fact that you did not respond to them actually means that you don't spend any time reading the opposing points of view in our national dialogue. I suggest doing so, it will allow for a greater charity and facility in debate. AL daily is a great news site that contains articles from both the left and the right written by generally intelligent people.
400 - Richard Brodie
richard, you are full of useless dogma. it's quite sick. bordering on absolutely insane.
So would you like us to establish a Department of Thought Control, with you in the position of supreme authority to make sure persons like myself are forcibly imprisoned in a state run asylum, where we will be unable to disturb the complacent tranquility of people who don't want to have their own preconceived justifications challenged?
401 - zingzing
yes, yes i do, richard. that's what "have your own mind (not the bible)" means. yep.
i'm saying your ideas are fucking useless and backwards. you like that? you can have em. you can shove em up your ass and choke on them. mmm.
again, you didn't even read the rest did you? where's a real response to chris' comment 388? you've got no response because you know you are wrong. go ahead and show us a valid response.
please! show us you aren't just dogma puked up as hatred.
402 - Jet in Columbus
Well Richard, now that you've ripped of my comment 293 would you comment on it?
Also you say, "So would you like us to establish a Department of Thought Control, with you in the position of supreme authority to make sure persons like myself are forcibly imprisoned in a state run asylum, where we will be unable to disturb the complacent tranquility of people who don't want to have their own preconceived justifications challenged?
Isn't that what you're trying to do.
Now put on your thinking cap this'll be hard for you to read!
Point One Gay marraige is not being fought for by gays-it's being fought against by the religious right
Why? in 2003 after Bush started sending troops and they started dying, his numbers started going south, and considering that Falwell et al needed their "boy" in Washington another four years, they had to think of something and fast, considering how close the election was in 2000.
With the failure to outlaw abortion in his first term and all those conservatives pissed off that they didn't have a stacked house with a republican president and congress to shove their right-wing agendas down our throats like they thought they did, somebody better think of something and FAST!
How do we get voters to the polls? Threaten the very sanctity of marriage by threatening it with those icky homosexuals. Get ballot initionatives in all the key states, so that it's perceived that a vote for Bush was a vote against homosexuals. After the nearly tied election, Bush had the nerve to say he had a "Mandate from the People" He had a mandate from busloads of churchgoers at the polls who had no idea what they were voting for, what the other issues were on the ballot, only that their priests and ministers told them to meet at the church on tuesday, take our preprinted ballots so you blindly know how to vote, and go vote against homosexuals before they force our children into pronography slavery.
Only after so many stacked state elections against gay marraige, did cities start marrying gays in protest.
Point Two America didn't vote for Bush
If America is so overwhelming against gay marriage???
If that's true and our representives and senators reflect and mirror our opinions, why is it that the majority of the senate voted against it? Even to the point of republican senators crossing over against their own party and voting against it????
Why is it being brought up now, the republicans are desparately scared of losing the congress, and it their scare tactics worked once, maybe it'll work again!
*Abortion doesn't effect our daily lives
*Gays don't effect our daily lives
*What church your neighbor doesn't effect our daily lives.
Our sons and daughters dying in Iraq effects our daily lives.
Paying more and more taxes to offset our skyrocketing Bush budget and national debt effects our daily lives.
Trying to make a comfortable living effects our daily lives.
Skyrocketing fuel prices effects our daily lives.
On those scores Bush is failing miserably, so they need something to distract us from his failings, and homosexuality is it...
...and we're all fools for allowing it to distract us from the jerk in the whiteshouse and all of his failings because calling someone a fag is much more important to our daily lives...
..........isn't it?
I think you keep ignoring this because you can't answer it Richard, and you KNOW I'm right
403 - SteveS
If the court does more than interpret the intentions of the writers of the Constitution, than they are making law
The U.S. Federal Court Systems own website says The federal courts often are called the guardians of the Constitution because their rulings protect rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Through fair and impartial judgments, the federal courts interpret and apply the law to resolve disputes.
A law can be unjust and can violate someone's rights and liberties that are guaranteed by the Constitution. That is why court cases regarding same-sex issues involve court challenges. We challenged the sodomy law on and the Supreme Court considered it invasive and a violation of Americans civil liberties. Their job was to not determine what lawmakers meant by sodomy. By your definition, the US Supreme Court was activist when they struck it down.
The courts are not ordering that gay people be allowed to get married. If you look at the court rulings, the rulings are that the laws that prohibit us from getting the benefits rights and privileges of marriage are unjust and violate our Constitutional Rights. So those laws are being struck down. Laws get struck down as unconstitutional all the time. Lawmakers are not infallible, you would take power from the judiciary and make the legislative omnipotent.
404 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Steve s.
In many countries, the legislative branch abandons its responsibilities and courts take over. This has certainly happened in Israel.
But in the US, the Supreme Court made a power grab early on in the history of the republic, the right to make laws unconstitutional. Thsi was doen with the Marbury v. Madison in the early 1800's.
Something to bear in mind,,,
405 - Doma
Jet in Columbus
quote:
While it's obvious that Prima Doma has good knowledge of Google, she still has no idea what she's talking about.
Do you really expect someone to read something that long that could instead be summed up in a few sentences.
I'm still waiting for someone to address comment 338, silly of me isn't it?
reply:
Doma isn't a she. I am a webmaster, truth doesn't come in bite size pieces. If you can't handle a few paragraphs, I am guesing you don't have the interest in a common/decent dialogue. let me know when you do.
406 - Jet in Columbus
Prima Doma's cute when she's being smug. And you'll note not a single response, even after I reprinted it at 407 for her convenience!
your turn Dick, oh excuse me Richie.
407 - Doma
Michael J. West
quote:
There are people who have decided that gay marriage will "undermine the sanctity of traditional marriage," though they can't seem to say why that would be true, how it would hurt marriage or anyone who is married or society in general, or for that matter why it would do more than, say, divorce, spousal abuse, or infidelity to undermine marriage. No convincing them either.
I won't go into the various religious conservatives' denunciations of homosexuality. But I will say this. Let's briefly assume that you're absolutely right: all gay people will burn in Hell for eternity. Why can't you just be satisfied that they'll be miserable in the next world, and stop working so fucking hard to make them miserable in this one?
reply:
I have answered this, folks simply don't like the answer.
It's called porter ministry. When Adam was in charge and let satan and evil have a place the entire universe fell into sin. If we open the doors to homosexuality in America we will open the doors to national disaters, perhaps like those of Sodom and Gommorah.
How long did Rome last went it lost its morality?
408 - Doma
Jet in Columbus
quote:
Prima Doma's cute when she's being smug.
reply:
last time, I am not a she.
409 - Jet in Columbus
Ahhhhh sweetie that's so cute you nice girl. I'm not a child-stealing, innocent little boy molesting pervert either like you make me out to be. Nor am I anti religous, or antiAmerican, or antiGod like you make me out to be.
Now the shoe's on the other foot and you see how it feels to read some of the shit you've posted here.
don't worry dearie, I won't tell anyone your secret. Prima Doma/Prima Donna what's the difference they're all the same to me!
410 - SteveS
How long did Rome last went it lost its morality?
Anybody who's opened a history book knows that the fall of Rome had nothing to do with morality, as the fundies try to get people to believe.
411 - Kenny C
The question on Rome contains a fallacy. Leaving aside the assumption of immorality, correlation does not prove causation, and no civilization has yet to last forever. I am not a historian, but the way I recall hearing it, a few laws restricting homosexual relations appeared before Rome became a Christian theocracy, and a few more centuries passed before the Holy Roman Empire finally collapsed.
As for the David Barton material, I find it curious. I read that he has a reputation for bad history. For just one thing, he used to offer a dozen quotations that he attributed to the Founding Fathers but which he later conceded were false and questionable, after they came under the scrutiny of scholars. A real historian would not purvey a set of quotations without being able to cite their sources.
He wrote an account of George Washington's military service that contained errors of historical fact, and that borrowed an incident from a fiction writer's historical novel. (Barton's bibliography cited the book, and the book turned out to be a novel. The novelist indicated that the incident was invented.)
Given that his claims play loosely with history without fully apprising his audience up front of dubious origins, it would be wise to take them with a healthy dose of salt.
412 - gonzo marx
it appears Kenny has also mastered his google-fu!
just a Thought to toss out there about Rome...
a decided Factor in the decline may very well have been the use of lead to line the aqueducts as well as the use of lead for eating utensils, plates and cups, pitchers...etc
granted, there are quite a few Variables...a Roman tradition that came from it's founding was a mother saying to her son, "with your shield , or on it"...that tradition declined....
as did Rome
far too complex an Equation to try and pin the outcome on any single Variable...
but i digress...
Excelsior?
413 - Snarkattack
No answers from my end, but a bloody good piece you've written, I very much enjoyed reading it. Cheers.
414 - another opinion
What about the gay and lesbians that do believe it is a choice and are selfclaiming chosen homos. I have two cousins that are such. One had a family with a hetero man, then when he left her she hooked up with her current girlfriend. My other gay cousin is dying of AIDS at thirty four, medication has ceased to work for him. The disease was contracted in a homosexual relationship. He says he chose to be gay because it was the "bad boy" thing to do and he enjoyed offending people and being rebellious. He also chose his tattoos and peircings on the same premis. Despite this dibilatating disease he lives with he says he would make the same choice again. He states he fully understood the risks of his lifestyle but that was only part of the thrill. It disgusts him that now gays are forcing him to adopt a "good guy" image and are telling him it is his duty to want to be monogamous and want to adopt bla, bla for the good of their image! He has been verbally threatened and attacked for his stance. No one ever seems to mention this division amongst the gays. Why? Not all of them have been brainwashed into believing they had no choice in the matter. Otherwise what about Bisexuals?
Are we to say that these "selfcaimed identity chosers" are not true homosexuals that they were born that way and for some reason are too stupid to know that?
There are also those conservitive gays that are calling this "gay right to marriage group" the Gay Gastapo. What about this? Appearently even among the very small percentage of our country that are Homosexuals there is division over this very subject. So now I wonder just what is the percentage of gays that really want this. Does that make them more homosexual than others? Are you Chris an authority on just what group is right and what group is wrong? Are going to tell the others that they don't know what is best for them?
Perhaps they are a minority within your minority are you going to treat them as though they should not be heard? Because of this kind of pressure my cousin has given up speaking about this. Don't you think this is ashame?
415 - Jet in Columbus
Dear Another, there are two kinds of gays, biological and psychological.
Your friend made the choice to be gay, and these are the kinds that are constantly being "cured" of homosesuality.
I've already covered (and been ignored) about homosexuality being cause by an imbalance of estrogen in the womb caused by stress in pregnancy, so I'll skip over that.
By the same token there are straights that are really biological gays. These are the ones that happily marry, raise children, and then 20 years later can no longer ignore their hormones reacting to good looking guys walking past them or in a gym shower, and tragically leave their families to do what comes "naturally" to them instead of what's been taught. These are the ones that terrified fundamentalists point at and claim that we "Changed or recruited"
SteveS can explain that.
I hope this clears it up for you, but I doubt it.
Jet
416 - another opinion
Why do you say that you doubt that this will clear it up for me? Is that because you can not prove it and this is just your own opinion or because you know me and know that I will not be swayed. Or is it because their is really so much confusion over this issue that no one really understands anything. Also are you implying that my cousins have less right to being a homosexual because they chose to be and that their choices are somehow "tragic". This issue is so clouded in mass confusion. That eventually even those that may want to be homosexual will have to prove they are by some sort of certification in order for them to be allowed in such an elitist group for fear that if they are not true Homos they may "convert" and leave the rest of you looking bad. So you seem to think. What about bisexuals what about conservitive gays? Would you not agree that a "psychological gay" might perhaps make a bad parent in terms of fidelity to his or her partner and in turn affect the child. If this were the case then should we discriminate against psychological gays...how would we determine what kind of gay a person really is? Also my question about the division of gays went unanswered. Like I previously stated, no one is going there.
Terrified fundamentalists? What about rogue social scientists or secular conservatives? Do we always have to make this be about religion? It gets tiresome to the rest of us who have oppinions.
417 - Jet in Columbus
If it weren't for the self-righteous religion factor we wouldn't even be having this discussion.
I could trot out and display dozens of scientific posts agreeing with me, and then you could display just as many refuting it.
You're no closer to swaying me than I you and we and everyone else on this string needs to admit that.
By the way just because SteveS is gay does NOT make him a bad father if that's what you're implying, in fact having seen the world "from both sides now" makes him a better more balanced parent than most, and I admire him for that.
Solus mei sententia
Jet
418 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Jet,
Do me a favor. Do not include me in the "self righteous religious crowd." I did read your comment on chemical imbalance of estrogen in the womb as a cause of homosexuality. While the comment seemed a tad vague, I was able to figure it out from the context and what I know about when sex organs show up in the womb in ultrasounds. So it is clear to me.
419 - another opinion
Fact is I am not on either side. I have just recently started looking into both sides of this issue so I could make a well informed decision. Because even though I have come as far as I have in understanding this issue and I do have personal concerns (my cousins) I still have questions about other/certain ideas of homosexuality. I have read all the political agendas, Pro and Con, checked out the religious side, read all the alliance, association, get to know the gays before you judge material...now I just want to know what the people say. It's bit murky at best.
Seems to me your best bet then, if no one is going to be swayed by you, is to win them with kindness instead of implications, name-calling, vented frustration etc... It is not a good thing for your interests to trample would be sympathizers in the name of "equality -take it or we'll call you a ( )fill in the blank". We just want legitimate answers to unanswered questions. Not emotionally charged ranting. My cousins say there are no legitimate answers. Just accept me. At least that is honest and admirable. But once again all I see are hypothises and implications, name calling and what have you blog after blog but no real answers or honesty. I did appreciate your first answer at least trying to help me understand what your hypothesis was but the vaugeness just opens up a host of other questions. Thought I would try to find a more friendly enviroment for my questions so I guess I'll be moving on in my search for the "why". Thanks anyway.
420 - scepictal!
Of course a gay gene could exist. Haven't you heard of recessive genes?
If only 5% of people are gay what does it matter if they fly in the air? It won't make much difference to anything!
If marraige is about becoming parents should elderly widow and widowers be prevented from marraige?
There are loads of disfunctional heterosexual familes, sounds like people want to blame this on gays somehow, doesn't it?
Given the high state of divorce, child abuse etc I'm surprised gays want to ape us straight people!
421 - Jet in Columbus
The ability to see your lover as next of kin int he hospital without the worry of being rejected at the door
The ability to inheret property that you and your lover shared a lifetime cherishing, without fear of being legally opposed.
The ability to file joint tax returns.
The acknowledgement of a strong and lasting love publicly.
Only a few of many reasons why we'd want to "ape" straight people...
Solus mei sententia
Jet
422 - sceptic
Jet,
I'd have thought my final comments was obviously aimed at the anti -gay people. ANY couple should have those LEGAL rights! Just by signing contracts. People could then go through any ritual they want, go to church if they want, but it shouldn't be a higher form of union because of this. But I think religious marraige in the West is outdtated. Till death do us part (or until I find someone else!!)from all these capital C Christians. Loads of them have had half a dozen spouses!
423 - SteveS
What about the gay and lesbians that do believe it is a choice and are selfclaiming chosen homos.
what about them? Being gay is not illegal, so people are free to be born gay and people are free to choose same-sex activity. Being gay myself, I don't see how or why someone would chose to have sex with someone they aren't naturally attracted to, but hey, it's a free world.
It disgusts him that now gays are forcing him to adopt a "good guy" image and are telling him it is his duty to want to be monogamous and want to adopt bla, bla
This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard of. Forced adoption is a new one on me. He's got some strange friends.
He has been verbally threatened and attacked for his stance.
Nobody challeneges the ridiculousness of your comments? Someone is being attacked in the gay community for not settling down and is undergoing a forced adoption? Whatever.
No one ever seems to mention this division amongst the gays. Why?
Because this is the silliest argument I've ever heard of.
Otherwise what about Bisexuals? Are we to say that these "selfcaimed identity chosers" are not true homosexuals that they were born that way and for some reason are too stupid to know that?
I don't understand the rambling here. A bisexual is capable of being attracted to anybody, gender is irrelevant. A bisexual can be attracted to a man or a woman and maintain a relationship with that person, while still being attracted to other people but quite capable of not acting on that attraction. What is the question here?
424 - Chris Evans
How is bisexuality somehow a choice?
425 - Ken
*sigh* I couldn't even make it all the way through these comments without having to post. I apologize if my points have already been covered but... bear with me.
1) It was mentioned that children growing up in a same sex home have disadvantages later in life, including emotional problems. ...and? I fail to see how this counts against same sex marriage when you consider that people who come from hetero homes have serious emotional problems as well.
2) The fact that same sex families do not create another person, regardless of the fact that they may choose to be put in charge of one. There are hetero families that do not produce children, should they be outlawed? Should it be stipulated that, once you are married you must produce a certain number of offspring? Further, I don't think that having a marriage that doesn't bring children into this world is a bad thing, once you consider the number of children waiting for adoption and a loving home. Would you deny them that? If legalizing gay marriage gives more of these disadvantaged children a chance at a better life and home, where is the harm in that? Also, thinking that children brought up in a same sex home will inevitably turn out gay, is like assuming that all children raised in an anti-homosexual home will turn out straight. This is obviously not true.
I apologize for "necroing" these comments, but they popped up on google and I just couldn't resist.
"Better to die on your feet than to live on your knees. Stand up for what you believe."