another post about gay marriages... but this one might make you go "hmmmm"...

[Nixy]

I agree with that too, I don't feel that a religon should have to change to suit it's members. The traditions they follow are generally long standing traditions, with an entirely different basis for following them, Belief.

As far as the Gov't controlling marraige, first of all they have no business in it, but, since taxes and other things are dependent on whether you are married or not, I think that gays should be allowed to be married in the governments eyes.

*high fives PT*

 

[PT]

I think the thing that alot of people are worried about is that their church is going to be forced to perform gay marraiges. There is zero precedence for this. Catholic churches for years have discriminated badly against people that want to get married in the church. Ever had an abortion, forget it. Been married before without getting it annulled? Forget it. Not a regular enough member? Forget it. Don't buy enough beer for the reception.... Well, you get the point. The government does not and has no right to step in and say that they HAVE to marry someone. That is the churches business. Neither however should the church have any right to step in and say that the JOP cannot marry someone.

 

[Gato_Solo]

I think the thing that alot of people are worried about is that their church is going to be forced to perform gay marraiges. There is zero precedence for this. Catholic churches for years have discriminated badly against people that want to get married in the church. Ever had an abortion, forget it. Been married before without getting it annulled? Forget it. Not a regular enough member? Forget it. Don't buy enough beer for the reception.... Well, you get the point. The government does not and has no right to step in and say that they HAVE to marry someone. That is the churches business. Neither however should the church have any right to step in and say that the JOP cannot marry someone.

Thank you, PT. That was well thought out. Unfortunately, most people still won't get it, and will argue about a right to get married. You may have a right to choose your spouse, but you do not have a right to get married...then again...the government can say whether or not your spouse is legal whether you are homosexual or heterosexual...

 

[Gonz]

This has gotten a bit unwieldy. SO much to remark about but this cannot be overlooked.

]If it's a choice and 'we' don't need to concern 'ourselves' with making choices into law, but it's okay to discriminate against choices by law?

Ya bet yer bippy it okay.

Discrimination is an overused & misunderstood word. We all discriminate everyday in everything we do. Did you wet yer drawers this morning? That big goofy fuck that you ducked into the bosses office to avoid...remember? Do you really have to talk to him again? Look, a bunch of speedfreaks in a dark alley...let's show our tits to 'em & see if we can outrun them. There is absolutely nothing wrong with discrimination.

There can be if the discrimination is used by a group or entity to justify unbecoming or dangerous behavior at the expense of another over something in which the discriminatee has no control. (skin color, sex, etc)

All Americans may marry, assuming they have found a suitable legal aged person of the opposite sex who is willing to enter into such an arrangement. There ought to be so much more to it than that but that is the basis. A line has been drawn. Opposite sex. NOw, if we can only take back the no fault divorce rulings maybe we can start getting a handle on the rest of this non-sense.

 

[Thulsa Doom]

This has nothing to do with the point ive been making all along which you keep ignoring but ill play along since you want to avoid that apparently.

Until early 1970’s homosexuality was defined as a mental disorder in the DSM (diagnostic statistical manual) it is still thought to be a D.O. by many professionals that fear to say so.

yes and before that it was widely held as a simple criminal act. And those that engaged in it were often brutalized or killed in the name of the devil. Progress takes time as you clearly point out here. It was also believed that masturbation causes blindness. Do you want to go back to that too? I can site you a thousand studies showing how many homosexuals are normal healthy individuals and aren’t broken basket cases in need of curing and altering. Evelyn Hooker showed this quite clearly as far back as 1957 with her famous study. Her findings have since been replicated over and over again by many other researchers using a variety of different methods. (Armon, 1960; Hopkins, 1969; Siegelman, 1972; Freedman, 1971; Obison & Wilson, 1974; Thompson et al 1971; Wilson & Green, 1971; Saghir & Robins, 1973; Oberstone & Sukoneck, 1976; Adelman, 1977; Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Hart et al 1978). All of these studies and many more proved that homosexuals were no different in maturity or psychological adjustment to heterosexuals. So as you can see evidence has been overwhelming. But ill wait for you to write ALL of it off as liberal hot air.

There is also a an attempt top change Pedophilia D.O. and the consensual age of 18, an arbitrary age, to 13 years old.

where the heck do you get this from? If anything the last twenty years have seen a swing in the opposite direction. Age of consent has increased across the board in just about every state. Who in the world do you think is going to stand up to champion the cause of rolling it back to 13 in this political climate exactly? Im seriously dubious of your data here.

In fact homosexuals have a much higher rate if mental illness all across the board in every category. They are 3-4 times higher in phobias, depression, disassociative D.O. etc. Homosexuals are 6 times more likely to attempt suicide. And you say all this is “because of the social pressures of homophobia”. But those numbers are from a recent validated comprehensive study in the [/font]Netherlands where homosexuality marriage is legal and the homosexual stigma is not prevalent. The numbers in the US are higher. (NEMISES, NIH, Archives of General Psychiatry 2001).

hmm I find that interesting that that study was done in 2001 and yet it wasn’t legal to be married in the Netherlands until April 1, 2001. So either that was an awfully quick study or your doing a blatant bait and switch with the truth by saying oh homosexuals are all stick wackos despite only being able to legally wed there recently. Kind of like saying that brown v. board of education brought blacks to an equal footing with whites educationally in six months. Im afraid progress doesn’t work that quickly. And yes being treated like scum and being told you are deviant and sick and a sinner and in need of alteration DOES lead to a higher level of psychopathology then not having all that stuff said to you. is this so hard a concept for you to grasp?

They also have found that a fully 85% of new HIV cases in the Netherlands come from legally married homosexuals. Thus leading one to conclude that there is promiscuity to be had in these commitments of marriage.

again how can you have data that comes from studies done the same year as when marriage was made legal to begin with? This is horrendous manipulation of data on your part. Basically what you are saying is that a slow acting infectious disease occurs higher in percentage within people who up to that point weren’t allowed to marry and officially join in a commited relationship. What a shock! Do a study in 10 years and that will be useful data.

In the United States 60% of new male infections are homosexuals, 15% are from heterosexuals (*including some people that will not admit to homosexual relations) and 25% from IV use, some of which are also gay (CDC).

what are you trying to prove here exactly? that AIDS spreads faster among homosexuals who don’t have the option of a legal and official marriage relationship? Wouldn’t that be supporting my point that they should be allowed one then?

Due to the unhealthy physical attributes of homosexual behaviors, the rate of disease in homosexual men is many times higher in a plethora of conditions; HIV, HBV, HCV, HPV, rectal cancer, Chlamydia of the throat, etc. There are a number of diseases that are common among homosexuals and near non-existent in the heterosexual world as related to sexual transmission. (any number of sources)

and… again… are you arguing against marriage here? Or for it? Quick lets ban people from being able to form a legally binding commited monogamous relationship and then turn around and declare how immoral they are because they have sexual diseases and wont have relationships like we do! Baffling…

39% of men that report to be homosexual have been victims of homosexual preditation before becoming homosexuals in a recent comprehensive study in the US. (AJPH).

Please show me the source of this statistic. I could find nothing in any American Journal of Public Health that references this at all. Especially since you say it was recent. Id be curious to read the whole article and see the entire context. And the fact that it says “before becoming homosexual” makes me VERY dubious. This is the way many anti-gay propaganda sites talk. Not the way a respected journal would word their findings. This sounds like clever word play on the fact that gay kids can often be abused and have little recourse. Not an indication that one thing necessarily leads to another. The fact of the matter is Gay, lesbian and bisexual youth are at greater risk of abuse because they tend to be socially isolated and are easier targets. This has been shown in studies by Richardson, Meredith and Abbot in the Journal of Family Violence and by Savin-Williams in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. And yes you CAN look THOSE up.

Trying to dispel the predatory nature of homosexuality has been one of the focuses of the homosexual lobby; time and again it is shown to be happening.

boy what little credibility you had you completely lost here by trying desperately to paint homosexuals as sexual predators who feed on little boys. That’s a joke. Studies show that there is NO connection to homosexuality and child sexual abuse. It’s a well used anti gay tactic to site the predatory nature of homosexuals when there is absolutely nothing to point this out. In fact quite the opposite. In a well known study by Carole Jenny it was found that LESS THEN 1% of identified adult molesters were actually gay or lesbian. The fact is that the heterosexual partner of a relative is more likely to sexually abuse children than someone who is gay. What the anti gay gang likes to do is purposefully confuse homosexuality with pedophilia. But the fact of the matter is that the man who goes after young boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women. And yet they get labeled as “predatory gay” when in fact what they are is pedophilic.

The American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America all have policy statements stating there is no correlation between homosexuality and child abuse.
When asked about this question, the American Psychiatric Association wrote to the Senate stating: "While we are all concerned by the issue of sexual abuse, there is no credible evidence that lesbians and gay men are more likely to commit such offenses than others. Gay men and lesbians do not pose any particular threat to youth and should not be singled out or discriminated against in any manner.”

Homosexuality is naturally prevalent in animals. No it isn’t.

you admit yourself there are numerous examples of homosexuality in nature. And yet you ignore the fact that BECAUSE it occurs in nature then IT MUST have some benefit to the organism displaying this trait. I listed many reasons why these could be beneficial in human populations which you refused to even acknowledge and waved off as “no data” and “speculation”. Well you can keep your head in the sand all you like but it wont change the fact that these actions DO occur. And no EVERY animal that displays homosexual behavior ISNT doing it because its sick or deformed. Its much too common and much to reacurring a phenomenon to be anything but a positive survival trait. Cases abound. Want a few?

Homosexuality does not occur as a part of a natural instinct. The behaviors that have been documented in healthy subjects always change to heterosexual behavior permently given time and maturity.

this is just straight forward bull shit. Where do you get crap like this from? Of COURSE it’s a natural instinct. And it certainly is NOT associated ONLY with youth. Ive already sited reasons why animals may act out homosexually in nature. You ignored those and then say this?! You just refuse to accept that fact that IF IT OCCURS IN NATURE WITH ANY PREVILANCE AND DURATION THEN THERE MUST BE A PURPOSE BEHIND ITS EXISTANCE THAT IS TO THE BENEFIT OF THE ORGANISM INVOLVED AND/OR ITS GENES! If that is true for many animals then it can certainly be true for humans too. Why is it THIS point you ALWAYS shrug off and refuse to address? Quite clearly because it’s a sound point that flies in the face of your propaganda.

The fact is that animal instinct can be over ridden by other natural instincts or traumas.

what are you getting at with this statement exactly?

Heterosexuality has been proven to be hardwired and serves a purpose in nature. It is undeniably the natural intention of biological evolution.

what kind of nonsensical wording is this? Heterosexuality is the “natural intention of biological evolution”? that doesn’t even mean anything. And of course heterosexuality serves a purpose in nature. So does altruism. So does infanticide. So does selective monogamy and so can homosexuality! That’s what you just aren’t seeing.

Thru very heavy political intervention and unethical promotion of homosexuals by other homosexuals into positions of power; the movement has become the single most powerful lobby in the world

ha ha! Yes all these secret gays in power who are really running everything. Just like the jews im to assume? That’s pretty rich. The most powerful lobby in the world? Funny I thought that was the pentagon.

This is a case where science is giving way to political correctness. In the long run science will prevail.

ha one can only hope. for without science we’d still be teaching creationism in schools and homosexuals would still be arrested as deviants and openly abused without recourse.

I have been threatend with opposing facts, I have yet to see any.

perhaps you should try taking your hands off your eyes then and actually reading. See no evil… hear no evil…

But whats most amazing to me is how so many of your arguments only supports the very notion of bringing MARRIAGE to a group that would most benefit from its commitment aspects. You go on and on about the deviant nature of homosexuals and how they just spread diseases and engage in risky behavior and have way too much sex and yet when two of them want to make a life long commitment to each other in the name of love you tell them NO YOU CANT. Well what abject hypocrisy. Does this really make sense to you?

 

[Thulsa Doom]

Thulsa your have repeatedly shown your ability to label and belittle the presenter, you however, have not been able to dispel the opposing points brought forth. Is your argument so weak that there is real point to it all? If there is clearly state and qualify it.

man are you a joke. I don’t know how many times ive said that this is about what right YOU have to tell another group that they cant do what you can do? What right do YOU have to actively create legislation to discriminate against others? And you continually refuse to even address this. Instead you scour anti gay sites for stats to use to show how gross and predatory gays are. Why is that exactly?

What you are failing to realize is that if civil unions are recognized in one state the the union will be recognized in all states. Which is why there is such a fuss about a single state allowing the homosexual marriages? You can’t see past your enlightened nose.

what are you talking about? Who is the clueless one? The fuss is not only about gay marriage but gay civil unions which most certainly are NOT recognized in ALL 50 states. Haven’t you been following all that’s been going on with the Vermont civil union thing? Gays who get a civil union there are NOT being recognized in many other states because of the defense of marriage act which gives other states a loop hole to ignore the usual standard that you must recognize legal actions set by other states. Gay couples get some protections in Vermont but the protections do not extend beyond the border of Vermont and NO federal protections are included with a Civil Union.

An amendment will make no need for picketing now won’t it? This is an election year; let’s see how the votes change once the election has passed. Even the democrats have support for the Amendment.

I think if it ever came down to it even getting close you would see a whole heck of a lot of people changing their votes because the very idea of altering the constitution of the united states to ALLOW for discrimination is simply unprecedented (at least in this century) and I really don’t think a lot of politicians (republicans included) really want to be known for that.

Your funny, I have a principled opposing view and you’re labeling me and saying I wish all homosexuals dead, you couldn’t be more wrong. It does show the narrowness of your tolerance, you are full of hate and disdain of anyone that challenges your enlightened wisdom.

oh sorry. You wish all homosexuals “cured”. Or if they are just “choosing” to be gay you wish them not to make this choice in your presence. Or in the presence of society at large. And you certainly wish them not to have the same freedoms and the same liberties as you have. Yes that shows excessive tolerance on your part. My bad.

A civil union is a legal binding, just as is marriage.

Incorrect. See above. And see this if you choose to ignore what I said above. Oh and be sure to make extra note of the part that says:

Couples from outside Vermont can come to Vermont and be joined in civil union, but it appears unlikely that any other state will recognize the union.

Yes I have every right to decide what I find to be moral; society has the right to label something as immoral an unlawful. The homosexual have not right to make me comply with their agenda or be labeled as a homophobe, I have a valid difference of principled opinion and should not be persecuted because I do.

once again… you can have any freaking set or morals you want. But APPLY THEM TO YOURSELF. You DO NOT have the right to forcefully impose them on others. Period. Now stop ignoring this point and just saying the same thing over and over.

Enslavement of a people as property in no way is comparable to a social behavior, homosexuals are free people.

the point is YOU said that what the majority says is ok should be the law of the land. The fact of the matter is 1. that’s not how this country is run. You should know that being such a staunch REPUBLICan. And 2. if you DO follow that logic then you would HAVE to agree that slavery and segregation were ok too since they were supported by the majority of the people AND since they both were direct and blatant forms of discrimination and injustice against a group of people. You cant get around that no matter how much you wiggle.

It’s called experimentation and stimulation, the majority of men and women do not participate in anal penetration.

but plenty of them do. Now whats this got to do with gay marriage again? They shouldn’t be allowed to get married because they have anal sex? Well except for the lesbians of course who shouldn’t be allowed to get married because of other reasons apparently.

You have stated that I want to kill all homosexuals. I have been labeled an extremist, ignorant, a right wing religious nut job, a bigot and homophobic all by you. You rely on belittlement as your main defense; your skills are few in the art of confrontational communication.

ha! Is this a bad kung fu flick or something? Is that the best you have? Your skills need polishing young grasshopper. All im doing is holding up a mirror to you. its about time someone did. You deserve no less then to see yourself just as you are. Without convincing yourself of the nobility of your stance on issues like this and others. If you cant handle the truth then don’t play the game.

If I was to label you it would simply say you’re brainwashed, as you’re unable to address anything other then what you have been programmed to regurgitate.

great tactic. Accuse the open minded person of the very thing you suffer from so hell be forced on the defensive and not be able to point out that it is in fact YOU who is the rigid close minded dinosaur of the two of us. Oh woops!

The majority of Americans do have a problem with the homosexual lifestyle, they have conditioned to not speak their true feeling, and they speak what is politically correct. Every one that opposes homosexuality is chastised and called intolerant and homophobic, and human nature people do not like to be cast in negative light (which is what this really about isn’t it?)

oh really? I don’t know. I think male male gay sex is pretty icky myself. But you wont find me using that as a reason to legislate inequality into the constitution of the united states. See? Theres a difference between not liking an action and going out of your way to make life hell for the performers of the action who do NOTHING WHATSOEVER to harm or effect you.

What must really disappointing to you is that I was raised by a ‘woman of color’ from the age of 4-17, she lived with us. Her son ‘Rico’ was my best friend and we even used to bathe together as young children (oops!, homosexual behaviors). The day-care we chose to place the well-being of our children in has mostly black women as staff. Our 18-month old child accepts Mrs. Velma, a woman of color, as a third parent and does not have the same response to any of the other caregivers of any color.

well laudy laudy thank goodness for Ms. Velma now! And its great you had a black maid growing up as well Im sure. Now please explain to me why you felt the need to point this out anyway. Was I accusing you of being racist? I simply mentioned the parallel of kids who had parents who were segregationists. I didn’t say you were a southern segregationist. I think we are talking about discriminating against gays here. Not blacks. Ill save that for another thread.

 

[PT]

Damn, can't wait to see the answers to those two. Good Job TD.

 

[Gato_Solo]

Damn, can't wait to see the answers to those two. Good Job TD.

I think TD needs to post opposing sources, rather than what he's doing now. His skills at debate seem to be only to belittle the sources posted that are contrary to his beliefs, or belittle the poster. He sounds just like Flavio when he does that. No facts, just indignancy.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

yes and before that it was widely held as a simple criminal act. And those that engaged in it were often brutalized or killed in the name of the devil. Progress takes time as you clearly point out here. It was also believed that masturbation causes blindness. Do you want to go back to that too? I can site you a thousand studies showing how many homosexuals are normal healthy individuals and aren’t broken basket cases in need of curing and altering. Evelyn Hooker showed this quite clearly as far back as 1957 with her famous study. Her findings have since been replicated over and over again by many other researchers using a variety of different methods. (Armon, 1960; Hopkins, 1969; Siegelman, 1972; Freedman, 1971; Obison & Wilson, 1974; Thompson et al 1971; Wilson & Green, 1971; Saghir & Robins, 1973; Oberstone & Sukoneck, 1976; Adelman, 1977; Bell & Weinberg, 1978; Hart et al 1978). All of these studies and many more proved that homosexuals were no different in maturity or psychological adjustment to heterosexuals. So as you can see evidence has been overwhelming. But ill wait for you to write ALL of it off as liberal hot air.

Your Source, with 60 subjects from 45 years ago. Nothing more than political activism based on archaic methods that would not get published in anything but a homosexual propaganda comic book today.

My Source with over 7000 subjects from the last five years using far more advanced scientific methods and safeguard to protect the science of the study.

more

Evelyn Hookers questionable methods explained

However, it appears that in contrast to the results of the vote, the majority of the APA membership continued to view homosexuality as a pathology. A survey four years after the vote found that 69% of psychiatrists regarded homosexuality as a "pathological adaptation." A much more recent survey suggests that the majority of psychiatrists around the world continue to view same-sex behavior as signaling mental illness.Source

That is a position that I will personally stand by.

where the heck do you get this from? If anything the last twenty years have seen a swing in the opposite direction. Age of consent has increased across the board in just about every state. Who in the world do you think is going to stand up to champion the cause of rolling it back to 13 in this political climate exactly? Im seriously dubious of your data here.

Bullshit, pure bullshit! you didn't even google that one did you?

Freedom is indivisible. The liberation of children, women, boy-lovers,
and homosexuals in general, can occur only as
complementary facets of the same dream. -- David Thorstad

Well funded and growing NAMBLA

Yes there is a well funded movement to reduce the consensual age to 13. One of the obstacles is the DSM, just like homosexuality was and gender identity D.O. is, these sexual D.O.’s must be removed from the DSM.

Again your short sidedness is gleams like the sun.

hmm I find that interesting that that study was done in 2001 and yet it wasn’t legal to be married in the

Netherlands until April 1, 2001. So either that was an awfully quick study or your doing a blatant bait and switch with the truth by saying oh homosexuals are all stick wackos despite only being able to legally wed there recently. Kind of like saying that brown v. board of education brought blacks to an equal footing with whites educationally in six months. Im afraid progress doesn’t work that quickly. And yes being treated like scum and being told you are deviant and sick and a sinner and in need of alteration DOES lead to a higher level of psychopathology then not having all that stuff said to you. is this so hard a concept for you to grasp?

Well fondle it all you like, but the study stands as extremely credible even under your whimsical and magical scrutiny. Why don’t you read up on the methods of the study my dear.

The study was done where homosexuality does not have the stigmas it has here (which is why they did the study in the Netherlands.)

(being treated like a homosexual leads to higher levels “psychopathology”? that is just precious)

again how can you have data that comes from studies done the same year as when marriage was made legal to begin with? This is horrendous manipulation of data on your part. Basically what you are saying is that a slow acting infectious

disease occurs higher in percentage within people who up to that point weren’t allowed to marry and officially join in a commited relationship. What a shock! Do a study in 10 years and that will be useful data.

I am not saying anything; the most crediable study on the subject do date clearly states this as fact. Maybe you have more widom then the folks that are currently working on the resulting NESDA study too?

what are you trying to prove here exactly? that AIDS spreads faster among homosexuals who don’t have the option of a legal and official marriage relationship? Wouldn’t that be supporting my point that they should be allowed one then?

The Homosexual behaving 3% is responsible 60% of the new infections.

The heterosexual behaving 97% is responsible 15% of the new infections.

Bother that is not just “faster” that’s exponentially over run, damn near exclusive.



I am saying that the lifestyle is unhealthy and creates a tenfold the morbidity and a huge burden on society. People neither needs to endorse, condone, nor accept a behavior that is so destructive. Why something as self-destructive as homosexuality would be accepted into the institution that promotes the betterment of mankind.

Homosexuality has never killed anyone, just as AID’s has never killed anyone. (that’s a fact jack)

(**yes 3% of the population, not the Kinsey 10% as so happily promoted by their lobby. More on kinky-kinsey at the end)

and… again… are you arguing against marriage here? Or for it? Quick lets ban people from being able to form a legally binding commited monogamous relationship and then turn around and declare how immoral they are because they have sexual diseases and wont have relationships like we do! Baffling…

I am making the case that the sheer destructive nature of the lifestyle makes it unacceptable and certainly not worthy of a 5000 year old tradition that is based on goodness. The fact that the behavior has been refuted by natural social evolution of the institution is one of marriages admirable attributes. It is a statement of cleanliness, normalcy, and stabilty in ones life.

Please show me the source of this statistic. I could find nothing in any American Journal of Public Health that references this at all. Especially since you say it was recent. Id be curious to read the whole article and see the entire context. And the fact that it says “before becoming homosexual” makes me VERY dubious. This is the way many anti-gay propaganda sites talk. Not the way a respected journal would word their findings. This sounds like clever word play on the fact that gay kids can often be abused and have little recourse. Not an indication that one thing necessarily leads to another. The fact of the matter is Gay, lesbian and bisexual youth are at greater risk of abuse because they tend to be socially isolated and are easier targets. This has been shown in studies by Richardson, Meredith and Abbot in the Journal of Family Violence and by Savin-Williams in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. And yes you CAN look THOSE up.

It quite un-PC to say such thing isn’t it? Speaking out against gays under principled disagreement is not “anti-gay”. One who speaks of right and wrong based on their beleifs is an act to preserve their veiws of right and wrong.

You CAN subscribe to the journal if you like, we do. Those are my words paraphrased from memorey; I can however find the same source referenced in a lighter reguard.

Also, a recent study in the American Journal of Public Health has shown that 39% of males with same-sex attraction have been abused by other males with same-sex attraction.

source

misery loves company.

boy what little credibility you had you completely lost here by trying desperately to paint homosexuals as sexual predators who feed on little boys. That’s a joke. Studies show that there is NO connection to homosexuality and child sexual abuse. It’s a well used anti gay tactic to site the predatory nature of homosexuals when there is absolutely nothing to point this out. In fact quite the opposite. In a well known study by Carole Jenny it was found that LESS THEN 1% of identified adult molesters were actually gay or lesbian. The fact is that the heterosexual partner of a relative is more likely to sexually abuse children than someone who is gay. What the anti gay gang likes to do is purposefully confuse homosexuality with pedophilia. But the fact of the matter is that the man who goes after young boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women. And yet they get labeled as “predatory gay” when in fact what they are is pedophilic.

The American Psychological Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists and the Child Welfare League of America all have policy statements stating there is no correlation between homosexuality and child abuse.
When asked about this question, the American Psychiatric Association wrote to the Senate stating: "While we are all concerned by the issue of sexual abuse, there is no credible evidence that lesbians and gay men are more likely to commit such offenses than others. Gay men and lesbians do not pose any particular threat to youth and should not be singled out or discriminated against in any manner.”

Again being PC in fear of attack by the homosexuals, and not to mention that homosexuals have places each other in high positions of power is common. I worked in that environment too long to not clearly see it.

The threat is the brain-washing that homosexuality is acceptable healthy behavior. The conversion of emotionally weak people to homosexuality and the resulting acceptance simply because they are homosexual is shallow but effective. Sexuality is the core of the lifestyle, nothing else holds a candle to it in the homosexual community.

"be homosexual with me and we accept you as family" Family is the term in which homosexuals refer to each other as a community.

you admit yourself there are numerous examples of homosexuality in nature. And yet you ignore the fact that BECAUSE it occurs in nature then IT MUST have some benefit to the organism displaying this trait. I listed many reasons why these could be beneficial in human populations which you refused to even acknowledge and waved off as “no data” and “speculation”. Well you can keep your head in the sand all you like but it wont change the fact that these actions DO occur. And no EVERY animal that displays homosexual behavior ISNT doing it because its sick or deformed. Its much too common and much to reacurring a phenomenon to be anything but a positive survival trait. Cases abound. Want a few?

No, I said there were homosexual behaviors nature (speculatively speaking) but that the narrowly viewed instance of the behaviors have been labeled as true homosexuality when if fact in a wider view they are not homosexuality at all. Whereas the action may appear to be homosexuality in the short and narrow view the whole of social structure and development show the actual intent and purpose to be other then homosexuality.

This is the third or fourth time you have threatened to produce undeniable facts that homosexuality is common under normal circumstances by healthy subjects.

Again I ask you when have you ever heard about a herd of homosexual Elk? (don’t even think about pointing to exclusively bisexual monkey because it is not as the politically motivated homosexual lobby explains it)



* * *



OK Thulsa, I’ve grown tired of chasing your bullshit. You have nothing other then the usual rhetoric and ad homonym attacks that I have come to expect from the enlightend who have been programmed by the homosexual gestapo. You have shown great ability to ignore, deflect, micro-analyze, selectively scrutinize with disregard for the true context.

You have an uncanny ability to be nasty and demanding yet offer nothing more then what you can produce with “I’m feeling Lucky” button on google. The few sources you offer come almost exclusively straight from the homosexual politically driven machine. Rather then to actually contest what I post you bring forth your psychic abilities and deliver questionability or just down right stupid disregard for accredited unbiasedresearch.

Gato is correct, your FOO is as weak as a drunken prom date.

One of the once foremost experts and promoter of acceptance of homosexuals was Alfred Kinsey.

"According to William Dellenback, the institute's photographer, Kinsey was becoming overtly exhibitionist-to the point of having himself filmed, always from the chest down, while engaged in masochistic masturbation. The world's foremost expert on sexual behavior would insert an object such as a pipe cleaner or swizzle stick into his urethra, tie a rope around his scrotum and then tug hard on the rope...

"Toward the end of his life, Kinsey's boundaries shifted again-to the point where he was apparently prepared to withhold moral disapproval of adult-child sexual contacts....

Kinsey was a nut, he make Dr Dobson appear to quite level headed. This where you gay science comes from.

Your entire argument simply boils down to this "It's unfair" we buddy get used to it because life is unfair and your sociopathic arguments of emotion do not deserve the time of day IMHO.

Tolerence is the free accceptance of somethin you that oppose, somethings people just choose not to tolerate.

The bottom line is this: Society’s majority thinks homosexuality is a deviant and unnatual behavior of choice, and there's nothing to prove it otherwise. They do not want the homosexual reputation attached to the goodness of the traditional the rite of marriage. The wanting of acceptance and validation does not entitle you to force tolernce upon the moral majority of society. The principled opposing views feel the behaviors are wrong but we all live in fear of being labeled by intolerant people like you. EXACLTY!



http://www.pfox.org/Downloads/CanSexualOrientationchange.pdf



http://www.geocities.com/peterpaulmin/HomosexualMyths.html

I am happy you have such passion for the subject, I just wish you were a bit more open minded to realize that not all change is good for the sake of change itself.

 

[MrBishop]

Funny. I thought it was about who could claim the spousal benefits. Silly me. But then, since that's all the difference between civil union and marriage, what else could it be (outside of just shitdisturbing?)

Now...if you would just agree that its called marriage even if its not performed in a church...we'd be right there on the same float. If I go with MrsBish to the JOP and get hitched...we're married. She is my wife and I am her husband. But if V_______ and G____ go to a JOP and get hitched, they'r enot allowed to call it marriage, or call each other "My Wife" ?

As for churches...if the churches agree that they want to bless unions, then they should be allowed to and allowed to call it Marraige.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

That's like calling a Mac a real PC.

 

[PT]

That's like calling a Mac a real PC.

So then it's kinda like calling you open minded then too, right?

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Your wit is as sharp as a beachball. Were you trying to be funny or just insulting? How wonderfully enlightened and tolerant you are, for a hypocrite.

 

[PT]

Your wit is as sharp as a beachball. Were you trying to be funny or just insulting? How wonderfully enlightened and tolerant you are, for a hypocrite.

Funny, insulting, doesn't really matter. Enlightened, Yes, I think I am actually. Tolerant, Yes, I know I am, except when it comes to closed-minded people. Hypocrite, dare I ask you to explain that one, or is that just an insult from you?

 

[Rose]

 

[ResearchMonkey]

You present yourself as a person of tolerance, yet when someone has a principled disagreement against your point of view you degrade their worth based solely on their point of view. You are 'selectively' tolerant, thus you are a hypocrite.

. . . and yes, it was an insult too.

please define for me what you feel 'enlightened' means to your thinking.

 

[PT]

You present yourself as a person of tolerance, yet when someone has a principled disagreement against your point of view you degrade their worth based solely on their point of view. You are 'selectively' tolerant, thus you are a hypocrite.

. . . and yes, it was an insult too.

please define for me what you feel 'enlightened' means to your thinking.

Tolerant, Yes, I know I am, except when it comes to closed-minded people.

Yeah, I suppose that would be selectively tolerant.

Enlightened? That's easy. It means that I have some experience, some knowledge of the actual people involved in this debate, not just what I've read or what my daddy taught me about them "nasty fags" but what I really know about people. I have experience in just plain people, I've been married myself twice now, I know what it takes to raise children, I know what it takes to make a marraige work. To me, that makes me enlightened about this subject matter.

 

[Rose]

Enlightened? That's easy. It means that I have some experience, some knowledge of the actual people involved in this debate, not just what I've read or what my daddy taught me about them "nasty fags" but what I really know about people. I have experience in just plain people, I've been married myself twice now, I know what it takes to raise children, I know what it takes to make a marraige work. To me, that makes me enlightened about this subject matter.

Oh, you've been married and divorced? Then you're probably not 'qualified' to speak on the subject at hand since all those damn'd divorcees are just furthering the downfall of society by making marriage worthless, therefore your opinion on homosexual marriages must be invalid.

 

[MrBishop]

That's like calling a Mac a real PC.

PC=Personal Computer - and yes, Macintosh makes personal computers, using a different operating system, much like Linux is an OS. The term PC has been attributed to personal computers which run on the Windows OS, but regardless of which OS it runs on...a PC is a PC is a PC.

A MAC is a PC It's just not a WindowsOS PC.

A Marriage is a Marriage is a Marriage. Wether performed in a church or at the JOP. One is 'blessed' and the other isn't, but it's still a Marriage.

 

[ResearchMonkey]

Tolerance is a virtue, and since you do not have the strength of mind accept that I have my own principled values, you’re intolerant.

As for enlightened, you feel your typical life experiences give you some moral authority to address these issues because you have met gay people? I don’t know that that qualifies you as enlightened since your expertise and training have no exceptional qualities that can shed new light to the unenlightened.

I on the other hand have spent thousands of hour discussing very personal issues of homosexuality with homosexuals in groups and individually. Not to mention many many hours of homosexual issue and sensitivity training.

I can show respect for homosexuals, I can work with and socialize with homosexuals. I do not need to believe the lifestyle is moral to maintain a relationship and have respect for the person that is a homosexual. Yet you go out of your way for the sole purpose of insulting me because of MY values.

So my friend, as far as you being tolerant and enlightened that will be your little secret.