What do u guys think of gay marriages, [Archive]

Genom

12-31-2003, 06:39 PM

Yourwrong IMO. God didnt make people. Period. People make people. Using that as an excuse for homophobic tendencies is no good. People are infinitely diverse. Learrn to enjoy that it all comes from that mass of neurons in between your ears.

Just loook at the fact that there's penty of cultures that have no problem with same sex relationships (yes, men AND women). It's just the current regionalized tendecies to mock this sort of thing.

I guess it's pretty clear I have no problem with it. Whom you wanna live with is your deal. Just dont bring kids into it unless your a VERY solid couple, cause no offense, but a lot of my gay friends are pretty flaky when it comes to relationships. Although I do know a few couples that have been together for a long time and would be great parents.

Then again, I also think most people that have kids, shouldnt. Same reason aplies. If your 21 and just got married, dont have kids until you've finished growing up please. Teens having kids is a disgrace to their parents and are the people that should NOT be married.

But I think I've opened enough cans of worms for the evening.

Happy new year!

Originally posted by mental pimp
i say homosexuality is bad, god didnt make gay people, men and women just turn gay cause of their surroundings, but to hate gays and not consider them as not humans is horrible and is bad, so i woudlnt agree wit gay marrige, c'mon ecl0ps the rx8 is all u need :)

Texas 8

12-31-2003, 06:48 PM

Go with what's in your heart and you can never go wrong!

klegg

12-31-2003, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by zerobanger
I strongly believe in Domestic Partnership. I dont necessarily care about "gay marriage", but domestic partnership with the SAME legal rights that heterosexuals have should be a compromise that ALL sides can live with. Leave the word "marriage" out of to please the religious freaks and give the same legal rights to everyone.

Yup, that sounds about right, except the "freaks" part.

mental pimp

12-31-2003, 07:27 PM

being gay disrupts the cycle of life, 1 guy and 1 girl = children and they marry and have sex and they have more kids and it goes on, 1 guy and another guy or a girl and a girl wouldnt make kids , so it dont work like that, i doubt it that God made poeple gay, u just turn gay as u grow up, scientist are crazy, theres no way that homosexuality is passed on to others.

mental pimp

12-31-2003, 07:29 PM

thats my opinion, thats why i dont like it, but gays deserv to do watever they want and if they wanna marry the same sex then its up to them, watever makes them happy

moRotorMotor

12-31-2003, 07:55 PM

jtimbck2

12-31-2003, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by CERAMICSEAL
On your original topic, what's your take on it as a gay? Do you think you are missing out on something personally or just being deprived of something others have? Or even is it a matter of hearing others in your community express a percieved injustice?

My take on it as a gay man (not "as a gay") is this:

My partner & I have been together for 17 years. 17 YEARS. That's as long or longer than many marriages.

If I were to be hospitalized and unable to make my wishes known for some reason, he could LEGALLY be barred from seeing me. Without some legal rigamarole (power of attorney documents) he would have no say in anything regarding my financial matters, something married couples have automatically. And if I were to die, even if I had a will leaving everything to him, my relatives would have LEGAL grounds to contest the will and take everything away from him (not that they would do so), while with a married couple that would not be the case.

How would you feel?

revhappy

12-31-2003, 08:54 PM

Originally posted by moRotorMotor
Actually, there is a recent study that shows homosexuality not only exist in humans, but in the wild as well.

I have read about that study. The problems with it are

1)They rely on a large amount of interpretation for specific acts (his bias is likely to support his theory).

2) If animals were exclusively gay, then their genes would go away since they do not reproduce.

Basically, I think the real reason some animals engage in some of these actions is that well...they are basically horny! For example, people will do all kinds of kinky stuff AND the traditional reproducing activity of sex. Or your dog, male or female, may hump your leg (intact or altered), does that make them a femursexual? :) Frankly, I think homosexuality in people is based on many factors, including psycological and environmental ones.

Anyway, this all is just a theory and is not the important thing. As for the issue at hand, I think Civil Unions are a fair compromise (i.e. same tax breaks, benefits packages from employers, etc.), but I think a marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman.

I believe its a societal thing in that its best for familiy and kids that way. I think young kids should have some short period of innocence where they don't have to be exposed to some of the more complicated life events (its tough for even adults based on polls showing a majority of voters being against gay marriage). Based on the same logic, I don't think homosexuals should flamboyantly in an in your face style, flaunt their lifestyle on everyone else.

winebrad

12-31-2003, 08:58 PM

I really dont have a problem with Gay Marriage but I am confused, isn't this an RX-8 Forum? There has to be another outlet for this topic.

Outlaws eXtreme

12-31-2003, 09:27 PM

RX-GR8

12-31-2003, 09:53 PM

Originally posted by winebrad
I really dont have a problem with Gay Marriage but I am confused, isn't this an RX-8 Forum? There has to be another outlet for this topic.

perhaps but this is the lounge so anything goes, almost.

compaddict

12-31-2003, 10:26 PM

Speed-ER doc

01-01-2004, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by jtimbck2
If I were to be hospitalized and unable to make my wishes known for some reason, he could LEGALLY be barred from seeing me. Without some legal rigamarole (power of attorney documents) he would have no say in anything regarding my financial matters, something married couples have automatically. And if I were to die, even if I had a will leaving everything to him, my relatives would have LEGAL grounds to contest the will and take everything away from him (not that they would do so), while with a married couple that would not be the case.

How would you feel?

Right now, the legal system in most states does not recognize gay relationships as having the same value as hetero marraiges.

There are many long-term hetero relationships that do not have the rights you describe either. The marraige gives legal rights not enjoyed by a simple relationship. The difference is hetero couples have the option to make their relationship official, and recognized by the state.

I think that if a gay couple wishes to commit to one another the same as a hetero couple, they should enjoy the same legal rights.
It could even be considered "common-law" to avoid the religious connotations (I don't know if this is everywhere, but common-law marraige is simply when a man and a woman decide to live together as husband and wife, their union can be recognized by a justice of the peace, not involving a church, and they enjoy all of the legal benefits of marraige. Sometimes, when a couple have been together many years and break up, one of them can claim to a judge that they were essentially married, and claim common-law status, and get alimony, etc.)

You can still get most of these benefits you describe by having POA on each other, and a well drawn-out will.

I think what y'all are really wanting is as much formal acceptance as it is legal benefits. Legal benefits DO NOT equal societal acceptance. There are many people who are never going to sign off on what they consider perverted behavior.

As long as what you do in private stays private, like in most typical hetero relationships, most of us don't care. We really don't want to hear any details. Which reminds me of a quote I heard regarding what gay men do together in bed. Basically it is what we wish our girlfriends did more often. :D

XDEEDUBBX

01-01-2004, 01:14 AM

Moderator edit: Offensive comments like this will not be tolerated. Take a hint and don't do it again.

Speed-ER doc

01-01-2004, 01:25 AM

I can say with a comfortable certainty that you will never be president.

Andrew

01-01-2004, 02:13 AM

Originally posted by eclps0
We left England because ewe wanted freedom to believe in whatever god u believe.

Canada is still technically part of England, yet we allow gay marriages (at lesat I remember reading somewhere that this occured, but maybe it is a late night dillusion)

shift_zoom8

01-01-2004, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Q121825
Sorry, but you are just plain wrong. Marriage TODAY is a LEGAL CONSTRUCT that confers VAST amounts of power and privilege to the participants.

No one is saying religious institutions have to perform them, only that the LAW recognize them without regards to the sex of the two participants.

If you want to keep it a religious "institution", you must strip out of the law all the power and privilege it confers.

You cannot have it both ways.

Well said.

Sorry, Gordo.

shift_zoom8

01-01-2004, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by mental pimp
i say homosexuality is bad, god didnt make gay people, men and women just turn gay cause of their surroundings, but to hate gays and not consider them as not humans is horrible and is bad, so i woudlnt agree wit gay marrige, c'mon ecl0ps the rx8 is all u need :)

God DID make the biological, genetic gays.

There are different "kinds" of gays, but the one category of gays that religious people like to focus on is the biological, genetic kind, and they absolutely exist. There is a growing body of biological and psychological research on this.

You should also read about the TONS of different animal species that have been observed to engage in gay behaviors.

shift_zoom8

01-01-2004, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by revhappy
I have read about that study. The problems with it are

1)They rely on a large amount of interpretation for specific acts (his bias is likely to support his theory).

2) If animals were exclusively gay, then their genes would go away since they do not reproduce.

Basically, I think the real reason some animals engage in some of these actions is that well...they are basically horny! For example, people will do all kinds of kinky stuff AND the traditional reproducing activity of sex. Or your dog, male or female, may hump your leg (intact or altered), does that make them a femursexual? :) Frankly, I think homosexuality in people is based on many factors, including psycological and environmental ones.

Anyway, this all is just a theory and is not the important thing. As for the issue at hand, I think Civil Unions are a fair compromise (i.e. same tax breaks, benefits packages from employers, etc.), but I think a marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman.

I believe its a societal thing in that its best for familiy and kids that way. I think young kids should have some short period of innocence where they don't have to be exposed to some of the more complicated life events (its tough for even adults based on polls showing a majority of voters being against gay marriage). Based on the same logic, I don't think homosexuals should flamboyantly in an in your face style, flaunt their lifestyle on everyone else.

Whenever I hear someone say he's read "that one study" or he's read ALL the studies, I become concerned. The studies are diverse and do not fall neatly into one category or domain of science.

You are selectively focused on peripheral behaviors that are part of a general sexual drive. You may even observe these behaviors in groups (i.e., more than one individual) of animals under specific socio-environmental conditions, e.g., when certain kinds of stress is present. An important part of the empirical evidence for people with your position is that under other kinds of conditions, these same individuals show normal sexual behavior.

But plenty of studies attack each of these possibilities (i.e., alternative hypotheses that represent possible confounds) and peel them away only to find that some individuals remain that continue the gay activity and that this activity can not be extinguished in those individuals. In fact, peeling away each factor one by one is how science has methodically worked for 100 years. It is nothing miraculous, it has always been the essence of the scientific process, and it is not something suddenly fabricated just to counter you in this discussion.

shift_zoom8

01-01-2004, 06:25 AM

Originally posted by mental pimp
being gay disrupts the cycle of life, 1 guy and 1 girl = children and they marry and have sex and they have more kids and it goes on, 1 guy and another guy or a girl and a girl wouldnt make kids , so it dont work like that, i doubt it that God made poeple gay, u just turn gay as u grow up, scientist are crazy, theres no way that homosexuality is passed on to others.

I'm sorry but your high school science is not enough for this topic.

Let me break down the basic factors or issues (as an attorney likes to say) for you. Surprisingly, although the most striking studies are biological, a cognitive psychologist is better equipped to lay out the logical pieces.

There are three issues. The first issue is the conscious decision to engage in gay sexual activity. Many religious people try to limit the debate to a "simple" attack within this issue. Nevertheless, this issue must always be considered along with the two other issues. The other two issues, however, do not rely on the first.

The second issue is what an individual consciously reports his/her sexuality to be. Of course, what a person consciously reports (self-report) may not be completely accurate (when religious people encounter this issue, they love to respond to it, much as they do for the first issue).

Thus, the third and most important issue is what the body and brain say at the unconscious level independent of self-report (using physiological measures to tap the unconscious brain or brain structures). Here religious arguments find difficulty and, in predictable fashion, religious people and others adjust their position by asserting it doesn't really matter what goes on in the brain and going straight back to issue number one: the decision to engage in a certain type of sexual activity is a conscious one, and people are responsible for their conscious actions.

As you can see, the first issue is more manageable for the world of law and policy. It is also more manageable at the evaluative level, e.g., if God says it's wrong to engage in gay activity AND sexual activity is precipitated by a conscious decision, then one must not make such a decision.

The above debate totally ignores the fundamental, more important question, a question regarding an aspect of reality in this world: Is there such thing as a biological, genetic gay? A growing body of research that provides fodder and structure for the third issue says definitively that the answer is yes.

revhappy

01-01-2004, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by shift_zoom8
Whenever I hear someone say he's read "that one study" or he's read ALL the studies, I become concerned. The studies are diverse and do not fall neatly into one category or domain of science.

You are selectively focused on peripheral behaviors that are part of a general sexual drive. You may even observe these behaviors in groups (i.e., more than one individual) of animals under specific socio-environmental conditions, e.g., when certain kinds of stress is present. An important part of the empirical evidence for people with your position is that under other kinds of conditions, these same individuals show normal sexual behavior.

But plenty of studies attack each of these possibilities (i.e., alternative hypotheses that represent possible confounds) and peel them away only to find that some individuals remain that continue the gay activity and that this activity can not be extinguished in those individuals. In fact, peeling away each factor one by one is how science has methodically worked for 100 years. It is nothing miraculous, it has always been the essence of the scientific process, and it is not something suddenly fabricated just to counter you in this discussion.

The study I'm talking about is Bruce Bagemihl who is by far and away the most noted person in this field. It is also clearly obvious that his work is incredibly interpretive (and highly anthropomorphic), as is others of this social behavior. The problem is that animals, including humans, participate in all kinds of perverted, nontraditional sexual behavior. For example, dogs will often hump humans legs. Perhaps, this yields some pleasure, but its often a measure to try and exert dominance. Still, either way, that same dog would have sex with a female in heat. Again, if animals were exclusively homosexual, their genes would die off because they would not reproduce. Bagemihl's theories have not answered the question of how they can be compatible with natural selection.

shift_zoom8

01-01-2004, 10:42 AM

Bagemihl is not "by far and away the most noted person in this field." The topic spans many, many domains of science (or fields) and different levels within each domain.

I don't know who he is. Is he a neuroscientist? If so, is he at the molar, systems, or molecular level? Is he an animal behaviorist? Is he a biological anthropologist?

Why do you not mention the studies on brain structures? What about the cognitive neuroscience studies?

Again, I have no idea who Bagemihl is but based on what you have mentioned and not mentioned about his "study," I can virtually infer (although I might be wrong) that he is more of a biological anthropologist/animal behaviorist/sociobiologist. This kind of perspective is a bit cloudier than from the physiological viewing lens.

Also, how does one study detail so much that exists to be said on the topic? Is it really a study or rather a review? I'd like to check it out.

shift_zoom8

01-01-2004, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by revhappy
For example, dogs will often hump humans legs. Perhaps, this yields some pleasure, but its often a measure to try and exert dominance. Still, either way, that same dog would have sex with a female in heat. Again, if animals were exclusively homosexual, their genes would die off because they would not reproduce. Bagemihl's theories have not answered the question of how they can be compatible with natural selection.

This is the problem when you're only focused on behavior rather than behavior mapped onto the brain, which is the domain of the cognitive neuroscientist. The dog humping behavior you mention is sort of like the false peniform in the female brown????(the species where the females are larger than the males) hyena. In that species, females are dominant. Whatever the circumstances, pressure existed for females to be bigger and more aggressive, which was conferred by selection for more male hormone levels in females. An automatic secondary consequence of females having more male hormone than males is that they grew a penile structure, which has been observed to be used for various purposes, including greetings. Adaptationists tried hard to assign an adaptive purpose for the false peniform, but in the end realized that it may not have been directly selected for. I agree that there are all kinds of layers that can not be peeled away using the behavioral perspective.

Also, if you want to invoke anthropological "scripts," then discussion over, game over. Calling "scripts" is the blanket response anthropologists and biological anthropologists throw out there to semantically counter any threats to their insecurity. This is why neuroscientists stay away from anthropologists at all costs. I have much, much more to say about this topic and can pull a very strong analogy from 100 years of emotion research from various domains at various levels. But I won't.

Anyway, this is where neuroscience and cognitive neuroscience come in. Without going into specific studies on brain structures or even outlining a simple cognitive neuroscience experiment that almost anyone here could do, I would rather explain something that is often misunderstood even among scientists who study this topic: even though behavioral observation can not peel away all the layers, there is NO NEED to first find compatibility with natural selection. Rather, focus should initially be on breaking down the neural structures and the biochemistry, and their interaction.

First, focus on genes that provide structure (e.g., a certain brain structure) should be separate from focus on genes that provide biochemistry that is active AFTER the structural genes or some of the structural genes are expressed (e.g. hormones, neurotransmitters). Second, one has to remember that there is NO sudden and obvious cutoff point between male and female. Putting it all together in short, male and female brains are gradually different in structures, gradually different in transmitters and receptor topology, and gradually different in hormone topology. As these three factors interact, a virtually infinite number of combinations can exist, the vast majority of which at the molar level lead to obviously male and obviously female behaviors. Within that potpourri, not surprisingly, will be a minority of opaque, more vague outcomes. This, of course, is completely consistent with natural selection, although natural selection really doesn't even have to be mentioned.

Elara

01-01-2004, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by XDEEDUBBX
offensive comments edited

I will assume you are joking, and give you a chance to remove your uncalled for and rude comments before I give you an official warning.

As for the studies on gay animals- there isn't just a recent study on this. It's been documented in many, many species over the years.

And my personal opinion on this- Who cares whether gays get married? It doesn't affect anyone but those involved in the union. Not anyone's business but their own. The same as it's not anyone's business but their own when heterosexuals get married. Such a stupid thing to be even concerned about, I think. What other people do behind closed doors is their own business, noone elses'.

revhappy

01-01-2004, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by shift_zoom8
Bagemihl is not "by far and away the most noted person in this field." The topic spans many, many domains of science (or fields) and different levels within each domain.

I don't know who he is. Is he a neuroscientist? If so, is he at the molar, systems, or molecular level? Is he an animal behaviorist? Is he a biological anthropologist?

Why do you not mention the studies on brain structures? What about the cognitive neuroscience studies?

Again, I have no idea who Bagemihl is but based on what you have mentioned and not mentioned about his "study," I can virtually infer (although I might be wrong) that he is more of a biological anthropologist/animal behaviorist/sociobiologist. This kind of perspective is a bit cloudier than from the physiological viewing lens.

Also, how does one study detail so much that exists to be said on the topic? Is it really a study or rather a review? I'd like to check it out.

You are correct in that Bagemihl is a wildlife biologist or animal behaviorist. As far as I know, he has done the most work on this question in this field. I cited him as a thread mentioned its natural for animals to be homosexual, which I think needs to be discussed further.

I believe it must be a review as he cites hundreds of species, which would be impossible to study first hand (most wildlife biologists study one or two animals in detail). If you do a search for him, you should find him all over the internet.

klegg

01-01-2004, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by XDEEDUBBX
offensive comments edited

You know, an opinion is one thing, but "dams faggs" not only crosses the line, it is not proper english.

How would you like it if I said "If I had my way. toothless, bigoted, illiterate trailer park hicks would be forceably casterated to protect the gene pool"

Hurts, does it not?

May I suggest you learn a better way to express yourself?

cueball

01-01-2004, 01:10 PM

Originally posted by jtimbck2
My take on it as a gay man (not "as a gay") is this:

My partner & I have been together for 17 years. 17 YEARS. That's as long or longer than many marriages.

If I were to be hospitalized and unable to make my wishes known for some reason, he could LEGALLY be barred from seeing me. Without some legal rigamarole (power of attorney documents) he would have no say in anything regarding my financial matters, something married couples have automatically. And if I were to die, even if I had a will leaving everything to him, my relatives would have LEGAL grounds to contest the will and take everything away from him (not that they would do so), while with a married couple that would not be the case.

How would you feel?
jtimbck2 makes an excellent point. I was going to mention the same issue. There is no need to include any religious or biological arguments here because as you can see that issue can be debated to no end. The issue is allowing gays the same rights as everyone else. They should be allowed to legally marry if they so choose. It may not be for religious reasons, but the rights that come with marriage. Taxes are different for married couples and like jtimbck2 mentioned, legal rights are also changed. When a couple is married the spouse is the legal guardian over the other person if something was to happen to that person. Not allowing people these rights, regardless of sexual preference is just wrong.

revhappy

01-01-2004, 01:11 PM

You have some very interesting information, I'd like to learn a bit more about it.

Originally posted by shift_zoom8
This is the problem when you're only focused on behavior rather than behavior mapped onto the brain, which is the domain of the cognitive neuroscientist. The dog humping behavior you mention is sort of like the false peniform in the female brown????(the species where the females are larger than the males) hyena. In that species, females are dominant. Whatever the circumstances, pressure existed for females to be bigger and more aggressive, which was conferred by selection for more male hormone levels in females. An automatic secondary consequence of females having more male hormone than males is that they grew a penile structure, which has been observed to be used for various purposes, including greetings. Adaptationists tried hard to assign an adaptive purpose for the false peniform, but in the end realized that it may not have been directly selected for. I agree that there are all kinds of layers that can not be peeled away using the behavioral perspective.

Hyenas are a very interestinganimal. For years, people thought they were related to dogs (they are closely related to civets - i.e. mongoose, meerkats, etc.) and were only scavengers (when they were observed at night, scientists realized that's when they hunted).

As for why the false male appendage arose, perhaps it was due to the increase in testosterone (perhaps the rise was due to the inherent need for stronger mothers as the powerful, aggresive nature of the species led to too many cubs dieing from adult males?) or perhaps, some social, yet unknown role it plays in their social lives?

Originally posted by shift_zoom8
Also, if you want to invoke anthropological "scripts," then discussion over, game over. Calling "scripts" is the blanket response anthropologists and biological anthropologists throw out there to semantically counter any threats to their insecurity. This is why neuroscientists stay away from anthropologists at all costs. I have much, much more to say about this topic and can pull a very strong analogy from 100 years of emotion research from various domains at various levels. But I won't.

Anyway, this is where neuroscience and cognitive neuroscience come in. Without going into specific studies on brain structures or even outlining a simple cognitive neuroscience experiment that almost anyone here could do, I would rather explain something that is often misunderstood even among scientists who study this topic: even though behavioral observation can not peel away all the layers, there is NO NEED to first find compatibility with natural selection. Rather, focus should initially be on breaking down the neural structures and the biochemistry, and their interaction.

First, focus on genes that provide structure (e.g., a certain brain structure) should be separate from focus on genes that provide biochemistry that is active AFTER the structural genes or some of the structural genes are expressed (e.g. hormones, neurotransmitters). Second, one has to remember that there is NO sudden and obvious cutoff point between male and female. Putting it all together in short, male and female brains are gradually different in structures, gradually different in transmitters and receptor topology, and gradually different in hormone topology. As these three factors interact, a virtually infinite number of combinations can exist, the vast majority of which at the molar level lead to obviously male and obviously female behaviors. Within that potpourri, not surprisingly, will be a minority of opaque, more vague outcomes. This, of course, is completely consistent with natural selection, although natural selection really doesn't even have to be mentioned.

Ok, let me see if I'm understanding this. Basically, there are genes that are coded for a generic behavior (let's say sexuality) that become more specific (heterosexual, homosexual, pedophile, etc) based on biochemical events? In other words, there is no heterosexual or homosexual or pedophile gene, it develops during the development stages in the womb? In that process, a certain percentage, become heterosexual (say 90%), a certain percentage become homosexual (say 8%) and a certain amount become pedophiles (say 1%).

A couple of questions/points, i have are

1) Is this process completely independent to other genes or biochemical elements? In other words, what causes the selection from this potpourri of outcomes or is it just a numbers game with no selection methodology of the vague outcomes?

2) The biochemical impacts of emotions and life events. Certainly, no one can deny that these have biochemical impacts (i.e. stressful event bringing on a panic attack or just sweating). These are obviously difficult to study in a controlled laboratory study and their significance would be undercounted for in such an environment.

3) The tendency to rely to heavily on laboratory tests. For example, currently people are not considered to suffer from hypoythroidism if their thyroid blood tests indicate sufficient levels of that hormone and Thyroid Stimulating Hormone (TSH). However, the real illness is hypometabolism, and there can be problems with the receptors that the active thyroid hormone binds to - but there are no laboratory tests for this. The assumption, is that the normal thyroid hormone tests indicate normal metabolism, but there have been numerous people that have disproven this notion (clear signs of hypometabolism despite normal to even high results in these laboratory tests).

The point of this example, is to not rely completely on a check box, laboratory test approach, but instead use a multi-faceted, holistic approach that explores all angles of the issue.

Go4It

01-01-2004, 01:43 PM

Live and let live. The older you get the more knowledge and life expierance you collect. Men with men and women with women is not a problem in this crazy world.

Sea Ray

01-01-2004, 03:05 PM

I really don't have a problem with what 2 consenting adults want to do. I agree with the live and let live.

BUT what really bothers me is the IN YOUR FACE type of public showings. I resent people, gays, peta, or whom ever, shoving their views down our throats. The worst thing any group can do is to try and force someone with different ideas to accept them.

Do what you want, just don't try and 'make' me agree or accept.
And yes this type of subject makes me uncomortable, as if it didn't show :)

wakeech

01-01-2004, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by Sea Ray
The worst thing any group can do is to try and force someone with different ideas to accept them.

wrong-o

the worst thing a group of people can do to you is enforce their way of life upon you, like a dictatorial fascist/communist/fundamentalist government... or something like a bunch of homophobes blocking legislation to allow people of the same sex to make a lifelong, legal commitment to each other.

it's a contest between those who would have to accept the idea that gay people exist and should have certain liberties available to them, and those who would have to accept that their society won't allow them to express their love for each other in a binding, legal way.

what i fail to appreciate is how this is a burden for those who aren't gay: there will be absolutely no difference to your way of life. it's not "you can be married only if you're gay"... image that shoe, now on the other foot. it's only that they be allowed, and this in no way degrades or devalues your freedom to marry anyone you choose (other than in that snobby, exclusive, elitist way).

if you want to bring the holiness issue into it, then i'd tell you to get stuffed as this deals exclusively with the legality of the binding and that bringing god or gods or any other form of spirituality into it would then be up to the organization who would be sanctifying the marriage. that would then be an issue you'd have between you and your spiritual leader.

not being comfortable or accepting of another's choices in life (which they're free to do) isn't reason enough to cuff them in something which ought to be a civil right for any person.

jtimbck2

01-01-2004, 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Sea Ray
I really don't have a problem with what 2 consenting adults want to do. I agree with the live and let live.

BUT what really bothers me is the IN YOUR FACE type of public showings. I resent people, gays, peta, or whom ever, shoving their views down our throats. The worst thing any group can do is to try and force someone with different ideas to accept them.

Do what you want, just don't try and 'make' me agree or accept.
And yes this type of subject makes me uncomortable, as if it didn't show :)

But don't you see that not allowing me to have a legally recognized union with the person I love is shoving YOUR views down MY throat? "...ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL..." We should be treated equally, but we are not.

Gays are not asking for SPECIAL rights, we are asking for EQUAL rights & privileges.

commentator

01-01-2004, 07:41 PM

I think if you say that marriage is fine between a woman and a man, a man and a man or a woman and a woman. There is no reason not to allow two women and man to get married or three women, or whatever. After all, if this is just a legal contract then why prevent consenting adults from forming any kind of "loving" union they want. Those of you who feel gay marriage is a good thing should support total freedom in this respect. After all if it is not really the government business to interfere, right? To each is own.:D

Ike

01-01-2004, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by commentator
I think if you say that marriage is fine between a woman and a man, a man and a man or a woman and a woman. There is no reason not to allow two women and man to get married or three women, or whatever. After all, if this is just a legal contract then why prevent consenting adults from forming any kind of "loving" union they want. Those of you who feel gay marriage is a good thing should support total freedom in this respect. After all if it is not really the government business to interfere, right? To each is own.:D

I support polygamy as well, if only my fiance did... Wait, maybe she does, I've never asked her! Errrr, maybe that's not such a good idea... :p

Outlaws eXtreme

01-01-2004, 09:26 PM

I would like to add a law into the US Constitution which allows gay marriages, and for the people that oppose this law to take an IQ test in order to procreate. There is no way I would want more ignorant, or just plain stupid people creating even more stupid people out there to burden us even more.

Senseny

01-01-2004, 09:49 PM

I support the rights of two people who are committed to each other to publicly celebrate that commitment and to have their union be protected under civil law. I realize there will be associated cost increases in taxes, insurances and the like, however it would be worth it. We waste a lot of tax dollars and insurance dollars on much less worthy programs.

Aratinga

01-01-2004, 09:58 PM

Like it or not, all you bible-thumpers out there -- "marriage" has become a binding LEGAL partnership as much as, if not more than, a sacred union sanctified by whatever diety you choose to acknowledge. Being married grants certain rights to the spouses that would not be available to persons simply cohabiting, no matter how long or loving the relationship. jtimbck2 described exactly the types of situations where gay and lesbian couples are clearly discriminated against because they do not have the right to make their relationship "legal" via a civil marriage.

Consider this: Your life partner of many years is gravely injured in a car crash. You are not allowed to visit him/her in intensive care because only "family members" may enter.

Your life partner dies. The home you've shared for many years is titled in your partner's name only; you never thought about having both names added to the deed. You are forced to leave your home by your deceased partner's relatives so they can sell the property. You can't afford to buy it alone. You have no right to stay, since property goes to "next of kin".

All of your partner's belongings are taken away by those same relatives; you are given no opportunity to keep anything, because you have no legal rights to any of it.

Is this fair? Of course not. But without extensive legal paperwork designed to anticipate every possible scenario and duplicate the rights automatically granted to legal spouses, it is how same-sex couples are treated by the legal system.

All the religous zealots getting their panties in a knot over the thought of (horrors!) same sex couples being legally married need to quit being so freakin' self-centered! Allowing legal same-sex marriage will have no negative effects on any of you. Start worrying about something that's actually important... like the fact that any idiot with a criminal record, negative IQ, and viable gametes can have kids.

Oh, and Happy New Year.... ;)

moogle

01-01-2004, 09:58 PM

I think its wrong. No one is born a child molester, gay, your can't pass feelings onto your genes. Do you say that a child molester was born a child molester... NO. So long story short Gay marriages...mmm NO! Lesbian marriages on the other hand...hehe J/K.

Ike

01-01-2004, 10:11 PM

red_rx8_red_int

01-01-2004, 10:20 PM

mod edit: don't use "gay" as a derogatory term, please, whether or not it's meant as a joke.

Outlaws eXtreme

01-01-2004, 10:28 PM

Originally posted by moogle
I think its wrong. No one is born a child molester, gay, your can't pass feelings onto your genes. Do you say that a child molester was born a child molester... NO. So long story short Gay marriages...mmm NO! Lesbian marriages on the other hand...hehe J/K.

Just because you think is wrong, does not make it wrong for the rest of us. Stop thinking the world revolves around you. I'm not sure what does being a child molestor have to do with being gay. That's like comparing your lack of intelligence to your parent's.. oh wait, that is genetics. Nm.

Strider

01-01-2004, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Sea Ray
The worst thing any group can do is to try and force someone with different ideas to accept them.

Without people activily letting others know that there IS a problem in society nothing would ever get done. Take the Civil Rights, and Rodney King case for example. Without African Americans fighting for rights AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, then they could possibly still not be treated fairly as equals. There are still some portions of the country that are big headed bible pushers that can't see past the light of day on equal issues, and it is those places that also put such a hard and immoral stance on gay marriages.

On another point of forcing one's ideas on others... you can't tell me that [straight] people don't go around and have tons of PDA personal display of affection.

Personally I'm all for same sex marriages. I've got quite a few gay friends, none of them push being gay on me or my beliefs. Good friends, and good people to talk to about life issues too... they tend to care... or at least act like it. As a bonus... I have no sense of style, so it helps to have gay friends let you know what matches and whatnot.

Strider-

h0rde

01-01-2004, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by Outlaws eXtreme
Just because you think is wrong, does not make it wrong for the rest of us. Stop thinking the world revolves around you. I'm not sure what does being a child molestor have to do with being gay. That's like comparing your lack of intelligence to your parent's.. oh wait, that is genetics. Nm.

I know you don't agree with his opinion but eclips0 asked for opinions and said he wouldn't get offended, and I think that this is just another expressed opinion. Clearly gay marriage isn't objectively right or wrong, or else we wouldn't be debating it so much. Just because someone thinks it's wrong doesn't make it so, but just because someone else thinks it's right doesn't make that so either, right?

Racer X-8

01-02-2004, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by mental pimp
being gay disrupts the cycle of life, 1 guy and 1 girl = children and they marry and have sex and they have more kids and it goes on, 1 guy and another guy or a girl and a girl wouldnt make kids , so it dont work like that... Oh contrere mein herr, I think that work just perfectly.

i doubt it that God made poeple gay, u just turn gay as u grow up, scientist are crazy, theres no way that homosexuality is passed on to others. I'll go along with you on this. I could expound all night on this, but, nah... what for?

You wanna get "married"? Go for it. Just forget even thinking about the religious implications. That personally makes me want to puke. Notice that I said "personally". You got a problem with the way I think? Sure you do. Like, I'm the one trying to push what I believe on the "gay" community and the other immorals. I'm the one trying to push what I believe? Ho boy!

As far as taxes go, fine. The gov is using "marriage" as a living situation with 2 people. Has nothing to do with the religious part of it, so uncle sam shouldn't care about genders of the "married" couple. Besides, "head of household" gets more "funny money" (EIC) than "married filing jointly" does my a mile. I don't care.

I'm just posting to let people know my stand on this. Don't try to argue with me. I'm not going to. I could write back and forth forever with point - counterpoint, but I refuse to anymore. The internet just doesn't provide the atmosphere for discussions such as this. So, I won't even start. I'm just posting to let people know my stand on this. I felt compelled to, even though I know that I am in the minority in this forum. So, shoot me down, call me a religious "freak". I don't care. (I used to call people that a lot too. Now I am one. Go figure...)

Outlaws eXtreme

01-02-2004, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by h0rde
I know you don't agree with his opinion but eclips0 asked for opinions and said he wouldn't get offended, and I think that this is just another expressed opinion. Clearly gay marriage isn't objectively right or wrong, or else we wouldn't be debating it so much. Just because someone thinks it's wrong doesn't make it so, but just because someone else thinks it's right doesn't make that so either, right?

Actually if you reread my comments, I didn't make my comments known in that post, all I stated was that not everyone will agree that he is right in this matter. :)

moogle

01-02-2004, 12:49 AM

Originally posted by Outlaws eXtreme
Just because you think is wrong, does not make it wrong for the rest of us. Stop thinking the world revolves around you. I'm not sure what does being a child molestor have to do with being gay. That's like comparing your lack of intelligence to your parent's.. oh wait, that is genetics. Nm.

YOU... hMMM... I am rereading it. You didn't make your comments known but you made mine.

Child molester and gay are diff yes but I was just saying you weren't born a child molester, cold blood killers, or gay, its like quoting to the cops its not my fault I kill I was born with it.

Outlaws extreme what's with ur comment I was just posting my opinions as eclips0 asked for. I am thinking how the world revolves around me??? Huh when did I said/thought of that? b4 i start with inteligence and genetics...I got my r.n bachelors @ 19...Hmmm;my parents are nurses 2.

moogle

01-02-2004, 12:50 AM

Going back to topic I think its wrong just because.

h0rde

01-02-2004, 01:40 AM

Originally posted by Outlaws eXtreme
Actually if you reread my comments, I didn't make my comments known in that post, all I stated was that not everyone will agree that he is right in this matter. :)

Sorry, guess I just assumed you disagreed with his opinion because of your post. Of course not everyone's going to agree with anything said here, otherwise this thread would go from 0 to boring in like 5.9 seconds...

moogle

01-02-2004, 02:11 AM

yup

Speed-ER doc

01-02-2004, 03:27 AM

Doesn't it seem like a disproportionate amount of child molestation is homosexual? That is, the percentage of children who are molested by a member of the same sex (usually male-male) is higher than the percentage of gays in the general population?

Of course this is difficult to quantitate since the numbers of molested children and homosexuals are difficult to establish due to underreporting.

Anyone know of any data on this, specifically, whether homosexual men are statistically more likely to be child molesters?

I am not trying to gay-bash at all, I'm just wondering what others think about this. My six year old son was sexually abused by a 16 year old male cousin of his, who is now "out" as a result of the publicity of his crime. I also think of the numerous priests and their crimes against boys.

I think we also just don't realize how prevalent homosexuality is. Just underground.

HeTz

01-02-2004, 11:08 AM

I don't support it... sorry. Just my views. I was brought up in a Christian home and I do live in the Bible belt. Not many people down here do agree with gay marriage.

Marcus Desaul

01-02-2004, 02:36 PM

During this rather long thread, I find it very interesting that it is acceptable to call the non-supportive group concerning Homosexual marriages anything under the sun, e.g. stupid, bible-thumpers, ignorant, etc. Yet when the similar slang or derogatory statements are made toward the supportive group one is called a bigot and a homophobe. I also take an exception to the idea that the anti-same sex marriage parties, whomever they may be, are generally considered by the pro-same sex marriage parties to be under educated, born-in-the-sticks cotton pickers who only use their blind devotion to an out-dated book as their guide to debate.

It would serve all parties here to add a little bit of respect to their type-written word.

Just because you may differ on opinions over a certain issue, be it political, moral, or spiritual, does not mean that you must also be combative, derogatory, or stereo-typical to make your point and make it well. Simply because someone holds a different opinion than you does not make them a bigot.

Take this comment for example.(I’m not going to use the quote option. You can scroll back to the second page in this thread if you need verification on it’s accuracy.)

“I also think that anyone that feels any different is a bigot.”

Unfortunately, this is the belief many on both sides suffer from. Basically this person is saying that any person who holds a different belief than him/her on this issue is a bigot. Sadly, this person portraits the very definition of what it is to be a bigot.

big•ot [ bíggət ] (plural big•ots)

noun

intolerant person: somebody who has very strong opinions, especially on matters of politics, religion, or ethnicity, and refuses to acknowledge different views

This definition doesn’t force us to “accept” or “adopt” another’s beliefs in order not to be branded, by definition, a bigot. If we are tolerant of everyone except those people who do not share our beliefs, are we still not by definition…intolerant of those people? Yes!

Unfortunately, we are so blinded in our debate and eager to be the first one to have the last word, smartest comeback, most cerebral sounding post that we ignore the fact that we are no better than those we are attacking/accusing.

commentator

01-02-2004, 03:00 PM

Mr. Desaul,

Excellent points all. My observation has been that the left of the political spectrum is usually the first to become "intolerant" especially when they know they are on the wrong side of an argument. The left usually resorts to name calling because they have no argument that makes sense. This is not always the case but too often it is. Favoring gay marriage is much more complex than its proponents will admit, and could open up legal justification for a number of things that our society and culture is not prepared for. It sounds so simple and yet is far from being so.

Outlaws eXtreme

01-02-2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Marcus Desaul
During this rather long thread, I find it very interesting that it is acceptable to call the non-supportive group concerning Homosexual marriages anything under the sun, e.g. stupid, bible-thumpers, ignorant, etc. Yet when the similar slang or derogatory statements are made toward the supportive group one is called a bigot and a homophobe. I also take an exception to the idea that the anti-same sex marriage parties, whomever they may be, are generally considered by the pro-same sex marriage parties to be under educated, born-in-the-sticks cotton pickers who only use their blind devotion to an out-dated book as their guide to debate.

The only time I ever said someone was stupid was when they tried to compare Homosexuality with Child molesting. That's like saying Heterosexuality is similar to people that like making pottery.

I wont jump into the religion basis of why homosexuality is negative to them. I understand faith is very important to people. But isn't religion part of accepting and tolerating all people? Why is it that people use religion as one of the reasons why homosexuality is bad if it's such a positive belief? It would really make me question my own belief if I thought my "God" didn't like a particular species based on their sexual preference. Reminds me of back in 1940s when religion/cultural reasons was used to eliminate a large portion of another group which differed from the "norm." Can't believe we're in 2004 and people still think this way.

Also it's never acceptable per se to call anyone names, but when it's this clearly blatant, isn't it just stating the obvious?

Outlaws eXtreme

01-02-2004, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by commentator
Mr. Desaul,

Excellent points all. My observation has been that the left of the political spectrum is usually the first to become "intolerant" especially when they know they are on the wrong side of an argument. The left usually resorts to name calling because they have no argument that makes sense. This is not always the case but too often it is. Favoring gay marriage is much more complex than its proponents will admit, and could open up legal justification for a number of things that our society and culture is not prepared for. It sounds so simple and yet is far from being so.

I think you either meant "tolerant" or that it's the right that is "intolerant." Right is the conservative side. If you do mean the Left, the side that accepts progressive change, then you are wrong also to say that they "have no argument that makes sense." What's more sense than giving gay couples equal rights as stated and given to the rest of the hetero populace? Tax breaks, ownership/custody of property after spouse is deceased, having the privilege to adopt a child, etc. Besides, what's more sense than giving someone an equal opportunity to be happy together if it doesn't hurt anyone else?

(Note: when I say Left, I do not mean the complete far side of the left where it's free radicals advocating complete antiestablishmentarianism, merely the side that wants change)

zerobanger

01-02-2004, 03:51 PM

Originally posted by Sea Ray
I really don't have a problem with what 2 consenting adults want to do. I agree with the live and let live.

BUT what really bothers me is the IN YOUR FACE type of public showings. I resent people, gays, peta, or whom ever, shoving their views down our throats. The worst thing any group can do is to try and force someone with different ideas to accept them.

Do what you want, just don't try and 'make' me agree or accept.
And yes this type of subject makes me uncomortable, as if it didn't show :)

what do you consider an "IN YOUR FACE" type of public showing? I agree that gays with a mega-phone screaming at you is as bad as religious freaks doing it, but if you are refering to two guys holding hands or showing public affection I say its too bad. If heterosexuals can do it and people think "oh how nice" and two gays do it and get labled as "IN YOUR FACE" public showings it just is another form of biggotry. Maybe I should call it "closeted biggotry".

Sea Ray

01-02-2004, 04:02 PM

Yes the Mega-phone type rally's/marches, etc is what i mean by in your face. Of course then there are those that just show public affection for nothing more than the shock factor.

Here is something just for thought, and I have no idea how to interpet this but consider.........It seems like a number of celebs came out of the closet in the fast couple of years. Did not most of them have a stumble in their careers as a result? Is the public completely ready for truth from everyone? Or do they really even care? Sometimes too much information is just not good.

Oops. but these are only my opinions, don't flame me, you asked. Or at least someone did?

Outlaws eXtreme

01-02-2004, 04:15 PM

Originally posted by Sea Ray
Yes the Mega-phone type rally's/marches, etc is what i mean by in your face. Of course then there are those that just show public affection for nothing more than the shock factor.

Here is something just for thought, and I have no idea how to interpet this but consider.........It seems like a number of celebs came out of the closet in the fast couple of years. Did not most of them have a stumble in their careers as a result? Is the public completely ready for truth from everyone? Or do they really even care? Sometimes too much information is just not good.

Oops. but these are only my opinions, don't flame me, you asked. Or at least someone did?

"In Your Face" can be anyone besides the homosexual population. Like zerobanger said, it could also be Religious zealots, or Peta memers, or even Supermarket union strikers.

The ones that show public affection is no different than a heterosexual showing public affection. You can see this anywhere, the mall, at the park, even at your church. So it's not just an exclusive thing that the gay people are doing to try and offend others. I'm sure there are some exhibitionists out there, but that also can be said for both sexual preferences.

Here is food for thought. People are starting to come out more openly now because I think the world is slowly accepting it. It's like the first African Americans going to public schools, at first you didn't see any in the South. Slowly integration happened, and you saw more of it. Their careers are their careers. It's the medial, one day you're hot, the next day you're not. Look at Ian McKellen, he's doing pretty good as Gandalf/Magneto, yet his career hasn't diminished. Then look at Ellen Degeneres, her career got sidetracked because of her relationship, but now she's back on top with her talk show. These are people too, you have to understand. They also want to go to movie premiers or parties with their significant other, just like any other people with relationships. Why should they hide that fact?

zerobanger

01-02-2004, 04:26 PM

Isolation is very difficult and hard to understand unless you have experienced it. Imagine for a moment growing up, thinking you are like everyone else..but around a certain age you begin to realize you are different. Its in the back of your head and you deny it, but yet you know its true. Now imagine for a moment that you are a black kid of the same age. At school you heard someone call you the "N" word. What did you do? You went home told your mom and dad and they understood because they went through the same thing. Now imagine your the gay kid that was called the "F" word , what do you do? its hard for you to tell your parents because they use the "F" word every day.

People just want to be accepted for who they are. I think as humans sometimes its hard for us to understand others unless we have walked in thier shoes for a while. I always find it funny when someone that is not gay says "its a choice". With no experience in the matter how can they know? For it to be a choice a straight person has to be attracted to the same sex too, otherwise there is no choice. You cant "choose" to be attracted to someone your not.

There are always haters everywhere and I know this board is no exception, but im very impressed with the maturity of this board so far.

HeTz

01-02-2004, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by zerobanger
Isolation is very difficult and hard to understand unless you have experienced it. Imagine for a moment growing up, thinking you are like everyone else..but around a certain age you begin to realize you are different. Its in the back of your head and you deny it, but yet you know its true. Now imagine for a moment that you are a black kid of the same age. At school you heard someone call you the "N" word. What did you do? You went home told your mom and dad and they understood because they went through the same thing. Now imagine your the gay kid that was called the "F" word , what do you do? its hard for you to tell your parents because they use the "F" word every day.

People just want to be accepted for who they are. I think as humans sometimes its hard for us to understand others unless we have walked in thier shoes for a while. I always find it funny when someone that is not gay says "its a choice". With no experience in the matter how can they know? For it to be a choice a straight person has to be attracted to the same sex too, otherwise there is no choice. You cant "choose" to be attracted to someone your not.

There are always haters everywhere and I know this board is no exception, but im very impressed with the maturity of this board so far.

I assume you're gay? Just wondering... because it's as if you walked their shoes. I am in no way flaming or anything, I just want you to give a factual post (Don't take it the wrong way).

zerobanger

01-02-2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by HeTz
I assume you're gay? Just wondering... because it's as if you walked their shoes. I am in no way flaming or anything, I just want you to give a factual post (Don't take it the wrong way).

It doesn't suprise me that you would assume that.

HeTz

01-02-2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by zerobanger
It doesn't suprise me that you would assume that.

I see you took it the wrong way, just like I had asked you not to.

zerobanger

01-02-2004, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by HeTz
I see you took it the wrong way, just like I had asked you not to.

no, I did not take any offense to what you said. Its just none of your business, thats all.

Toadman

01-02-2004, 04:48 PM

Here's an objective thought I've been pondering for awhile:

Is it only the rights afforded to hetero married couples that are being sought, or is it the term marriage and Holy Matrimony?
Do gays object to being united in a "Civil Union" that included all rights of a married hetero couple? Or again, is the term "marriage" a gay requirement in the quest for equality, even when all rights have been afforded to them?

It seems the hang-up is over the term "marriage", which IS a religious ceremony whether we like it our not. Gays should push for civil unions if they don't want to bump heads against the majority. Calling it marriage they will likely continue to be resisted.

HeTz

01-02-2004, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by zerobanger
no, I did not take any offense to what you said. Its just none of your business, thats all.

You talk about it like you've experienced it. Don't give an eye's view of someone's life when you haven't experienced it.

Toadman

01-02-2004, 04:52 PM

Guys, agree to disagree or take it private please.

zerobanger

01-02-2004, 05:00 PM

Originally posted by HeTz
You talk about it like you've experienced it. Don't give an eye's view of someone's life when you haven't experienced it.

You know me so well.

Outlaws eXtreme

01-02-2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Toadman
Here's an objective thought I've been pondering for awhile:

Is it only the rights afforded to hetero married couples that are being sought, or is it the term marriage and Holy Matrimony?
Do gays object to being united in a "Civil Union" that included all rights of a married hetero couple? Or again, is the term "marriage" a gay requirement in the quest for equality, even when all rights have been afforded to them?

It seems the hang-up is over the term "marriage", which IS a religious ceremony whether we like it our not. Gays should push for civil unions if they don't want to bump heads against the majority. Calling it marriage they will likely continue to be resisted.

The way I take it, is that the Gay people want to be treated equally. What if 'their' idea of religion differs from the rest of us? Maybe 'their' Christian God allows for gay people to coexist. Afterall, it says in the Bible that God created man, so wouldn't that include Gay people?

If marriage is only a religious ceremony, then why is it governed by the law? You need certificates to get married, blood test depending on your state, and have a person with "legal" identifications to complete the marriage. In this modern age, Marriage isn't just a religious ceremony, it's part of the legal system as it stands.

Perhaps you are right, Gay people maybe should take it slower by fighting for equal rights before they fight for their own ceremony to show their devotion for one another. Perhaps people still aren't tolerant enough to accept having people with equal rights. I find this rather sad.

HeTz

01-02-2004, 06:03 PM

Originally posted by zerobanger
You know me so well.

Well, since you're dodging the issue anyways, I'll take it your post is all false.

zerobanger

01-02-2004, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by HeTz
Well, since you're dodging the issue anyways, I'll take it your post is all false.

ok.

Toadman

01-02-2004, 07:58 PM

The way I take it is the gay populace want to be treated equally. Being afforded tax breaks, spousal medical coverage, ability to adopt children, file joint taxes, merge credit ratings, assume Community Property status within their state if applicable, and all the other pros and cons of the hetero union called Marriage? I have no real issues with it, other than children. Being recently divorced, I have to ask why would they want the same headaches?
" Um waiter, I'd like to have what that gentleman over there is having." Sure! Here ya go! Help yourself, it's great! Best of luck too!

-jk- :D

Religion aside, the ceremony in whatever form it takes is just pomp, usually a private affair with family and friends affirming devotion and commitment between two people. Could be a big-buck event, a small Vegas ceremony, or just signing the certificate in front of a courthouse clerk. Regardless no one has married status until it's recorded in the county of filing, ceremony held or not. My personal issue issue is why call it a marriage? It's asking too much from a culture who are toeing the line of offering the same status to gays as it is. It's easier to shuffle someone back a few inches at a time instead of shoving them to the point where they shove back in retaliation when a sacred insitution is attacked. Is a "Union" too much to ask for?

Another question: In the case of...well, let's call them "civil unions" for now, would a blood test still be necessary?

moogle

01-02-2004, 08:14 PM

Originally posted by Outlaws eXtreme
The only time I ever said someone was stupid was when they tried to compare Homosexuality with Child molesting. That's like saying Heterosexuality is similar to people that like making pottery.

I wasn't comparing, and whos they??? I was the only one that said that. I was inputing that statement bcz someone put it was scientifically your born with it. So I replied with you don't born gay or your born a child molester. I never compared nor I try to prove that I am right I was expressing an opinion. Do you get it now??? or do you still think I am comparing... and if you don't agree than don't, don't call me ediot for expressing an opinion.

Also religion and politics will have a big all bash on what's right.

zoom44

01-02-2004, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Outlaws eXtreme
I would like to add a law into the US Constitution which allows gay marriages, and for the people that oppose this law to take an IQ test in order to procreate.

i don't want to add a law to the constitution to allow gay marriages but i am also not opposed to gay marriage. i dont believe in adding anything to the constitution that directly gives or takes rights to any group. what the Constitution says now is fine- everyone is equal and gets the same rights. period. the problem is that laws that have been written since then have denied certain groups their writes and those laws need to be repealed. leave the Constitution alone.

it was said best in 1776 in another document you may have (and should have) read-

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal. they have been endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights which among these are life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

- it does not say "all men(except homosexuals)" or anything like that. it excludes no group.

Outlaws eXtreme

01-02-2004, 08:49 PM

Zoom, my previous post was meant as a sarcastic reply to moogle's "ediotic" statements... hehehe :)

zoom44

01-02-2004, 08:51 PM

damn i missed the sarcasm sorry. and it's usaully me that uses the sarcasm around here,too. well my point is still valid and i stand by it.

moogle

01-02-2004, 08:56 PM

HEHEHE... funny:o

shift_zoom8

01-03-2004, 12:53 AM

Moogle sounds like a high school kid. That would explain his ramblings.

Moogle, I'll just say it again. The most DEFINITIVE studies are from neuroscience. These studies show there is a category of gays that is ABSOLUTELY biological/genetic.

To help you think more clearly, let me add that being gay isn't just limited to making a conscious decision to ACT/BEHAVE/ENGAGE in gay behavior. The actual act is not required.

The true biological, genetic gays have brains that SHOW gayness with or without the ACTION. Again, the act is NOT REQUIRED.

Racer X-8

01-03-2004, 01:22 AM

Ralph Cramden & his ditch digging "wife"?
Andy Taylor & Barney Fife? Goober too?
Felix Unger & his sports reporting "husband"?

Latent homosexual tendancies? Maybe so. So what?

Could you see Barney giving Andy a bj? Oh, how sweet...

I wonder if Ralph was bi & let Alice join-in whilst going "to the moon!"

And Felix with his impeccable fettish of cleanliness - he really was just having trouble coping with remaining in the closet, that's all that was.

Antidisestablishmentarianism! The act is NOT REQUIRED...agreed!

moogle

01-03-2004, 01:41 AM

True I just got out of high school 3 yrs ago.

Outlaws eXtreme

01-03-2004, 03:13 AM

I would have thought that being a registered nurse requires more compassion and understanding for the diversity of human kind.. especially if those individuals are usually relegated to crude comments regarding their sexuality.

shift_zoom8

01-03-2004, 04:26 AM

My guess is that moogle is Filipino. That society has an affinity for the health sciences BUT is also very Catholic and Christian, which would explain the apparent contradiction in Moogle.

Trust me when I say that Filipinos can be SUPER conservative, even compared to some white hick from Indiana with a failing farm. Their conservatism focuses in large part on sexuality, so it isn't surprising that many of them think that MTV, for example, is the devil himself.

jtimbck2

01-03-2004, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by shift_zoom8
My guess is that moogle is Filipino. That society has an affinity for the health sciences BUT is also very Catholic and Christian, which would explain the apparent contradiction in Moogle.

Trust me when I say that Filipinos can be SUPER conservative, even compared to some white hick from Indiana with a failing farm. Their conservatism focuses in large part on sexuality, so it isn't surprising that many of them think that MTV, for example, is the devil himself.

You're painting Filipinos with an awfully broad brush there, shift_zoom8! I have some Filipino friends who are very accepting of my sexuality.

shift_zoom8

01-03-2004, 11:05 AM

yeah, you're right, jtimbck2.

mental pimp

01-03-2004, 11:22 AM

jtimbck2 and ecl0ps, when did u too notice that u had feelings for men?

Outlaws eXtreme

01-03-2004, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by shift_zoom8
My guess is that moogle is Filipino. That society has an affinity for the health sciences BUT is also very Catholic and Christian, which would explain the apparent contradiction in Moogle.

Trust me when I say that Filipinos can be SUPER conservative, even compared to some white hick from Indiana with a failing farm. Their conservatism focuses in large part on sexuality, so it isn't surprising that many of them think that MTV, for example, is the devil himself.

Yet another reason why I find specific religions with flaws. If a particular religion teaches us to look at another person as inferior or against the religion, it's not one I would want to believe in.

moogle

01-03-2004, 11:58 AM

1st u say I want to prove that I am right, than u post I am not well diverse...
Look outlaws Extreme WTF are u talking about??? I just don't agree with gay marriages I never bashed or was rude about anyone's sexuality period!

U sir are an ediot, you don't even know me... and what is ur profession might I ask... Mc donalds???

moogle

01-03-2004, 12:07 PM

Yes, filipinos are very strict on their beliefs but my family are well diverse and open minded. I work in a hospital where I take care of people,not gays, not straight but just people,and I have some gay co-workers that I get along very well. Also we are not catholics but we just dn't believe that gay marriage is right... do U get WE "meaning me/culture not the community outlaws extreme or do u view that as the whole community still."

Elara

01-03-2004, 12:21 PM

Guys, quit with the personal attacks. No one is going to change anyone else's personal views on an internet forum. The least you can do is be polite when expressing your own.

Racer X-8

01-03-2004, 12:52 PM

Why does this topic keep spiraling right back to a religious topic? Let's just talk about queers and how they want to be married.

Was Gilligan satisfying the skipper's sexual desires out on that south pacific island? Do ya think maybe? Maybe they wanted to get married once they were rescued.

The Lone Ranger & Tonto? Mmmm, kimosabbe!

Robin Hood & his "gay" merry men?

Now, just why are these suggestions sounding so crazy rediculous to you? Why is it that they couldn't possibly have been that way, yet, you can? What's wrong with that picture?

I've shared apartments with other guys a lot! Did I have sex with any of them? Did I want to marry any of them? I don't get it at all. I just simply totally don't understand it. I don't have a clue how any guy could get that way. I don't think for a second that it's hereditary. That's a cop-out. Go ahead and believe that crap if you want to try and justify your behavior. I think you are warped in the head big time! It's your environment, no doubt. Somehow, you have incorrectly determined that it's ok to have sex with another guy. Somehow, you really do believe that. I'm saying "Bull! It's NOT OK!!!" Now, go put KY jelly on THAT and go shove it where the sun don't shine! Friggin warped people here!

Outlaws eXtreme

01-03-2004, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by moogle

U sir are an ediot, you don't even know me... and what is ur profession might I ask... Mc donalds???

A little bit of lightheartedness, since this is the second post in this thread to use "ediot," are you just trying to sound like Ren and Stimpy.. "you EEeeeddiiot!!" Or did you really not know it's spelled Idiot?

Speed-ER doc

01-03-2004, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
Doesn't it seem like a disproportionate amount of child molestation is homosexual? That is, the percentage of children who are molested by a member of the same sex (usually male-male) is higher than the percentage of gays in the general population?

Of course this is difficult to quantitate since the numbers of molested children and homosexuals are difficult to establish due to underreporting.

Anyone know of any data on this, specifically, whether homosexual men are statistically more likely to be child molesters?

I am not trying to gay-bash at all, I'm just wondering what others think about this. My six year old son was sexually abused by a 16 year old male cousin of his, who is now "out" as a result of the publicity of his crime. I also think of the numerous priests and their crimes against boys.

I think we also just don't realize how prevalent homosexuality is. Just underground.

I'm going to quote myself since no-one answered my queries, and I have had some time to think about this question.

Here are some reasons I think gay men are more likely to be child molesters then hetero men:

First off, let me say that "child molester" is an inflammatory term, sort of like "butt ugly econobox." Lets change this for the sake of argument to "someone who has sexual contact with a preteen."

This type of contact is illegal for many reasons, but so is homosexual sexual contact in many states (Texas included until last year). It is also outside the boundary of "normal sexual behavior," as is homosexual contact.

My hypothesis is that homosexuals are USED to flaunting society's sexual mores because many of their activities and beliefs are outside normal societal boundaries. I think that once you have made the decision that it's "normal" to have homosexual contact, it is probably not much of a stretch to extend that to include contact with preteens (or sheep in the case of some lonely shepherds, or other prisoners in jail). Yes, I think that gay men are also more likely to have sex with animals for the same reasons! I think that men who have heterosexual anal sex are also more likely to be bisexual.

I think environment does play a big role, and there are many prisoners/seamen/shepherds who would argue that point. I understand that many cases of prison rape and child rape may be more related to power issues rather than sexual issues, but I am not talking about cases where physical harm is applied. I am considering more the "seduction" type of cases.

I think that some laws are not intuitive for some people, and that most people follow their own moral guidelines when determining their behavior. The speed limit regulation is an example in my own case. The prohibition of alcohol in the 20's is a historic example. The sodomy law is a current controversial example. The prohibition against sexual contact or performance by a child is certainly an example for certain people.

Does this make sense to anyone else? One other thing to add, perhaps because of the closeted nature of most gays, it may be harder for them to find appropriate sexual partners, perhaps contributing to this issue.

To restate my hypothesis again, it is not that all or even most gays are child molesters, it is that gay men are more likely then hetero men to initiate sexual contact with minors. I don't have any proof of this, but I have tried to consider some potential reasons why this might be so. I can't think of any reasons why this might not be so. Can you?

Here is a site I found after writing this to back it up (Google search pedophilia homosexual):
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27431

Apparently there is "gay media" with one view, and "religious right media" with of course the opposite view. I really haven't reviewed all the studies, just thinking.....

Here's another. And by the way, have you heard of NAMBLA, the North American Men-Boys Love Association? Makes you proud to be an American....(not)
http://www.lifesite.net/interim/2002/sept/02study.html

This is the most interesting site with the most detailed (parental guidance advised) information:
http://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com/pedophilia.htm

Racer X-8

01-03-2004, 02:52 PM

I agree with you, Speed-ER doc. You've made good points.

It's like, if a person already does LSD, why not try mescalline?

Were Batman & Robin more than just a crimefighting dynamic duo?

zoom44

01-03-2004, 03:25 PM

nope you are in the lounge

Elara

01-03-2004, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Racer X-8
Why does this topic keep spiraling right back to a religious topic? Let's just talk about queers and how they want to be married.

Was Gilligan satisfying the skipper's sexual desires out on that south pacific island? Do ya think maybe? Maybe they wanted to get married once they were rescued.

The Lone Ranger & Tonto? Mmmm, kimosabbe!

Robin Hood & his "gay" merry men?

Now, just why are these suggestions sounding so crazy rediculous to you? Why is it that they couldn't possibly have been that way, yet, you can? What's wrong with that picture?

I've shared apartments with other guys a lot! Did I have sex with any of them? Did I want to marry any of them? I don't get it at all. I just simply totally don't understand it. I don't have a clue how any guy could get that way. I don't think for a second that it's hereditary. That's a cop-out. Go ahead and believe that crap if you want to try and justify your behavior. I think you are warped in the head big time! It's your environment, no doubt. Somehow, you have incorrectly determined that it's ok to have sex with another guy. Somehow, you really do believe that. I'm saying "Bull! It's NOT OK!!!" Now, go put KY jelly on THAT and go shove it where the sun don't shine! Friggin warped people here!

Why can't you just say "I don't agree with it" and leave it at that? Why the personal attacks? It's not affecting you personally, as far as I can see, so why be so nasty about it? I don't agree with Speed-ER doc's comments, but at least he's backing them up and not being a jerk about it. Next comment like this and the poster gets a warning and the thread gets closed.

Sea Ray

01-03-2004, 06:01 PM

Seems like this thread has run its course already??

wakeech

01-03-2004, 07:40 PM

...not as long as people are still all turned around by the issue.

racer x-8, not being able to comprehend being gay doesn't mean that it's innately wrong... i've got lots and lots and lots to say, and i could try to explain so much, but i know how stubborn you'll be. i'm no fool and sewing on gravel just isn't worth my time.

simply because some guy wrote in some book (any book, at any time, anywhere) that men and women are very different, and should love intimately only one another doesn't mean that his opinion is correct. the idea that there are "natural" rules is rediculous; the rules we impose in our society, notably in this context between adults and children, rest only in the intrest of protecting the interests of the child who in all concievable cases of molestation was not a freely choosing participant. the rules through the bible belt of your country making sodomy illegal are obviously religiously driven (given the name of the act), and have nothing to do with the legitimacy of such an activity.

speedER doc, i suppose there is some grounding in the studies you've mentioned, but i believe you're putting it in the wrong context: it's more realistic to say that more child molestors are gay or non preferential than strictly straight. you can't take this information and then correlate being gay makes you more likely to molest children.

you seem to operate in a vien of thinking, defining normal sexual activity, and suggesting that sex ouside the "norm" is wrong, and with me that's the biggest point of contention. certainly, there can be acts which are "allowable" and "disallowable", but again on the grounds of protecting some who might get hurt: rape, child molestation, (and in most cases) polygamy. ruling what's normal, outside the norm, well good luck. what's right and wrong ought to have some grounding in definable, observable detriments to society.

in regards to that last link you posted, i sincerely hope you put that into the context of one obviously anti-gay person, who's trying to shock straights into fearing the gay person even more:

Originally written on that inexcuseably slanderous webpageThe Sexual Behavior of Homosexuals

WARNING!

Please do not read this paper until a few hours after your last meal._... sure sounds like an open and honest account to me. technical accounts of deviant sexual activity might be shocking to those without imagination, but none of those activities are limited to homosexuals alone. none of these activites are new, none of them can be construed as "wrong" or "evil" simply for doing them any more than scratching an itch on your head (outside of the sort already addressed).

this is fear mongering at its very best, unfortuneately.

Racer X-8

01-03-2004, 09:31 PM

wakeech, "sewing on gravel". That's a new term for me. I like it, thanks.

My fundamental belief on this topic may or may not have originated from some book that you refer to, I dunno. I do know however that it is woven into the very fabric of my being. (Gravel of my being?) I can't comprehend the thoughts and inevitable actions of those who have been sewn with a different stitch. To break loose of the very fabric of a basic fundamental belief system in order to accept those of another is a bit too much to ask of anyone.

I've really tried more than once, right here in this very forum. I've spent much time examining myself, asking myself why can't I understand these people who merely have a different sexual preference. I've talked to my wife and pastor about it. Moreover, I have been troubled spiritually by it greatly. My latest responses here are obviously to me, my frustration coming out, that I still haven't gained much, if any ground in even understanding it.

I was once caught in a very bad situation with a gay guy once. He asked me to come drink some wine in his apartment one night. (He and I got to talking at a beergarden, and it turned into a rainy walk home. I had no idea.) Then, he told me what the means to his madness really was, once he had me there, just he and I. I warned him that I was not in the least bit interested, that I would have to show him some of my high school wrestling abilities if he tried anything. He said he knew a few moves too, but he didn't want to. Since he drove me there, I had to either walk, or let him drive. He did, and was ok in doing it (I had him drop me off about 2 blocks from my place). That was 1976 and I can remember it still very well. Traumatic maybe? Yeah.

About the bible belt making things illegal, I would think sodomy was illegal way before the bible belt had any voice at all, since it probably didn't even exist as a colonization yet. Yes though, the bible had a whole lot to do with the laws of the land back in the time when men were men, and the sheep knew it! :)

And, if you're pointing to the bible belt as the reason for the gravelly fabric of my being, I was raised in Pennsylvania. :p

Outlaws eXtreme

01-03-2004, 10:58 PM

Originally posted by Racer X-8

My fundamental belief on this topic may or may not have originated from some book that you refer to, I dunno. I do know however that it is woven into the very fabric of my being. (Gravel of my being?) I can't comprehend the thoughts and inevitable actions of those who have been sewn with a different stitch. To break loose of the very fabric of a basic fundamental belief system in order to accept those of another is a bit too much to ask of anyone.

I was once caught in a very bad situation with a gay guy once. He asked me to come drink some wine in his apartment one night. (He and I got to talking at a beergarden, and it turned into a rainy walk home. I had no idea.) Then, he told me what the means to his madness really was, once he had me there, just he and I. I warned him that I was not in the least bit interested, that I would have to show him some of my high school wrestling abilities if he tried anything. He said he knew a few moves too, but he didn't want to. Since he drove me there, I had to either walk, or let him drive. He did, and was ok in doing it (I had him drop me off about 2 blocks from my place). That was 1976 and I can remember it still very well. Traumatic maybe? Yeah.

About the bible belt making things illegal, I would think sodomy was illegal way before the bible belt had any voice at all, since it probably didn't even exist as a colonization yet. Yes though, the bible had a whole lot to do with the laws of the land back in the time when men were men, and the sheep knew it! :)

And, if you're pointing to the bible belt as the reason for the gravelly fabric of my being, I was raised in Pennsylvania. :p

The fact that you were scared by a gay guy "almost" hitting on you is solely on your lack of your masculinity. If you were secure with your sexuality, then you wouldn't have been afraid by it.

You do know that Heterosexuals also practice sodomy right? It's not just a Homosexual act.

Thankfully this isn't a thread about religion...

Sea Ray

01-03-2004, 11:29 PM

If having sex with another guy is your thing, fine! Why tell the whole world about it???? We (the majority) really don't wont to hear about it, get it????

PS, this is the white russians talking, not me in my normal passive self.

Racer X-8

01-04-2004, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by Outlaws eXtreme
The fact that you were scared by a gay guy "almost" hitting on you is solely on your lack of your masculinity. If you were secure with your sexuality, then you wouldn't have been afraid by it.

You do know that Heterosexuals also practice sodomy right? It's not just a Homosexual act.

Thankfully this isn't a thread about religion... Oh man, I surely did write you one real nice reply. Elara thinks you're not affecting me personally, so I deleted it. I guess I started it, so I'll let you have the last hit. Have a wonderful life. ;)

ps: Sea Ray will be real sorry tomorrow and delete his above post, won't you Sea Ray. Sea Ray? He'll be alright tomorrow...

RX-GR8

01-04-2004, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by Racer X-8
Oh man, I surely did write you one real nice reply. Elara thinks you're not affecting me personally, so I deleted it. I guess I started it, so I'll let you have the last hit. Have a wonderful life. ;)

you have wonderful restraint. i almost answered for you but thought it wasn't my place so i didn't.

Speed-ER doc

01-04-2004, 12:48 AM

Originally posted by wakeech

speedER doc, i suppose there is some grounding in the studies you've mentioned, but i believe you're putting it in the wrong context: it's more realistic to say that more child molestors are gay or non preferential than strictly straight. you can't take this information and then correlate being gay makes you more likely to molest children.

I actually do not feel these studies are very good, they are just the first three Google results I got. The first (edit) TWO publications seem to have their own extreme right-wing agenda, and the third is clearly in it for "shock value," although the third one does have some references for their data.

I never mentioned or meant to imply whether ANYTHING was "right or wrong," just whether it was accepted by society in general and whether it was legal. Believe me, I am not a moralist. Many of my own personal beliefs and practices conflict sharply with general societal acceptance. I am not preaching.

My whole point is to educate/enlighten/stir up those who do not believe in the correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia, and particularly those here who accused anyone who thought otherwise (or even mentioned the two terms together) of ignorance. I think there IS a connection, and if as you say, "more child molesters are gay....than straight" then WHY IS THAT?

You basically just agreed with me. If gays are overrepresented amongst pedophiles (I don't think that most pedophiles are gay, or that most gays are pedophiles, just that a higher percentage of gays than straights are pedophiles), then being gay does make one more likely to be a pedophile.

My point is just that mentioning the two conditions together does not imply bigotry or stupidity. Those statements just set me off, because I think there IS a correlation, however small.

Speed-ER doc

01-04-2004, 03:03 AM

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally written on that inexcuseably slanderous webpageThe Sexual Behavior of Homosexuals

WARNING!

Please do not read this paper until a few hours after your last meal._
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think you can really call anything in this paper slanderous.
All of the activities mentioned actually occur. I think the commentary (WARNING!...etc) is unfortunate and uncalled for, but very limited in proportion to the entirety of information provided.

Once you read the discussion itself, it is presented in a factual manner with multiple references to back it up. It does not even seem to "slam" homosexuals, just presents TMI which some people are obviously uncomfortable with.

BTW, I'd like to hear what the originator of this post thinks about all this (not just my stuff).....E?

shift_zoom8

01-04-2004, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by Speed-ER doc
I actually do not feel these studies are very good, they are just the first three Google results I got. The first publication seems to have their own extreme right-wing agenda, and the third is clearly in it for "shock value," although the third one does have some references for their data.

I never mentioned or meant to imply whether ANYTHING was "right or wrong," just whether it was accepted by society in general and whether it was legal. Believe me, I am not a moralist. Many of my own personal beliefs and practices conflict sharply with general societal acceptance. I am not preaching.

My whole point is to educate/enlighten/stir up those who do not believe in the correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia, and particularly those here who accused anyone who thought otherwise (or even mentioned the two terms together) of ignorance. I think there IS a connection, and if as you say, "more child molesters are gay....than straight" then WHY IS THAT?

You basically just agreed with me. If gays are overrepresented amongst pedophiles (I don't think that most pedophiles are gay, or that most gays are pedophiles, just that a higher percentage of gays than straights are pedophiles), then being gay does make one more likely to be a pedophile.

My point is just that mentioning the two conditions together does not imply bigotry or stupidity. Those statements just set me off, because I think there IS a correlation, however small.

Are you qualified to interpret or EVALUATE those statistics? If you are, why did you not detail what I will below even though you detailed a lot about your hunch?

Rapists and pedophiles tend to be male, yes. But you have stats that validly and reliably indicate gay male pedophiles (as a percentage of their own group) are more frequent than non-gay male pedophiles?

I checked out the report by Jon Dougherty that cites the REVIEW work of Steve Baldwin. I'm wondering what is Regent University. I'm also wondering what is its Law Review and if the review by Baldwin is so convincing, why is it published by a law review?

Dougherty's description of the statistics, as I expected, is ambiguous and poorly detailed (here comes the language issue again).

The first stat, which indicates non-incarcerated presumably male child molesters admitted to a certain range of acts on male targets. This tells me only the number of acts per individual molester and allows me to infer that later stats are actually counting the number of acts (improper) rather than the number of molesters (proper). For instance, in the next paragraph, it states "the rate of homosexual versus heterosexual child sexual abuse is staggering" and proceeds to the average number of abuses per molester (150.2 for each gay molester, 19.8 for each hetero molester. I can infer that they are just counting up the total number of violations (which is invalid) rather than counting the number of gay molesters versus non-gay molesters BECAUSE the latter numbers are easily attained (in fact, they have them, they just did not report them) and would have been presented if that's what they WANTED TO MEAN. My inference is solidified a few paragraphs later when Dougherty writes: "in terms of number of children abused PER OFFENDER, homosexuals abuse with far greater frequency," even though Dougherty acknowledges that "in terms of sheer numbers" heterosexual abuse may be FAR greater.

If you're having a hard time understanding, the following may help. Let's say there are 1000 heteros and 100 homos on this planet. Let's say the study was able to interview a random pool of 80 non-incarcerated child molesters and found out 75 were hetero (75/1000 = 7.5% of the total heteros on the planet) and 5 were gay (5/100 = 5% of the total gays on the planet). [there is no mention of the number of interviewees or even if Baldwin interviewed RANDOMLY. Strange. Also, notice in my make-believe scenario, the percentage of hetero child molesters with respect to the entire hetero pop. is higher (7.5%) than the percentage of gay child molesters with respect to the entire gay pop. (5%)]

Let's say the 5 gay molesters each abused 150 boys (150.2 per gay molester was actually given in the article); that would be a total of 750 abused boys. Let's say the 75 hetero molesters each abused 20 girls (19.8 was given in the article); that would be a total of 1500 abused girls. So it would seem that gay molesters, a tiny tiny percentage of the overall world population, might account for 50% of the world's child molestations. That may or may not be true BUT we need to focus on only the number of gay and hetero molesters (as a percentage of their own pop.), because EACH gay molester may abuse many many more times than their hetero counterpart. Hell, the article doesn't even state further aspects of the counting. For example, if a gay male might abuse 150 boys, are those 150 DIFFERENT boys or were some of those 150 abuses actually multiple abuses done on the same boy? I can infer that Baldwin did the latter. And what is the sample? Priests? Internet respondents? Come on, this is absolutely ridiculous, EVEN for a science NEWSPAPER ARTICLE.

Again, it is clear to me that the article purposefully focuses on the number of abuses per molester, most probably because it is one of the few stats that is easily attained that is damaging to gays. It is, however, a stat that is not meaningful on its own. It is also a stat that is not directly relevant and does not lend support to Speed-ER doc's hypothesis that gay men (as a percentage of their own pop.) might be more prone to child molestation than hetero men.

Ok, fine, my make-believe scenario only confused you more. But more importantly, everyone needs to understand the political motivations of the Dougherty article and why it had to be published in a "journal" called Regent University Law Review. Lol.

I'm sorry, but I do this all day. The Dougherty article (and quite probably the actual Baldwin review itself) has to be thrown out. I did not bother to check the other URL's that Speed-ER Doc gave. Why waste my time further?

I just want to finish this by clarifying what common sense and intuition really are. There is no such thing as absolute common sense. The brain builds circuits representing events that happen over and over and are commonplace. The experiential mind "feels" this phenomenon as "of course," when in reality before the circuits were built, the mind would argue to the death that it was not common sense. Intuition is not just a gut feeling; rather, it is a gut feeling based on prior experience.

My common sense and intuition come with a lot of background. And I actually "feel" exactly the opposite of what Speed-ER Doc feels.

shift_zoom8

01-04-2004, 08:34 AM

Oh, I don't want anyone to think I'm attacking Speed-ER Doc or trying to show him disrespect. He has a hunch and he weaved a compelling step-by-step logical plausibility. He left open the possibility that he might be wrong. So that's all fine.

All I'm saying is those citations may not be sufficient (definitely not the one I evaluated). The GOOD data may or may not already be out there. But it would be interesting to see what the good data might say. And whatever it might say should not piss anyone off.

But for every reason why a gay male might be more likely to molest a child, I can think of a reverse line of reasoning. For example, if gay individuals have more societal pressure, then a higher percentage might actually refrain from any gay activity, much less gay activity with a boy. Second, because of the outside pressure, gays might be more likely to seek the safety of their own communities, and these communities are readily available (internet is an obvious avenue). If gay communities can be easily and safely accessed, then a sense of safety and increased self-esteem and self-identity (both of which lead to better mental health) may actually work to prevent child molestation. In contrast, when a hetero male has sexual and other personal problems, where does he turn to? Third, when the majority has all eyes on you, you actually have increased pressure to help your community look good.

An independant line of thinking is that gay molesters might have easier prolonged access to boys because parents might have fewer qualms about letting their boy spend time with an adult male as opposed to letting their girl spend time with an adult male. This scenario might also account for Baldwin's stat of far more acts per gay molester (done repeatedly on the same boy).

The two lines of thinking above can be combined to explain how gay child molestations might actually occur at a LOWER rate (as a percentage of the gay population) than hetero child molestations, even though the number of acts per molester may be greater.

Speed-ER doc

01-04-2004, 09:03 AM

Umm, yeah. I TOLD you several times I was not happy with the first article.

It obviously comes from a journal with an extreme right-wing agenda (you don't need to be a lawyer to see that) and offers a paaucity of statistics and questionable references.

Are you qualified to interpret or EVALUATE those statistics? If you are, why did you not detail what I will below even though you detailed a lot about your hunch?

I have taken statistics, and have been formally trained to objectively evaluate the veracity of journal articles during medical school. I posted those articles on the fly, and have tried to guide you to the third one, which has hundreds of more reliable references for those interested in digging. I am not.

I was actually looking for someone like you with a more formal statistical background to help answer the question, but you pounced on the first article despite my warnings.

I agree with your analysis of the flawed methodology and conclusions of the first article for the reasons you discussed.

But.... notice in my make-believe scenario, the percentage of hetero child molesters with respect to the entire hetero pop. is higher (7.5%) than the percentage of gay child molesters with respect to the entire gay pop. (5%)
why would you go to the trouble to "make up" a scenario and then rely on those data to come to a conclusion. You are violating your own principles, and your conclusions are even worse than the article in question.

Ok, fine, my make-believe scenario only confused you more. No, just confused the ISSUE more.

Here is what appears to be a better approximation of the problem, from the third article:

Excluding individuals that molest both boys and girls, the proportion of incarcerated men that molest boys but not girls is about 33%. (4-7) Therefore, as a first approximation, homosexuals appear considerably overrepresented among child molesters.

4. Mohr JW, Turner RE, Jerry MB. Pedophilia and exhibitionism.: University of Toronto Press, 1964.

5. Gebhard P, Gagnon J, Pomeroy W, et al. Sex offenders: an analysis of types. New York: Harper & Row, 1965.

6. Freund K, Heasman G, Racansky IG, et al. Pedophilia and heterosexuality vs. homosexuality. J Sex Marital Ther 1984;10:193-200.

7. Freund K, Watson RJ. The Proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: An exploratory study. J Sex Marital Ther 1992;18(1):34-43.

In closing, what may appear to be a common sense "of course" type of obvious fact may with experimental study be shown to be absolutely incorrect. This is why we perform studies, and is the basis for the scientific method. The problem with someone's common sense, is that statistical variability exists. For instance, commercial airline transportation has repeatedly been shown to be the statistically safest method of transportation, as opposed to driving, bicycling, etc. If you have seen or been involved in an airline crash (or even two), you may perceive the opposite to be true, and feel it with all of your being.

I don't have an agenda here. If solid evidence proves me wrong, I accept that. The evidence I have presented supports my assertion. If you are going to comment, which I encourage, then please read my entire post on the subject.

Again, I apologize for the first article; as I said, it was the first one I pulled up, and I tried to comment on its weaknesses. I just wanted some evidence to support my comments, which ARE polarizing and inflammatory to some. I also apologize (again) for the editorialization of the third article, but if you can overlook that, there is more useful and better supported documentation in it. There are also weaknesses there as well. Show me some unbiased ones then. I do appreciate your comments, shift-zoom.

shift_zoom8

01-04-2004, 09:03 AM

Originally posted by Racer X-8
I've shared apartments with other guys a lot! Did I have sex with any of them? Did I want to marry any of them? I don't get it at all. I just simply totally don't understand it. I don't have a clue how any guy could get that way. I don't think for a second that it's hereditary. That's a cop-out. Go ahead and believe that crap if you want to try and justify your behavior. I think you are warped in the head big time! It's your environment, no doubt.

You don't need to understand it. You need to accept the FACT that SOME gays are indeed biological/genetic, meaning that some gayness has nothing to do with environment.

Did you review my earlier posts?

Oh, and I'm not going to help you or anyone else try to understand it. Now you know why scientists stay away from lay people. And why scientists of a particular domain stay away from scientists of a different domain. And finally why a scientist studying a domain, say emotion, from the cognitive neuroscience level (same domain, different LEVEL of analysis) stays away from another emotion researcher at a different level, say a developmental psychologist who studies socio-emotional development in infants. IT IS SO DAMN HARD to convince.

Again, it does not matter what you think. The issue has already been decided. It's a false debate at this point in our science knowledge base.

Did you know that often it takes 15 to 25 years for important discoveries to trickle down to the mass population, society, and policy?

shift_zoom8

01-04-2004, 09:40 AM

Speed-ER Doc,

I really would like to not spend too much more time on this. Some people have private messaged me and I've decided to not respond. It will take too much energy (please read my last post to Racer X-8) and will lead to nowhere.

I did read your posts. I believe my scenario was necessary to show that focus should be on the rate of gay molestation as a percentage of the gay population versus the rate of hetero molestation.

I needed to argue that other kinds of data (such as those in the Dougherty article) may not even be indirectly, "logically strung" to provide support for your hunch. To do that, I needed to scour whatever article with a magnifying glass, something that I feel you should have done.

And then I needed to provide a possible scenario where each gay molester has a ton of abuses but the rate of gay molestation is LOWER than hetero molestation, to show the lay public here that it can happen, despite the conclusion in the article, that there was absolutely no connection between the data cited and the conclusion in the article.

So what I'm saying is I ABSOLUTELY HAD TO show how the numbers can fall. I did not violate ANY of my own principles. I DID NOT come up with any of my own conclusions. I'm sure you understand that what I did was provide alternative hypotheses that NEED to be tested BEFORE Baldwin or Dougherty could come to their conclusions. My hunch is that you skimmed the article(s), possibly due to limited free time.

Scientists can not and do not throw out a hunch and provide a list of references that may induce others to automatically be more likely to accept the hunch. Science publications ALWAYS mull over relevant points in EACH reference. Some do a better job than others, that's for sure.

I just may check out the third citation. That 33% is eye-popping. But you know what I"m thinking about. I need to know the characteristics of that sample and how they got it. These kinds of studies are pretty simple. I'm focused entirely on how well the CONCLUSION maps onto the SAMPLE.