Where do you stand on the issue?

Neither? :) I could go on and on about how a homosexual lifestyle is inherently destructive - but I don't wish to offend...Honestly, it's not worth it to me to be 'right' or 'prove my ideas as right' but lose a friend, or make an enemy. :)

To keep in context with the question, however...

Neither one is 'okay' - however I do see Merritt in keeping government out of our personal lives as much as possible. If Mike wants to leave his entire estate to Bill, that's fine. If Nancy loves Mary, and wants to claim her as a dependant? Sure. If Mary is her daughter. But allowing for across the board legal relationships simply based on one's sexual preference opens a 'Pandora's box' which will/can hurt society. As-is Homosexual couples have the EXACT restrictions as Heterosexual couples, when it comes to who they can, or can't marry. Id Est, Marriage law applies to people regardless of the gender they may enjoy having sex with. Allowing for homosexual marriage is one step closer to establishing homosexual people as 'a minority'...which they are not. People are only homosexual based on their behavior - not like a black man, who was born black, and cannot, no matter WHAT, ever become a different race; Michael Jackson notwithstanding.

:)

Since a homosexual couple cannot reproduce, would I be able to, for example, marry my own brother?

Since a homosexual couple cannot reproduce, would I be able to, for example, marry my own brother?

How bout your sister if she has ovarian cancer and cannot reproduce? I think that would be a no for other laws.

I think answers 3 & 5 are the same. And my choice.

Oh - one thing, then I'll leave this thread... :)

Your first answer isn't intellectually honest - it should read: "Special Rights For Everyone Claiming to be homosexual - Marriage".


As I stated, the marriage rights and rules, As-IS are the same...homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally free to marry any human member of the opposite sex, who is at or above the age of consent.

:)

Regards,
-darin

Oh - one thing, then I'll leave this thread... :)

Your first answer isn't intellectually honest - it should read: "Special Rights For Everyone Claiming to be homosexual - Marriage".


As I stated, the marriage rights and rules, As-IS are the same...homosexuals and heterosexuals are equally free to marry any human member of the opposite sex, who is at or above the age of consent.

:)

Regards,
-darin


No, I think your mistaken there. Equal Rights is correct.
1.) Black men as you stated before and homosexuality are genetic and it has been documented thru science. GNOME PROJECT. The statement made that homosexuals have a choice is totally incorrect.
2.) Equal Rights - The choice to Love and Marry as one wishes too. Did anyone ever tell you who you had to choose to love or Marry? I do not think so, unless your from a third world country like India where they have pre arranged marriages at birth.

No, I think your mistaken there. Equal Rights is correct.
1.) Black men as you stated before and homosexuality are genetic and it has been documented thru science. GNOME PROJECT. The statement made that homosexuals have a choice is totally incorrect.
2.) Equal Rights - The choice to Love and Marry as one wishes too. Did anyone ever tell you who you had to choose to love or Marry? I do not think so, unless your from a third world country like India where they have pre arranged marriages at birth.

#1) It is not simply "documented thru science." It is a complex issue with many factors. I do believe that people may be born with homosexual tendencies, just like a personality. Just like how the way I've grown up COMBINED with my personality, is the cause for the way I choose to dress. But you simply cannot say that "The statement made that homosexuals have a choice is totally incorrect" - because it's not totally incorrect.

#2) In any debate it is unfair to combine into an assertion two principles that have totally separate implications and effects - "Did anyone ever tell you who you had to choose to love or Marry?" No. But that doesn't apply here. This is about who NOT to marry. And also, (important:) NOT about who not to love. As has already been brought up, there already are laws about who not to marry - that apply to everyone, regardless of sexual preference.

Note: I hope I'm not being rude and I'm not trying to take a side - I just don't think unfair, all-encompassing statements get anyone anywhere, besides a 10-page thread full of flaming.

By the way, I didn't choose a response to the poll because I think you've left out some important choices :)

IF homosexuality is a "Choice".... why on Earth would anyone actively CHOOSE to be homosexual?

Oh boy -- I can choose to be legally prevented from marrying the person I love! Goody!
I can opt for being declared a degenerate hell-bound sinner by every religion's fundamentalists! Woo Hoo!
I can actively seek to be banned from being a Boy Scout! Their uniforms are dorky anyway.
I can legally be prevented from adopting a child who desperately needs a home! Get used to that orphanage, kiddo.
I'll get to hear closed-minded rednecks call me faggot, queer, dyke, etc. to my face! I can hardly wait.

Gee. Does this make a particle of sense to any of you who think homosexuality is a choice? Sheesh. :rolleyes:

Who stole the divorce button!

Who stole the close this thread button? This is pretty much akin to religion and I predict very little new light will be shed on this subject in this thread which is going downhill fast. It is pretty much like abortion, you believe what you do for the reasons that you do, and these reasons are fundmental to your being, and it is highly unlikely you feelings on the subject are going to be changed, especially in a flame fest on a car forum.

you believe what you do for the reasons that you do, and these reasons are fundmental to your being, and it is highly unlikely you feelings on the subject are going to be changed, especially in a flame fest on a car forum.

That's very true.

I do have to say in response to this:

IF homosexuality is a "Choice".... why on Earth would anyone actively CHOOSE to be homosexual?

Oh boy -- I can choose to be legally prevented from marrying the person I love! Goody!
I can opt for being declared a degenerate hell-bound sinner by every religion's fundamentalists! Woo Hoo!
I can actively seek to be banned from being a Boy Scout! Their uniforms are dorky anyway.
I can legally be prevented from adopting a child who desperately needs a home! Get used to that orphanage, kiddo.
I'll get to hear closed-minded rednecks call me faggot, queer, dyke, etc. to my face! I can hardly wait.

Gee. Does this make a particle of sense to any of you who think homosexuality is a choice? Sheesh.

A lot of people in this world (read: the millions that are in the prison system at the very least) choose to do things that are self destructive. I'm not saying that homosexuality is akin to being a criminal, at all. What I am saying, is that simply stating that there are negative consequences to a choice doesn't mean people would not make that choice.

Human addictions/habits also portray this. A person may "choose" to get up at 6am on only 4 hours of sleep not because their body doesn't need the sleep - it very well could be that they got up at 6am every day for the last 4 years of their life. Or a smoker might not be able to kick his addication not for the nicotine - but for the habit of reaching for a cigarette after each meal.

Again, I'm very afraid that everyone is going to think I am purposely comparing homosexuality to bad habits/addictions. In fact, I am trying to avoid making that link, so as to be able to give impartial input to this topic.

To sum up, the reasons and psychology that have to do with any choice any human makes go much, much deeper than the immediate risks/consequences. In many if not all cases, it even involves a bit of heredity. However, it is unscientific to state that heredity could have ENTIRE control over a set of decisions for the rest of our lives.

IF homosexuality is a "Choice".... why on Earth would anyone actively CHOOSE to be homosexual?

A friend of mine CHOSE to be with a woman because she, after being treated badly by men throughout her life including her ex-husband, greatly mistrusts the opposite sex. It wasn't a genetic lesbianism.

I do have to say in response to this:

A lot of people in this world (read: the millions that are in the prison system at the very least) choose to do things that are self destructive. I'm not saying that homosexuality is akin to being a criminal, at all.
But you DO seem to be saying that homosexuality is akin to being self-destructive. How is that the case? Who is being harmed? Crimes have victims. Who is the "victim" when two persons who happen to be of the same gender fall in love and wish to marry?

But you DO seem to be saying that homosexuality is akin to being self-destructive. How is that the case? Who is being harmed? Crimes have victims. Who is the "victim" when two persons who happen to be of the same gender fall in love and wish to marry?

You just said I SEEM to be saying that, and then asked me to defend it. Then you further asked me to defend the assumption that homosexuality is a crime.

I'm not saying that homosexuality is akin to being a criminal, at all.

What I am saying, is that simply stating that there are negative consequences to a choice doesn't mean people would not make that choice.

Also, to answer your question hypothetically, if homosexuality were self-destructive, then the "who" in the harm is the person themself.

He would have gotten a lot more honest poll results if who you voted for wasn't displayed. The majority of americans are against it.

..but you already knew all of this, so I doubt there was much interest in real results.

Since a homosexual couple cannot reproduce, would I be able to, for example, marry my own brother?Maybe in Alabama or Tennessee... ;)

What if my wife were baren? Your argument is to easy to refute. I say take the government completely out of marriage (no tax credit at all) and let the churches or institutions like the Masonic Order decide if they will honor the marriage. When did the government decided to regulate it anyway. Who gave the governement the right to decide who gets married?

We wouldn't end homosexuality if we allow them to get married. I don't think its fair to restrict their rights, but i do see homosexuality bad, like pedophilia, so no to same sex marrige.

We wouldn't end homosexuality if we allow them to get married. I don't think its fair to restrict their rights, but i do see homosexuality bad, like pedophilia, so no to same sex marrige.Homosexuality is exceptable in most Muslim countries... why are you so down on it? And you need to really do some serious soul searching before you put pedophilia and homosexuality in the same category. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who were molested as children who would be very offended by your statement. They are not the same thing at all! Consensual sex and rape can not be put in the same category.

Neither? :) I could go on and on about how a homosexual lifestyle is inherently destructive - but I don't wish to offend...Honestly, it's not worth it to me to be 'right' or 'prove my ideas as right' but lose a friend, or make an enemy. :)

To keep in context with the question, however...

Neither one is 'okay' - however I do see Merritt in keeping government out of our personal lives as much as possible. If Mike wants to leave his entire estate to Bill, that's fine. If Nancy loves Mary, and wants to claim her as a dependant? Sure. If Mary is her daughter. But allowing for across the board legal relationships simply based on one's sexual preference opens a 'Pandora's box' which will/can hurt society. As-is Homosexual couples have the EXACT restrictions as Heterosexual couples, when it comes to who they can, or can't marry. Id Est, Marriage law applies to people regardless of the gender they may enjoy having sex with. Allowing for homosexual marriage is one step closer to establishing homosexual people as 'a minority'...which they are not. People are only homosexual based on their behavior - not like a black man, who was born black, and cannot, no matter WHAT, ever become a different race; Michael Jackson notwithstanding.

:)

Sorry. but civil rights apply to behavioral choices as well as immutable attributes. Consider, for example, religious minorities.

We wouldn't end homosexuality if we allow them to get married. I don't think its fair to restrict their rights, but i do see homosexuality bad, like pedophilia, so no to same sex marrige.Of course - you always take a diametric position to anything Israel does (They allow homosexual couples).

They are not the same thing at all! Consensual sex and rape can not be put in the same category.Ironic since many times consensual sex is deemed rape. How about that teenager who was doing his hot teacher :)

homosexuality bad, like pedophilia

How the hell can you draw a positive correalation between these two???? :confused:

Ironic since many times consensual sex is deemed rape. How about that teenager who was doing his hot teacher :)There are laws against sex with children by adults and mainly because of mental maturity. It's not too difficult for the average adult to confuse a young teenager into thinking sex with them is ok especially if you take the hormone changes into account. But now we are arguing over semantics and that isn't the point of this argument and I probably would've done her too if I was in his shoes. :p

Homosexuality is exceptable in most Muslim countries... why are you so down on it? And you need to really do some serious soul searching before you put pedophilia and homosexuality in the same category. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who were molested as children who would be very offended by your statement. They are not the same thing at all! Consensual sex and rape can not be put in the same category.

I really don't care about these Muslim countries, they can do whatever they want to do, most are corrupt anyways.

I link homosexuality with pedophilia when it comes to both being abnormal things that people have the urge to do, its just ignorance.

Of course - you always take a diametric position to anything Israel does (They allow homosexual couples).

I actually was agaisnt homosexuality before i found out that Israel allows it, which i don't give a shit about.

I really don't care about these Muslim countries, they can do whatever they want to do, most are corrupt anyways.

I link homosexuality with pedophilia when it comes to both being abnormal things that people have the urge to do, its just ignorance.

"Ignorance" MUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...thank you for embodying Ignorance :D

Who really gives a flying fuck if two people of the same sex get married...WOOPITY FUCKING DO...LET THEM DO IT, sheesh people!

Also, to answer your question hypothetically, if homosexuality were self-destructive, then the "who" in the harm is the person themself.

It's not self-destructive. The destruction is usually wrought by some closed-minded moron with a baseball bat and a raging case of homophobia.

IMHO...

- Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Add a few thousand years worth of tradition, religious implications, etc.

- I think same-sex unions should have the option of a "marriage-like" domestic partner status that carries the same/similar legal rights as marriage, but with a different name. For example, my company allows for a domestic partner to have medical benefits like a spouse.

My $0.02

IMHO...

- Marriage is a union between a man and a woman. Add a few thousand years worth of tradition, religious implications, etc.

My $0.02

Marriage has always been a property contract until the 20th century...yes a property contract to own a wife...so if you think what marriage is now has been around for a few thousand years...you are wrong, the 'tradition of marriage' reasoning is a severly overused incorrect argument

It's not self-destructive. The destruction is usually wrought by some closed-minded moron with a baseball bat and a raging case of homophobia.

:D absolutely right

Marriage has always been a property contract until the 20th century...yes a property contract to own a wife...so if you think what marriage is now has been around for a few thousand years...you are wrong, the 'tradition of marriage' reasoning is a severly overused incorrect argumentNot really. It boils down to what society and what time you're speaking about.

Example:

Once upon a time, people weren't monogamous, marriage was a temporary one year agreement (spoken out in front of the rest of the village) that only these two would be together for a while in order to create offspring with a defined mother/father (otherwise who knows who is the dad?). It was up to them if they wanted to extend it longer.

And to go a step further than my previous post - the village would be part of the marriage, no one was to break into the marriage. This is how our ideas of marriage were formed. The village support structure has changed into our current day ideas of trying to help family - tax breaks for couples so that they can support their children, and is why many consider marriage centered around children/offspring.

It's true that some couples never have kids, but that's an exception.

Face it, the purpose of marriage is to have kids, and to create a support structure for them. It even says so in the fine print. If you don't have sex, you can end the marriage.

lets EXPAND this from the confines of just Homosexuality and Heterosexuality...for many reasons

Transexuals...where do they fit in the picture to those who are against marriage for Homosexuals?
Pre-op transexuals and Post-op

you have a genetic 'male' who has been transformed in to what appears a genetic female...still legally a male by law, but cannot have children or make a woman pregnant...this person can still be married to a woman, but it sure erks those conservatives :D

Also Jason, you keep saying you promote 'freedom' yet you are very quick to limit freedom of others, why is that and why do conservatives do that? I don't understand

Also Jason, you keep saying you promote 'freedom' yet you are very quick to limit freedom of others, why is that and why do conservatives do that? I don't understandYou may be inferring what you think my position is, but I haven't actually made a position in this thread. I'm only putting in random thoughts :)

I wasn't justifying either viewpoint, only elaborating what you seemed to have missed with why marriage is what it is, and why so many are against expanding its definition.

This has to be one of the silliest, symbol-laden debates of all time. In reality, the legal force of all marriages is that of a "civil union," in which the state confers a set of benefits and responsibilities on the participants through a legal contract.

With that in mind, a simple solution would be to have the state get out of the "marriage" business, altogether, transforming all current and future "marriages" into "civil unions" and providing the option to any couple (gay or straight) that wishes to protect their "union" legally.

If a couple wishes to be "married," they can then go to an organization that provides such a service. You may have heard of them; they're called "churches" (and other religious organizations). Such organizations would be free to set whatever restrictions they please on the types of "couples" they are willing to "marry."

Such a solution has a number of advantages. It restricts the actions of the government to areas in which it is competent (i.e. legal relationships) and eliminates its interference in what is essentially religiously sanctioned relationships. It eliminates concerns that "marriage" is somehow re-defined (for people who care about such things.) And it provides a set of responsibilities and benefits for couples who are currently excluded from enjoying them.

In reality, the only people who would "suffer" from such a change are those who believe it's the responsibility of the state to authorize religious unions, a responsibility that serves neither the state nor religious groups.

IF homosexuality is a "Choice".... why on Earth would anyone actively CHOOSE to be homosexual?

Oh boy -- I can choose to be legally prevented from marrying the person I love! Goody!
I can opt for being declared a degenerate hell-bound sinner by every religion's fundamentalists! Woo Hoo!
I can actively seek to be banned from being a Boy Scout! Their uniforms are dorky anyway.
I can legally be prevented from adopting a child who desperately needs a home! Get used to that orphanage, kiddo.
I'll get to hear closed-minded rednecks call me faggot, queer, dyke, etc. to my face! I can hardly wait.

Gee. Does this make a particle of sense to any of you who think homosexuality is a choice? Sheesh. :rolleyes:
I already posted an answer to this question in another thread, sorry you missed it. Why would anyone choose to be homosexual? Why would anyone choose to look like this? Same difference. Freak of nature? No, your choice.

I link homosexuality with pedophilia when it comes to both being abnormal things that people have the urge to do, its just ignorance.I take it a step further and repeat my position that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. There is a positive correlation between the two conditions.

You may be inferring what you think my position is, but I haven't actually made a position in this thread. I'm only putting in random thoughts :)

I wasn't justifying either viewpoint

thats fair, may I ask what is your position? My thoughts are (and don't hold me to this) you scientific processing of the situation can only allow for freedom to prevail and this allows marriage

on the other hand your conservative leanings, do sometimes lock your free mind and your posts become in conflict with your views on reality

This was a serious case of IMHO...but I would like to hear your 'IMHO' for this matter

-the other J

I already posted an answer to this question in another thread, sorry you missed it. Why would anyone choose to be homosexual? Why would anyone choose to look like this? Same difference. Freak of nature? No, your choice.

I used to get angry at you Speeder, now I just feel sorry for you

This has to be one of the silliest, symbol-laden debates of all time. In reality, the legal force of all marriages is that of a "civil union," in which the state confers a set of benefits and responsibilities on the participants through a legal contract.You are the closest person so far to get it right, what you're saying is logical and could work, but if what you are saying is true, then it's a matter of wording. You have a vocal minority who wants the wording changed in order to appease them. Why does it matter if it's just the way marriage or civil union is described?

The answer is because this isn't about marriage. This is about homosexuals wanting to be socially acceptable. It doesn't matter if civil unions and marriage are exactly the same, they want the same word. What better way to becoming equal in the minds of the people than having the government sanction their lifestyle the same as heterosexuals?

So my point is, it isn't about marriage. It's about using the government to make homosexuality socially acceptable.

Of course, those against it, are also against judges doing the same exact thing with laws - ruling from the bench.

I'd like to get in better wording, and better explanations, but i'm leaving shortly for a job interview... so don't have the time.

I said:

Also, to answer your question hypothetically, if homosexuality were self-destructive, then the "who" in the harm is the person themself.

It's not self-destructive. The destruction is usually wrought by some closed-minded moron with a baseball bat and a raging case of homophobia.

I'd really like it if everyone who reads my posts (and it seems Jason's as well) would read them entirely.

My answer above was in response to your question: "You seem to be saying it's self destructive. Who is harmed?"

To answer that question in and of itself - "who" = "self". I said "hypothetically" because I in fact wasn't saying that it was self-destructive. I am purposely not taking a position so that the points I make are not subjective or based on opinion. This way, you can all fairly discuss the subject.

Please, don't argue with the things I am not saying.

...The answer is because this isn't about marriage. This is about homosexuals wanting to be socially acceptable. It doesn't matter if civil unions and marriage are exactly the same, they want the same word. What better way to becoming equal in the minds of the people than having the government sanction their lifestyle the same as heterosexuals?

So my point is, it isn't about marriage. It's about using the government to make homosexuality socially acceptable...Not quite. It's about religious conservatives wanting "the government to sanction their lifestyle" as superior to relationships between gays or unmarried heterosexuals.

This is not a new phenomenon. Those on the losing side of historical trends frequently seek to have government place obstacles in the face of social change in order to preserve their status. Other examples include advocacy of prohibition among Protestant conservatives prior to 1919. The Prohibition Movement was essentially an anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic social movement devoted to preserving the status of native (mainly rural) Protestants.

Nor is it limited to the United States. Fundamentalist Islam reflects similar sentiments in an effort to preserve social status of religious groups in the face of modernization.

I take it a step further and repeat my position that homosexuals are more likely to be pedophiles than heterosexuals. There is a positive correlation between the two conditions.Sorry, wrong again. (For someone whose job involves scientific inquiry, I'm surprised you'd make a statement that runs counter to virtually all of the research in the area.)

"Are homosexual adults in general sexually attracted to children and are preadolescent children at greater risk of molestation from homosexual adults than from heterosexual adults? There is no reason to believe so. The research to date all points to there being no significant relationship between a homosexual lifestyle and child molestation. There appears to be practically no reportage of sexual molestation of girls by lesbian adults, and the adult male who sexually molests young boys is not likely to be homosexual (Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147)."

A more complete review of the literature is available in a number of easily accessed web sites. Among them....

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

I used to get angry at you Speeder, now I just feel sorry for youCry me a river.

Sorry, wrong again. (For someone whose job involves scientific inquiry, I'm surprised you'd make a statement that runs counter to virtually all of the research in the area.)
Sorry, you are wrong, as usual.

Plenty of supporting evidence here. Pedophiles are clearly overrepresented among homosexuals.

http://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com/pedophilia.htm

I'm trying to stay out of this thread...but one of the last posts sorta irked me...he's taken a discussion about marriage, and used it to insult christians....The following op/ed applies to this topic now...on a couple levels.

This isn't about religious groups trying to impose values, the topic of homosexual marriage is about homosexuals trying to impose THEIR values upon the majority of the population.



Don't discount moral views (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/persecution/pch0072.html) - by John Leo.

I am struggling to understand the "don't impose your values" argument. According to this popular belief, it is wrong, and perhaps dangerous, to vote your moral convictions unless everybody else already shares them.

Of course if everybody already shared them, no imposition would be necessary. Nobody ever explains exactly what constitutes an offense in voting one's values, but the complaints appear to be aimed almost solely at conservative Christians, who are viewed as divisive when they try to "force their religious opinions on us." But as UCLA law Prof. Eugene Volokh writes, "That's what most lawmaking is — trying to turn one's opinions on moral or pragmatic subjects into law."

Those who think Christians should keep their moral views to themselves, it seems to me, are logically bound to deplore many praiseworthy causes, including the abolition movement, which was mostly the work of the evangelical churches courageously applying Christian ideas of equality to the entrenched institution of slavery. The slave owners, by the way, frequently used "don't impose your values" arguments, contending that whether they owned blacks or not was a personal and private decision and therefore nobody else's business. The civil rights movement, though an alliance of Christians, Jews, and nonbelievers, was primarily the work of the black churches arguing from explicitly Christian principles.

Double standard

The "don't impose" people make little effort to be consistent, deploring, for example, Roman Catholics who act on their church's beliefs on abortion and stem cells but not those who follow the pope's insistence that the rich nations share their wealth with poor nations or his opposition to the death penalty and the invasion of Iraq. If the "don't impose" people wish to mount a serious argument, they will have to attack "imposers" on both sides of the issues they discuss — not just their opponents. They will also have to explain why arguments that come from religious beliefs are less worthy than similar arguments that come from secular principles or simply from hunches or personal feelings. Nat Hentoff, a passionate opponent of abortion, isn't accused of imposing his opinions, because he is an atheist. The same arguments and activity by a Christian activist would most likely be seen as a violation of some sort.

Consistency would also require the "don't impose" supporters to speak up about coercive schemes intended to force believers to violate their own principles: antiabortion doctors and nurses who are required in some jurisdictions to study abortion techniques; Catholic agencies forced to carry contraceptive coverage in health plans; evangelical college groups who believe homosexuality is a sin defunded or disbanded for not allowing gays to become officers in their groups; the pressure from the ACLU and others to force the Boy Scouts to admit gays, despite a Supreme Court ruling that the Scouts are entitled to go their own way.

Then there is the current case of Rocco Buttiglione, an Italian Christian Democrat who was named to be justice and home affairs commissioner of the European Union, then rejected for having an opinion that secular liberals find repugnant: He believes homosexuality is a sin. The Times of London attacked the hounding of Buttiglione "for holding personal beliefs that are at odds with the prevailing social orthodoxy . . . despite a categorical statement that he would not let those beliefs intrude upon policy decisions." The Times said this is a clear attempt by Buttiglione's opponents to impose their views. No word of protest yet from "don't impose" proponents.

Sometimes the "don't impose" argument pops up in an odd form, as when John Kerry tried to define the stem-cells argument as science versus ideology. But the stem-cell debate in fact featured ideology versus ideology — the belief that the chance to eliminate many diseases outweighs the killing of infinitesimal embryos versus the belief that killing embryos for research is a moral violation and a dangerous precedent. Both arguments are serious moral ones. Those who resent religiously based arguments often present themselves as rational and scientific, whereas people of faith are dogmatic and emotional. This won't do. As Professor Volokh argues, "All of our opinions are ultimately based on unproven and unprovable moral premises." No arguments are privileged because they come from secular people, and none are somehow out of bounds because they come from people of faith. Religious arguments have no special authority in the public arena, but the attempt to label those arguments as illegitimate because of their origin is simply a fashionable form of prejudice. Dropping the "don't impose" argument would be a step toward improving the political climate.

(Groth & Gary, 1982, p. 147)."

The world also knew nothing about Adult ADD in 1982...

The world also knew nothing about Adult ADD in 1982...
Or Hepatitis C, or HIV for that matter, two conditions also overrepresented among homosexuals.

Marriage has always been a property contract until the 20th century...yes a property contract to own a wife...so if you think what marriage is now has been around for a few thousand years...you are wrong, the 'tradition of marriage' reasoning is a severly overused incorrect argument
Not sure where you got that info, but it's inaccurate. Yes, SOME societies have treated the social relationship as one of ownership, while to others that was used as a legal technicality. Sometimes it has been treated as a business arrangement. There is also quite a bit of religious significance attached to the marriage contract in most societies.

However in the second bullet that was selectively omitted (ahem) I suggested a similar status for same-sex partnerships:

"- I think same-sex unions should have the option of a "marriage-like" domestic partner status that carries the same/similar legal rights as marriage, but with a different name. For example, my company allows for a domestic partner to have medical benefits like a spouse."

The world also knew nothing about Adult ADD in 1982...And for a more recent review of the literature...

"In a more recent literature review, Dr. Nathaniel McConaghy (1998) similarly cautioned against confusing homosexuality with pedophilia. He noted, "The man who offends against prepubertal or immediately postpubertal boys is typically not sexually interested in older men or in women" (p. 259)."

Same website as cited above...

Sorry, but the research in pedophilia and homosexuality had already been in progress throughout the 20th century. Moreover, virtually no contrary evidence has been uncovered since 1982.

Sorry, but the research in pedophilia and homosexuality had already been in progress throughout the 20th century. Moreover, virtually no contrary evidence has been uncovered since 1982.

As a friend on another board posted...
Believe me, I take no pleasure in that fact. I'm not laughing and saying, "Aha - I was right!" It is the sad and sickening truth that, while homosexuals make up 2-3% of the population, they perpetrate 25-40% of child molestations. No amount of creative statistic-juggling can change it (and it's sure as hell not for lack of trying). We can all cry "homophobe!" till the cows come home - the truth still won't go away.


Read this (http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet2.html) Sources for studies, data appear at the end of the article.

Sorry, but the research in pedophilia and homosexuality had already been in progress throughout the 20th century. Moreover, virtually no contrary evidence has been uncovered since 1982.Except for these 100 sources, you mean?

References:

in DSM-IV-TR™. (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) pp. 302.302.
V. L. Quinsey, T. C. Chaplin, etc, Behav Ther 10, 562 (1979).
J. B. Murray, J Psychol 134, 211 (Mar, 2000).
J. W. Mohr, R. E. Turner, M. B. Jerry, Pedophilia and exhibitionism. (University of Toronto Press, 1964), pp.
P. Gebhard, J. Gagnon, W. Pomeroy, C. Christenson, Sex offenders: an analysis of types. (Harper & Row, New York, 1965), pp.
K. Freund, G. Heasman, I. G. Racansky, G. Glancy, J Sex Marital Ther 10, 193 (1984).
K. Freund, R. J. Watson, J Sex Marital Ther 18, 34 (1992).
K. Freund, R. Watson, D. Rienzo, J Sex Marital Ther 13, 260 (Winter, 1987).
K. Freund, R. J. Watson, Psychol Assess 3, 254 (1991).
K. M. Beier, Int J Legal Med 111, 133 (1998).
G. Abel, J. Becker, M. Mittleman, etc, J Interpersonal Violence 2, 3 (1987).
W. L. Marshall, H. E. Barbaree, A. Eccles, J Interpersonal Violence 6, 323 (1991).
E. Brongersma, J Homosex 20, 145 (1990).
M. Gordon, J Family Violence 5, 321 (1990).
W. C. Holmes, G. B. Slap, Jama 280, 1855 (Dec 2, 1998).
G. R. Holmes, L. Offen, G. Waller, Clin Psychol Rev 17, 69 (1997).
K. Freund, R. Blanchard, J Homosex 9, 7 (Fall, 1983).
K. Freund, R. Blanchard, J Sex Marital Ther 13, 25 (1987).
G. Phillips, R. Over, Arch Sex Behav 21, 543 (Dec, 1992).
R. Blanchard, R. Dickey, Sex Abuse 10, 273 (1998).
R. Blanchard, A. F. Bogaert, Arch Sex Behav 25, 551 (Dec, 1996).
M. B. Jones, R. Blanchard, Hum Biol 70, 775 (Aug, 1998).
A. F. Bogaert, Arch Sex Behav 27, 467 (Oct, 1998).
R. Blanchard, Ann Rev Sex Res 8, 27 (1997).
R. Blanchard, K. J. Zucker, P. T. Cohen-Kettenis, L. J. Gooren, J. M. Bailey, Arch Sex Behav 25, 495 (Oct, 1996).
D. W. Purcell, R. Blanchard, K. J. Zucker, Arch Sex Behav 29, 349 (Aug, 2000).
R. Blanchard, A. F. Bogaert, Arch Sex Behav 27, 595 (Dec, 1998).
R. Blanchard et al., Arch Sex Behav 29, 463 (Oct, 2000).
R. Blanchard, A. F. Bogaert, Am J Psychiatry 153, 27 (Jan, 1996).
A. F. Bogaert, S. Bezeau, M. Kuban, R. Blanchard, J Abnorm Psychol 106, 331 (May, 1997).
R. Blanchard, K. J. Zucker, Am J Psychiatry 151, 1375 (Sep, 1994).
R. Blanchard, K. J. Zucker, M. Siegelman, R. Dickey, P. Klassen, J Biosoc Sci 30, 511 (Oct, 1998).
R. Blanchard, P. M. Sheridan, J Nerv Ment Dis 180, 40 (Jan, 1992).
T. J. Williams et al., Nature 404, 455 (2000).
R. Green, Psychol Med 30, 789 (Jul, 2000).
K. J. Zucker, R. Blanchard, M. Siegelman, Psychol Rep 92, 117 (Feb, 2003).
K. H. Poasa, R. Blanchard, K. J. Zucker, J Sex Marital Ther 30, 13 (Jan-Feb, 2004).
P. H. Connolly, R. Blanchard, K. J. Zucker, paper presented at the International Academy of Sex Research conference, Bloomington 2003.
A. F. Bogaert, J. Cairney, J Biosoc Sci 36, 19 (Jan, 2004).
K. Freund, M. Kuban, Arch Sex Behav 22, 619 (Dec, 1993).
K. Freund, R. Langevin, Arch Sex Behav 5, 415 (Sep, 1976).
K. Freund, Behav Res Ther 5, 339 (1967).
J. M. Cantor, R. Blanchard, A. D. Paterson, A. F. Bogaert, Arch Sex Behav 31, 63 (Feb, 2002).
R. Blanchard, A. F. Bogaert, Am J Human Biol 16, 151 (Mar-Apr, 2004).
E. O. Laumann, J. H. Gagnon, R. T. Michael, etc, The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994), pp. xxxii, 718 p.
A. M. Johnson, J. Wadsworth, K. Wellings, J. Field, Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. (Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 1995), pp.
W. R. Lindsay, J Intellect Disabil Res 46, 74 (2002).
C. J. Parry, W. R. Lindsay, J Intellect Disabil Res 47, 483 (Sep, 2003).
H. Brown, J. Stein, J Intellect Disabil Res 41 ( Pt 3), 215 (Jun, 1997).
R. Blanchard et al., Arch Sex Behav 28, 111 (Apr, 1999).
J. M. Cantor et al., Neuropsychology 18, 3 (Jan, 2004).
P. T. Ackerman, C. M. Goolsby, N. P. Paal, J Pediatr Psychol 13, 49 (Mar, 1988).
C. Lord, J Autism Dev Disord 22, 663 (Dec, 1992).
K. A. Flannery, J. Liederman, Dev Neuropsychol 10, 481 (1994).
J. M. Cantor, B. K. Christensen, P. E. Klassen, R. Dickey, R. Blanchard, paper presented at the International Academy of Sex Research conference, Montreal 2001.
F. B. Furlow, T. Armijo-Prewitt, S. W. Gangestad, R. Thornhill, Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 264, 823 (Jun 22, 1997).
L. Ellis, A. Walsh, in The scientific study of general intelligence: tribute to Arthur R. Jensen H. Nyborg, Ed. (Elsevier Science, Oxford, U.K., 2003).
G. Duffield, A. Hassiotis, E. Vizard, J Forensic Psychiatry 9, 294–304 (1998).
K. Côté, C. M. Earls, M. L. Lalumière, Sex Abuse 14, 67 (2002).
M. L. Lalumière, G. T. Harris, V. L. Quinsey, M. E. Rice, Sex Abuse 10, 5 (1998).
M. L. Lalumiere et al., paper presented at the Paper presented at the Annual Forensic Day of the University of Toronto, Penetanguishene, ON, Canada 2000.
T. Lang, Zeitschrift fuXr die GesaXmte Neurologie und Psychiatrie 155, 702 (1936).
T. Lang, J Nerv Ment Dis 92, 55 (1940).
T. Lang, Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemellologiae 9, 370 (1960).
B. K. Suarez, T. R. Przybeck, Arch Sex Behav 9, 1 (1980).
E. Slater, Lancet 1, 69 (1962).
K. J. Zucker, R. Blanchard, J Nerv Ment Dis 182, 528 (Sep, 1994).
E. Slater, in Symposium on Nuclear Sex. D. R. Smith, W. M. Davidson, Eds. (Heinemann, London, 1958) pp. 79-83.
A. Bell, M. Weinberg, Homosexualities: a study of diversities among men and women. (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1978), pp.
K. Jay, A. Young, The gay report. (Summit Books, New York, 1979), pp.
P. Weatherburn, A. J. Hunt, F. C. I. Hickson, P. M. Davies, The sexual lifestyles of gay and bisexual men in England and Wales. (Project SIGMA, London, 1992. [See http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_98_12.html]), pp.
D. Thorstad, J Homosex 20, 251 (1990).
M. C. Seto, M. L. Lalumiere, R. Blanchard, Psychol Assess 12, 319 (Sep, 2000).
M. C. Seto, W. D. Murphy, J. Page, L. Ennis, Ann N Y Acad Sci 989, 118 (Jun, 2003).
K. Freund, R. Langevin, S. Cibiri, Y. Zajac, Br J Psychiatry 122, 163 (Feb, 1973).
J. M. Bailey, S. Gaulin, Y. Agyei, B. Gladue, J Person Soc Psychol 66, 1081 (1994).
W. Jankowiak, E. Hill, J. Donovan, Ethol Sociobiol 13, 73 (1992).
Z. A. Silverthorne, V. L. Quinsey, Arch Sex Behav 29, 67 (2000).
W. Pedersen, K. Hegna, Soc Sci Med 56, 135 (Jan, 2003).
W. Pedersen, K. Hegna, Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 120, 215 (Jan 20, 2000).
T. W. Haywood, H. M. Kravitz, L. S. Grossman, O. E. Wasyliw, D. W. Hardy, Child Abuse Negl 20, 527 (Jun, 1996).
T. W. Haywood, H. M. Kravitz, O. E. Wasyliw, J. Goldberg, J. L. Cavanaugh, Jr., Child Abuse Negl 20, 1233 (Dec, 1996).
T. G. Plante, G. Manuel, C. Bryant, Pastoral Psychology 45, 129 (1996).
J. A. Loftus, R. J. Camargo, Ann Sex Res 6, 287 (1993).
R. Langevin, S. Curnoe, J. Bain, Child Abuse Negl 24, 535 (Apr, 2000).
F. Goss, in The Advocate. (1997), vol. 735 (June 10), pp. 27, 28, 37, 39.
A. N. Groth, H. J. Birnbaum, Arch Sex Behav 7, 175 (May, 1978).
C. Jenny, T. A. Roesler, K. L. Poyer, Pediatrics 94, 41 (1994).
D. Finkelhor, in Child sex abuse: new theory and research. (Free Press, New York, 1984) pp. 47.
J. Halpern, Social Casework 68, 88 (1987).
W. D. Erickson, N. H. Walbek, R. K. Seely, Arch Sex Behav 17, 77 (Feb, 1988).
M. J. Spencer, P. Dunklee, Pediatrics 78, 133 (1986).
C. Black, W. Pokorny, C. McGill, F. Harberg, J Pediatr Surg 17, 501 (1982).
K. Edgardh, K. Ormstad, Acta Paediatr 89, 310 (Mar, 2000).
K. M. Gorey, D. R. Leslie, Child Abuse Negl 21, 391 (Apr, 1997).
E. W. Chow, A. L. Choy, Arch Sex Behav 31, 211 (Apr, 2002).
A. J. Cooper, S. Swaminath, D. Baxter, C. Poulin, Can J Psychiatry 35, 334 (May, 1990).
D. M. Vandiver, G. Kercher, Sex Abuse 16, 121 (Apr, 2004).
L. Mealey, J Sex Res 34, 223 (1997).
C. Yelland, M. Tiggemann, Eat Behav 4, 107 (Aug, 2003).http://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com/pedophilia.htm

And your argument is poor. Just because MOST pedophiles are not attracted to adults does not alter the fact that a higher proportion of homosexual adults are attracted to (and have sex with) children than heterosexual adults are attracted to children. This is also addressed extensively in my source. Hell, they even ADMIT IT!

Thorstad described a homosexual observing the following: “A point I’ve been trying to make is that if we reject the boy-lovers in our midst today we’d better stop waving the banner of the Ancient Greeks, of Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Oscar Wilde, Walt Whitman, Horatio Alger, and Shakespeare. We’d better stop claiming them as part of our heritage unless we are broadening our concepts of what it means to be gay today.” (72) That's from the Journal of Homosexuality, by the way. I highlighted it for you above.

Sorry, you are wrong, as usual.

Plenty of supporting evidence here. Pedophiles are clearly overrepresented among homosexuals.

http://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com/pedophilia.htm
From the home page of that site:

"Be warned that homosexual lifestyles are deadly. If you are seeking help or know of a homosexual who needs help, then click on the red cross for helpful resources."

There's much more, but I think the above pretty well sums up the agenda of that site.

From the home page of that site:

"Be warned that homosexual lifestyles are deadly. If you are seeking help or know of a homosexual who needs help, then click on the red cross for helpful resources."

There's much more, but I think the above pretty well sums up the agenda of that site.


? that statement is 'true'. It's an 'absolute truth'. Read the info - check out the sources of the data before you make a judgement - that's my advice, for what it's worth.


:D

From the home page of that site:

"Be warned that homosexual lifestyles are deadly. If you are seeking help or know of a homosexual who needs help, then click on the red cross for helpful resources."

There's much more, but I think the above pretty well sums up the agenda of that site.
There is a lot of harsh and maybe shocking information on that site if you look around. Their "agenda" does not blunt the truthfullness of the evidence found in the peer-reviewed sources they use to obtain their information.

Disclaimer: The information presented herein is for educational purposes; it is meant to encourage educational purposes; it is meant to encourage debate about the merits of the demands of homosexual activists. You agree that you will not use the information herein to justify denying individuals engaging in homosexual behavior the right to life, liberty, bodily integrity, fair employment, and fair housing.

Okay Doc....

Where in that vast list of references does it say that lesbians are more likely to be pedophiles? Seems to me that the articles you listed (and I'm sure you've read all of them, right?) are focused on the alleged proclivities of homosexual males.

If people opposed to marriage rights for everyone continue to drag issues like pedophilia into the picture in order to "prove" that being homosexual is bad (since being homosexual in and of itself is purely victimless) I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't tar everyone with the same brush. Please explain to me how being a lesbian is deadly -- to the ladies in question or to anyone else -- if I'm willing to stipulate that there is an increased risk of being physically attacked by the aforementioned baseball-bat-wielding-scripture-spewing-jerk.

Edit: Following your logic, since being a Catholic priest is has obvious and undeniable correlation to being a child molester, we should prohibit men from becoming priests... right?

Edit: Following your logic, since being a Catholic priest is has obvious and undeniable correlation to being a child molester, we should prohibit men from becoming priests... right?

...again, evidence showing homosexuality as being destructive. The priests, engage in homosexual acts, with the alter boys. Had the priests not succumbed to their homosexual urges, the molestation wouldn't happen.

Sad truth. :(

Sorry, you are wrong, as usual.

Plenty of supporting evidence here. Pedophiles are clearly overrepresented among homosexuals.

http://www.amazinginfoonhomosexuals.com/pedophilia.htmNope. Take a closer look at the website data you posted. Apart from the obvious agenda of the site, the research it cites does not say that "Pedophiles are overrepresented among homosexuals." If anything, it says that "homosexuals are overrepresented among pedophiles." (The studies cited are predominantly of pedophiles, not homosexuals.)

Why is this important? Because the likelihood that a homosexual would molest children cannot be estimated by examining only child molesters.

Furthermore, a number of studies cited define a "homosexual child molester" as someone who molests a child of his/her own sex. Yet, as the review of the literature admits, one cannot necessairly determine whether someone who molests a same-sex child is attracted to an adult of the same sex, the definition of a "homosexual." (Child molesters tend to be attracted to children rather than adults. Numerous studies indicate that child molesters are relatively indifferent to the sex of the children they molest.)

So why are there more "homosexual child molesters?" Easy. Boys are more easily available for molestation by older males than little girls (where cultural cautions are more likely to prevent such contacts.) A number of the studies cited on the website, including those that purport to show that homosexual child molesters are more predatory (molest more children) than heterosexual child molesters result from this tendency.

By the way, if you examine the website you cited, you'll find statements such as, "The etiology of homosexual teleiophilia (sexual preference for mature adults) may differ from that of homosexual pedophilia." Further, "... it is known that a number of male homosexuals are strongly attracted to muscular men (99) and desire to be muscular themselves to attract more homosexual men toward them. (99, 100) Of course, such men and homosexual teleiophiles in general are unlikely to molest children."

Would you like to try again?

...again, evidence showing homosexuality as being destructive. The priests, engage in homosexual acts, with the alter boys. Had the priests not succumbed to their homosexual urges, the molestation wouldn't happen.

Sad truth. :(

Good grief... what a classic example of misplaced blame! Has it occurred to you that if the Church allowed priests to marry (women or other men, as their inborn orientation dictates), they would have an acceptable outlet for their sex drive and wouldn't succumb to exploiting children in secret?

But no... instead, the Church shuffles the priests around to other parishes and pays out settlements to the victims who are willing to speak out. Seems to me the CHURCH is the destructive force here.

And I'm still waiting for the dirt on lesbians.... anyone???

...again, evidence showing homosexuality as being destructive. The priests, engage in homosexual acts, with the alter boys. Had the priests not succumbed to their homosexual urges, the molestation wouldn't happen.

Sad truth. :(DMP, sorry, but your understanding of sexual attraction among pedophiles is incorrect, but common. What is important to understand is that pedophiles are sexually attracted to children. The gender of the child is relatively unimportant. Although male pedophiles are more likely to molest boys than girls, that correlation can be accounted for by the greater availability of boys (to male adults) and the lower likelihood that boys report molestation, leading to repeated abuse among predators.

Your statement should have read, "Had the priests not succumbed to their (pedophillac) urges, the molestation wouldn't happen."

One may, of course, raise the question of whether pedophiles are overrepresented among priests/ministers. And that may be the case. That, however, is due to the fact that pedophiles frequently choose professions that enable them to be in unsupervised contact with children.

Except for these 100 sources, you mean?...I'm waiting eagerly for you to review the 100 sources you cited for evidence that supports your contention. I won't hold my breath.

...
And I'm still waiting for the dirt on lesbians.... anyone???Nope. You won't find much, if any. In fact, you'll find very little evidence of child molestation among women, period. This can be accounted for in part by the fact that sex between sexually mature boys and older women is often not reported as molestation. (And the few reports that exist are a relatively recent phenomenon.)

Further, physical contact between women and girls is less likely to be interpreted as "sexual" due to the greater acceptance of such contact in the culture as normal and less likely to be reported as molestation.

Interestingly, however, if there were a strong correlation between homosexuality and child molestation, one would expect it to show up among lesbians, as well. Since antecdotal evidence strongly suggests that sexual contact between women and younger partners is overwhelmingly heterosexual, this would again suggest that the link between homosexuality and molestation is a result of reporting bias and availability of partners rather than the actual incidence of such behavior.

? that statement is 'true'. It's an 'absolute truth'. Read the info - check out the sources of the data before you make a judgement - that's my advice, for what it's worth.


:DIn my experience "absolute truth" is a relatively rare commodity in almost all areas of human experience. This ain't one of 'em. :)

I'm trying to stay out of this thread...but one of the last posts sorta irked me...he's taken a discussion about marriage, and used it to insult christians....The following op/ed applies to this topic now...on a couple levels.

This isn't about religious groups trying to impose values, the topic of homosexual marriage is about homosexuals trying to impose THEIR values upon the majority of the population.DMP,

Sorry if my comments were taken "to insult Christians." That's neither what I said, nor what I meant. You'll notice, for example, that I referred to anti-Catholic bias underlying the Prohibition Movement. Last time I checked, the latter were Christians.

In fact, I happen to agree with much of what John Leo had to say in his column. My problem with the notion that gays are "trying to impose their values on the majority of the population" is that it seems to imply that I'll have to divorce my wife and find a guy to marry if they succeed. Once I discovered I can keep my wife, I felt a lot better and not likely to feel my "values" were being imposed upon. :)

this debate is exciting...I am seeing deep rooted hate and ignorance out of intelligent people, it is amazing and and scary at the same time

America's citizens overwhelmingly believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, as the last election showed. All you internet commandos who feel otherwise will have to be patient for another generation, it would appear. All the squawking in the world isn't going to change our minds. You can't impose your desires on the solid majority who feel otherwise. Sorry.

I have provided references that a considerable proportion of pedophiles are homosexual. It appears that the percentage of homosexual pedophiles is higher than the percentage of homosexuals in society, therefore making it more likely that a homosexual will molest an unrelated child than a heterosexual. This is for education purposes only. If you choose to let a gay man (or even worse, a gay teenage boy) babysit for you, that is your decision, and you must live with whatever happens, not me.

Some more data, for those who didn't read the link:

Bell and Weinberg reported that in the 1960s, 25% of white homosexual men and 14% of African-American homosexual men had had as sexual partners boys who were 16 years or younger when they themselves were 21 years or older. (69)

In The Gay Report, Jay and Young reported that 23% of male homosexuals and 6% of female homosexuals admitted to sexual interaction with youth less than 16 years of age. (70)

In the SIGMA study of British male homosexuals (late 1980s to early 1990s), 3% of the participants “had their first sexual experiences” with a man before the age of 10 years, about 10% by the age of 10 years, about 25% by the age of 12 years, and approximately 50% by the age of 14 years. (71)

? that statement is 'true'. It's an 'absolute truth'. Read the info - check out the sources of the data before you make a judgement - that's my advice, for what it's worth.

:D
Already did. It perpetuates stereotypes, misinformation, and bigotry, though it's not quite at the level of hate-mongering. Why would that solicit a big grin from you?

this debate is exciting...I am seeing deep rooted hate and ignorance out of intelligent people, it is amazing and and scary at the same time


wow. No way you are idiot-enough to believe that. There has been ZERO displays of hatred or ignorance here. This thread is full of people who have evaluated evidence, made conclusions based on that evidence, and are DEBATING their positions without getting personal. Would you believe a couple of us here have MET in real-life? Yup. :) jsh1120 and I have...I think he's a good guy! I hope he feels the same; REGARDLESS of which stance we take on a position, because people are MORE than the position they take on any one or even TEN subjects. Get a clue, and stop spouting :bs: rhetoric.


How's that liberal Kool-Aide taste?
;)

It solicits a big grin because I was SURE NOBODY with any amount of intellectual honesty would be able to read that data and determine it perpetuates stereotypes, misniformation, and bigotry. You seem quite intelligent, I had hoped you hadn't become closed-minded in your beliefs. I hope your beliefs serve you well, honestly.


Regards.

darin

I'm waiting eagerly for you to review the 100 sources you cited for evidence that supports your contention. I won't hold my breath.A nice review with references to each is found in the link. :rolleyes:

can we bring up Britney Spears again? lets play the Marriage is so damn holy only Heterosexual couples can benefit GAME

give me a break :p

If you are going to quote the DSM IV you really should have a copy of it... my wife does. ;)

Here's some differences between the DSM III and IV:

Homosexuality and DSM-IV
Q. Do you have any information on how homosexuality was eliminated from the DSM-IV vs DSM-III? Is there an established revision procedure whereby disorders are either included or excluded in new editions? If so, is there a way to determine whether that procedure was followed in the revision work that excluded homosexuality in the current fourth edition?
A. The issue of whether homosexuality is a disease has been one of the more controversial matters that has faced the framers of the various DSMs over the last few decades. The very first edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I) classified homosexuality as a sexual deviation, as did DSM-II in 1968. However, in December of 1973, the DSM-II was modified by the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association (APA), who voted to eliminate the general category of homosexuality, and replace it with sexual orientation disturbance.

As Dr. Jon Meyer notes (see Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, 4th ed., eds. Kaplan & Sadock), "...this change reflected the point of view that homosexuality was to be considered a mental disorder only if it was subjectively disturbing to the individual. The decision of the APA Board...took place in the context of new sociological data, biological inferences, and de-emphasis of psychoanalytic observations. It also took place in an atmosphere of confrontation. Beginning in 1970, various gay activist groups demonstrated....at APA meetings. At issue was the conceptualization of homosexuality as an illness..."

The DSM-III committee and subcommittee charged with drafting the new manual (1976-78) settled on the diagnosis of ego-dystonic homosexuality, which, according to Meyer, "...represented a compromise between those individuals whose clinical experience, interpretation of the data, and, perhaps, biases, led them to the conviction that homosexuality was a normal variant of sexual expression..." By the time DSM-III-R (revised version of DSM-III) came out in 1987, the tide had shifted again. The category of ego-dystonic homosexuality was eliminated. As DSM-III-R itself stated, "...the diagnosis...has rarely been used clinically, and there have been only a few articles in the scientific literature that use the concept..."

However, one could use the category of sexual disorder not otherwise specified to include cases that previously would have been called ego-dystonic homosexuality. Our present DSM-IV does not include homosexuality per se as a disorder, but still permits the diagnosis of "Sexual Disorder Not Otherwise Specified" for someone with "...persistent and marked distress about sexual orientation".

For details on how the DSM-IV committees made their decisions, I suggest you get hold of a copy of the actual manual, and read the detailed description on p. xx in the introduction. I think it's fair to say that DSM-IV was more reliant on empirical data, and less on political considerations, than were some earlier DSMs. You may also want to see the article by Bayer & Spitzer in which edited correspondence by the DSM-III framers is presented on the issue of homosexuality (J Hist Behav Sci 18:32, 1982).

Here's a link to the site I pulled this off of: http://www.mhsource.com/expert/exp1052101c.html

This is the official manual for mental disorders whether they be organic or not. The DSM IV only considers homosexuality to be sexually deviant if the person has other sexual issues and they would not be different if they were heterosexual.

As far as homosexuality and pedofilia is concerned you are barking up the wrong tree. Most pedofiles are repeating behaviors they experienced as children. If they were abused they are about 65% likely to repeat that abuse to someone else at some point in their life. Women also abuse children too. There are well documented cases of women who were sexually abused that abuse their own children using defective logic. Their reasoning was that they didn't want people who were going to really hurt their children to be the first sexual experience they had. I worked with two boys a couple of years ago that were abused by their mothers for this reason.

Pedofilia is a problem not associated with sexual orientation but rather it is a power and control relationship with the child. It is appropriate to equate pedofilia with same mentality as rape. Rapist don't commit rape because they want sex but rather because they want control. Unfortunately there are a lot of books and biased studies done on this subject and the website that ER Doc listed is one of those. If you were a Christian and afraid of demon posession you could use the same logic and read a book by or attend a Bob Larson seminar. Both are about as scientific. I would like to see the actual case studies, how they were set up, who was directing them, and how the statistical evidence was logged and later arrived at.

...Would you believe a couple of us here have MET in real-life? Yup. :) jsh1120 and I have...I think he's a good guy! I hope he feels the same; REGARDLESS of which stance we take on a position, because people are MORE than the position they take on any one or even TEN subjects. ...He does feel the same. And if he limited his friends to those with whom he agrees, his life would be considerably poorer. :)

I'm back.

if anyone cares, I did two job interviews today, and got both jobs, so I had the awkward position of turning one of them down after interviewing for it. I picked the one that paid more.

I liken this discussion to the political debates, it's easy to get lost in the discussion, but ultimately everyone has their own viewpoint and it's not something that is changed easily unless the person is just uninformed... in which case their arguments wouldn't have held any water to begin with. Anyway.... I'm not even sure why I'm posting.

Anyway.... I'm not even sure why I'm posting.

Because you wanted to tell us how your interviews went! Congratulations on having the pick of the litter, so to speak. Good luck in the new position.

America's citizens overwhelmingly believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, as the last election showed. All you internet commandos who feel otherwise will have to be patient for another generation, it would appear. All the squawking in the world isn't going to change our minds. You can't impose your desires on the solid majority who feel otherwise. Sorry.

I can't, but the law can. A majority of Americans is not, in all cases, the be-all and end-all arbiter of what is best and therefore right for the citizens of this country.... otherwise we'd all be driving Camrys, drinking Budweiser, shopping at Wal-Mart and using Windows. That right there gives me pause in trusting the majority to make ANY decisions on my behalf! I really would prefer to not be held to the lowest common denominator of reason; bad enough that I have to submit to it for the next four years.

Fortunately, my contrarian preferences in vehicles, beverages, retail establishments and operating systems will have no demonstrable deleterious effect on a single one of those majority members, so they leave me alone to do as I wish. I'm harming no one by being different, and thus my rights should be identical to theirs despite my lack of conformity to what "they" think is "normal".

How is being attracted to members of one's own sex intrinsically harmful to the majority who aren't? No one has yet provided any reason not transparently based on religious doctrine why it's fair to deny rights to homosexuals based on their sexual preference. Of course, that doesn't stop the majority from trying to do it anyway -- ask any black person who lived through the civil rights movement.

In hindsight, everyone here now knows that the attempt by the white majority to deny black American citizens the ability to attend "white" schools and patronize "white" businesses was blatantly ignorant and wrong, and that the action taken by the government to legislate and enforce equal rights was the RIGHT thing to do, even though it was vehemently opposed by the majority at the time.

So why, Doc, must we wait another generation or more before homosexuals receive the same consideration as other "different" minorities like blacks or the disabled? It's really a shame that we have a president who openly espouses discrimination against a particular group of citizens by Constitutional amendment, when what he really should be doing is insuring that all citizens enjoy equal protection and equal rights under the law, regardless of the opinion of the majority.

Thought I might chime in hear.

Speaking from my own personal experience and the fact I'm a gay man who has been in a commited relationship with another man for the past ten years I truly believe our society isn't ready to accept gay marriage (though our society will eventually accept it in time). What strikes me as appalling is a politician that proposes an amendment that tries to take away rights that we've never had in the first place.
The whole institution of marriage is overrated. However the institution itself does signify a union that is reconized by a state. And when its written into law society tends to go along with it until it is challenged. Speaking from my own experience when you try to pruchase a car, home, etc. as a str8 married couple its ok and generally accepted, but when you purchase these items as a gay couple there's s social stigma attached to it that since we are not married our relationship prob won't last or our relationship isn't real. Therefor, mixing your finances is a big mistake. I get this from my parents all the time. Its this institutionalized homophobia toward gay relationships i find really sad and some point this mindset needs to change, but I know its not going to happen overnight.

well put, I'm gearing up for my response that says get rid of state contracted marriage all together

Thought I might chime in hear.

Speaking from my own personal experience and the fact I'm a gay man who has been in a commited relationship with another man for the past ten years I truly believe our society isn't ready to accept gay marriage (though our society will eventually accept it in time). What strikes me as appalling is a politician that proposes an amendment that tries to take away rights that we've never had in the first place.
The whole institution of marriage is overrated. However the institution itself does signify a union that is reconized by a state. And when its written into law society tends to go along with it until it is challenged. Speaking from my own experience when you try to pruchase a car, home, etc. as a str8 married couple its ok and generally accepted, but when you purchase these items as a gay couple there's s social stigma attached to it that since we are not married our relationship prob won't last or our relationship isn't real. Therefor, mixing your finances is a big mistake. I get this from my parents all the time. Its this institutionalized homophobia toward gay relationships i find really sad and some point this mindset needs to change, but I know its not going to happen overnight.

Thought I might chime in hear.

Speaking from my own personal experience and the fact I'm a gay man who has been in a commited relationship with another man for the past ten years I truly believe our society isn't ready to accept gay marriage (though our society will eventually accept it in time). What strikes me as appalling is a politician that proposes an amendment that tries to take away rights that we've never had in the first place.
The whole institution of marriage is overrated. However the institution itself does signify a union that is reconized by a state. And when its written into law society tends to go along with it until it is challenged. Speaking from my own experience when you try to pruchase a car, home, etc. as a str8 married couple its ok and generally accepted, but when you purchase these items as a gay couple there's s social stigma attached to it that since we are not married our relationship prob won't last or our relationship isn't real. Therefor, mixing your finances is a big mistake. I get this from my parents all the time. Its this institutionalized homophobia toward gay relationships i find really sad and some point this mindset needs to change, but I know its not going to happen overnight.I hope this eases your mind a bit but as a mortgage loan officer I have completed several loan transactions for homosexual couples. I know that there is some bias in the industry but I won't let that interfere with my transactions. Fortunately I have FannieMae and FreddieMac guidelines backing me up on this. It is also a Federal offense if you discriminate based on sexual orientation. I believe those laws are protecting homosexuals rights to some degree but really it's a starting point and not the way it should remain. You deserve the same rights I do and you have a lot more support than you probably know. Keep believing it can change. :)

you live in washington 93...try going to Alabama, see how it goes there, I agree with you things will change but it is still really bad right now in the South, but who cares anyway fuckthesouth.com (http://fuckthesouth.com/) :p

I hope this eases your mind a bit but as a mortgage loan officer I have completed several loan transactions for homosexual couples. I know that there is some bias in the industry but I won't let that interfere with my transactions. Fortunately I have FannieMae and FreddieMac guidelines backing me up on this. It is also a Federal offense if you discriminate based on sexual orientation. I believe those laws are protecting homosexuals rights to some degree but really it's a starting point and not the way it should remain. You deserve the same rights I do and you have a lot more support than you probably know. Keep believing it can change. :)

So why, Doc, must we wait another generation or more before homosexuals receive the same consideration as other "different" minorities like blacks or the disabled? It's really a shame that we have a president who openly espouses discrimination against a particular group of citizens by Constitutional amendment, when what he really should be doing is insuring that all citizens enjoy equal protection and equal rights under the law, regardless of the opinion of the majority.Because someone doesn't choose to be black or disabled. And all citizens do enjoy equal protection and rights under the law. I don't have the "right" to marry my sister, and Richard doesn't have the "right" to marry Peter.

Your hero Clinton signed the first Defense of Marriage Act, so it isn't just a Republican issue. Good luck getting the courts to make things go your way....I don't see it happening.

The problem here lies with accepting homosexuality as something normal. Religion doesn't even have to be brought into the discussion, common sense does.

Man + Women = Child

Man + Man =

Woman + Woman =

Man + Chicken =

Man + Goat =

Woman + Horse =

Woman + Dog =

Man + Door =

Woman + Door =

Homosexuality is ignorance, and ignorance is curable. Its all in the head, something makes one sex attracted to the same sex. Instead of attacking homosexuals, we should work to figure out homosexuality and help them out.

I may be wrong, extremely wrong, but this makes sense.

The problem here lies with accepting homosexuality as something normal. Religion doesn't even have to be brought into the discussion, common sense does.

Man + Women = Child

Man + Man =

Woman + Woman =

Man + Chicken =

Man + Goat =

Woman + Horse =

Woman + Dog =

Man + Door =

Woman + Door =

Homosexuality is ignorance, and ignorance is curable. Its all in the head, something makes one sex attracted to the same sex. Instead of attacking homosexuals, we should work to figure out homosexuality and help them out.

I may be wrong, extremely wrong, but this makes sense.




I have seen this pro-creation argument before and i find it to be irrelevant .


Man + woman = child

man +woman= straight child

man +woman = gay child


Sexual preference occurs at the genitic level or is even predermined before birth even begins, but no one knows for sure. However i can assure you ignorance manifests itself after birth. The fact is str8 parents can produce gay children. So to say gay couples are not self sustaining would be false. Gay couples can co-exist with str8 couples. However the procreation of gay children is not necessarily determined by the sexual preference of the parent. Gays and lesbians have existed throughout all of time and will continue to exist long after you and I are gone.

So your saying that some are born gay, that changes things.

But is it true? Does the theory apply to everyone? How is possible to know?

So your saying that some are born gay, that changes things.

But is it true? Does the theory apply to everyone? How is possible to know?


I think it does. but I'm not everybody. But you'll probably never convince the naysayers.. The way i see it how do you know your str8? you just know right! well, the same is true for gay people.

Being straight is perfectly normal, it has no issues, to be attracted to a woman is not ignorance.

What i want to know is, how the in the hell is it possible to find out if a baby is born gay. Doesn't make sense.

Sexual preference occurs at the genitic level or is even predermined before birth even begins,

your sentence there is not "either/or". if preference occurs at the genetic level then it IS determined before BIRTH begins. not one or the other as you stated. either way the statement is conjecture, not fact as the way you stated it, as it hasnt been proven to be completely genetic. it is more likely that is both nature and nuture at work.

So your saying that some are born gay, that changes things.

But is it true? Does the theory apply to everyone? How is possible to know?


Because we have found that homosexuality also occurs in the animal kingdom. Also, we've found it to be more resistant to treatment than heroin. It has existed all through history, some periods it has been more accepted than others.


Also, why should it bother you? Two men live in a committed relationship with each other, how does that threaten your marriage? A gay man is promiscuous, how is that any worse than a straight man or woman being promiscuous? Until the "pro-marriage" group starts protesting britney spears' night long marriage, or sex and the city, they aren't "pro-marriage" they're "anti-gay."

either way the statement is conjecture, not fact as the way you stated it,


YES! and can everyone try to keep the line clear between these two in their responses - for my sanity! Thank you. :)


as it hasnt been proven to be completely genetic. it is more likely that is both nature and nuture at work.

I agree.

Edit: Following your logic, since being a Catholic priest is has obvious and undeniable correlation to being a child molester, we should prohibit men from becoming priests... right?

Actually your logic is flawed... which doesn't necessarily make your conclusion invalid, but in this case it does.

The solution is to return to a married priesthood. This phenomenon has occured because if you were a good practicing Catholic and you were homosexual... well you couldn't get married and it was considered wrong (now more finely defined my most groups to PRACTING homosexuals). You best avenue... become a celebate priest. Unforutnately we've seen what has happened there... This isn't a homosexual issue, because the same thing has occured for heterosexual priests and female church members. can we say "Scarlet Letter" ?

**EDIT** Sorry... I missed your following post were you stated some of the above... :o

Because we have found that homosexuality also occurs in the animal kingdom. Also, we've found it to be more resistant to treatment than heroin. It has existed all through history, some periods it has been more accepted than others.


Also, why should it bother you? Two men live in a committed relationship with each other, how does that threaten your marriage? A gay man is promiscuous, how is that any worse than a straight man or woman being promiscuous? Until the "pro-marriage" group starts protesting britney spears' night long marriage, or sex and the city, they aren't "pro-marriage" they're "anti-gay."

So what? That is not proof at all, the fact that animals can be homosexuals too.

So it would be understandable if pedophilia bothered me, but not homosexuality because you don't have any problem with it?

THe Britney Spears argument is a poor one. Who cares if she marries a new guy every day of the week? Not me. That is her right. It's her money and her life, and the sanctity of marriage is still more preserved than if 2 guys were allowed to be "married."

your sentence there is not "either/or". if preference occurs at the genetic level then it IS determined before BIRTH begins. not one or the other as you stated. either way the statement is conjecture, not fact as the way you stated it, as it hasnt been proven to be completely genetic. it is more likely that is both nature and nuture at work.


Sorry that was a typo.. i meant to say sexual preference occurs at the genetic level and is predetermined before birth even begins. There is obvious debate on this issue however I would disagree with the nuture part of your statement. If it were true to nuture a child to be gay or str8, the latter being the most desired, would prove to be inconclusive because gay and lesbians children come from all walks of life. There would be no way to measure how one makes one gay or st8 because the factors that contibute to it would be too vast to measure.

Sorry that was a typo.. i meant to say sexual preference occurs at the genetic level and is predetermined before birth even begins. There is obvious debate on this issue however I would disagree with the nuture part of your statement. If it were true to nuture a child to be gay or str8, the latter being the most desired, would prove to be inconclusive because gay and lesbians children come from all walks of life. There would be no way to measure how one makes one gay or st8 because the factors that contibute to it would be too vast to measure.

But to say that it is conclusively NOT nurture because you can't measure it? It's equally as difficult to prove that it comes only from genetics.

And you can say that it's NOT nurture because gay and lesbian children come from all walks of life? What if the factors that "nurture" children to be gay or lesbian are social factors that are common among all cultures?

Anyway, it would make more sense to link "natural" homosexuality to personality, than to "inheritance". I didn't pick my hair color, and I also haven't specifically chosen my "personality." But how do you explain that I am hardly like my parents or my grandparents? Because I do portray some things that you see in them, but also, the rest of my life has determined a lot of how I act now.

Sorry that was a typo.. i meant to say sexual preference occurs at the genetic level and is predetermined before birth even begins. There is obvious debate on this issue however I would disagree with the nuture part of your statement. If it were true to nuture a child to be gay or str8, the latter being the most desired, would prove to be inconclusive because gay and lesbians children come from all walks of life. There would be no way to measure how one makes one gay or st8 because the factors that contibute to it would be too vast to measure.There are likely many environmental factors that weigh into each gay person's choice to be gay. There isn't convincing evidence for a genetic component; gayness is certainly not inherited so how could it be genetic? Is it all genetic mutation? I don't think so.

Just as there are many reasons why one chooses to have long hair, wear cowboy boots, have tattoos or piercings, or whether or not to meet one's educational potential, there are many reasons why people choose to be gay. It is an individual expression, and should be treated as such.

What about tests with lab rats? They found that as things got more and more overpopulated, more and more rats became homosexual. It might be natures way of population control.

What about tests with lab rats? They found that as things got more and more overpopulated, more and more rats became homosexual. It might be natures way of population control.Less appropriate partners to choose from = more homosexuality. Just like prison.

That may be a factor in some gays' choice to be gay....if they are afraid or unable or unsuccessful in seeking female partners, it may be easier for them to seek same-sex partners. Social awkwardness.

But to say that it is conclusively NOT nurture because you can't measure it? It's equally as difficult to prove that it comes only from genetics.

And you can say that it's NOT nurture because gay and lesbian children come from all walks of life? What if the factors that "nurture" children to be gay or lesbian are social factors that are common among all cultures?

Anyway, it would make more sense to link "natural" homosexuality to personality, than to "inheritance". I didn't pick my hair color, and I also haven't specifically chosen my "personality." But how do you explain that I am hardly like my parents or my grandparents? Because I do portray some things that you see in them, but also, the rest of my life has determined a lot of how I act now.



well put.... the vast determinants of homosexuality can be far reaching as you say on both sides of the issue with genetics not being the only determinate. Speaking from personal experience its just something I know as far back is i can remember. I believe the genetic argument is a plausible theory, but a thoery non theless yet to be proven.

There are likely many environmental factors that weigh into each gay person's choice to be gay. There isn't convincing evidence for a genetic component; gayness is certainly not inherited so how could it be genetic? Is it all genetic mutation? I don't think so.

Just as there are many reasons why one chooses to have long hair, wear cowboy boots, have tattoos or piercings, or whether or not to meet one's educational potential, there are many reasons why people choose to be gay. It is an individual expression, and should be treated as such.


So then I can say you chose to be Straight...

So then I can say you chose to be Straight...
Indeed. Although that choice was likely influenced by nature. After all, being straight is the natural condition. I chose not to override nature, so to speak. ;)

If I grew up in a land where everyone around me was homosexual, it might have turned out differently. If you see something every day, it might appear to you to be normal. That is why I am against gays adopting children, and why I am against legitimizing gay unions with the title of marriage.

Less appropriate partners to choose from = more homosexuality. Just like prison.

That may be a factor in some gays' choice to be gay....if they are afraid or unable or unsuccessful in seeking female partners, it may be easier for them to seek same-sex partners. Social awkwardness.


This is an ignorant comment to say the least.. so if gay men are unsuccussful with other gay men, they become what .. asexual? pedaphiles? will try to have a relationship with an animal ?

That must mean bisexuals are more succuessful at finding partners of either sex.. then gay or straight people

If I grew up in a land where everyone around me was homosexual, it might have turned out differently. If you see something every day, it might appear to you to be normal. .[/QUOTE]


I grew up in the land of hetreosexuals.. but i'm still gay. and prob not the only gay in a land of hetreosexuals. Sorry i don't guy the monkey see, monkey do excuse!

This is an ignorant comment to say the least.. so if gay men are unsuccussful with other gay men, they become what ..

I don't think it's as clear cut as you or anyone is saying it is... A social awkwardness in a young teenager who doesn't know who he is yet, may make him start to think "well maybe I'm gay?" And that influence doesn't need to be equally able to be influenced later in life... I.E. as you said, if they are unsuccessful with other gay men. Life is too complex to cut judgements from situations such as that.

This is an ignorant comment to say the least.. so if gay men are unsuccussful with other gay men, they become what .. asexual? pedaphiles? will try to have a relationship with an animal ?

That must mean bisexuals are more succuessful at finding partners of either sex.. then gay or straight peopleI think all those conclusions likely occur in some instances. I don't think any of them are true the majority of the time, but I would bet on a positive correlation above the level of chance.

I grew up in the land of hetreosexuals.. but i'm still gay. and prob not the only gay in a land of hetreosexuals. Sorry i don't guy the monkey see, monkey do excuse!
As I said before, there are other factors. You might be a rebel, or socially awkward with women. Or maybe it's just your PREFERENCE. Nothing wrong with that.

Originally homosexuality was seen as a "disease" by various christian groups in the nineteenth century. So scientists attempted to study it as such, but they could find no connections between homosexuality and mental illness, nor could they develop any way of finding a homosexul in a blind interview.


It was only in the last 25 years that the disease model was abandoned, and the APA, AMA, have chaned this to seeing homosexuality as a normal variant, sort of like being left-handed. They believe that for some people it is their natural state. This emerged out of the research that has been done in the last 50 years.


We now have very strong evidence that there is a biological role in homosexuality. Studies of twins showed a clear genetic connection. In 1993 the NIH ran a study of male siblings with maternal gay relatives, where they identified an X linked chromosomal association in homosexuals.


Anatomical studies suggest a difference in the hypothalamus. There is also evidence that prenatal hormone levels are a factor.


Homosexuality exists in nearly every species of observed mammals. Here's an interesting article about this: http://www.subversions.com/french/pages/science/animals.html


Most believe it is irreversibly established in humans at a very early age, probably around five. Research has not supported the belief that the way someone is raised (uninvolved father or castrating mother) is a sufficient or a necessary condition of homosexuality.

But everyone avoids the obvious question. If homosexuality is purely genetic, is it something to fix? Is it something to be considered normal (normal genetic variation like the left-handed example)? Another way of looking at is if we had the ability to "fix" Down's Syndrome before birth or shortly after... should we tamper with nature like that? Should we play God? You have to remember that genetic manipulation won't just stop there... why not increase intelligence, etc...

Originally homosexuality was seen as a "disease" by various christian groups in the nineteenth century. So scientists attempted to study it as such, but they could find no connections between homosexuality and mental illness, nor could they develop any way of finding a homosexul in a blind interview.


It was only in the last 25 years that the disease model was abandoned, and the APA, AMA, have chaned this to seeing homosexuality as a normal variant, sort of like being left-handed. They believe that for some people it is their natural state. This emerged out of the research that has been done in the last 50 years.


Good post. Thank you for some actual knowlege on the history and studies done.

I just have to say that you (or anyone else - you seem to have a firm grasp on what is fact and what isn't) have to remember that just because it is not a "mental illness" it does not mean it's "kind of like being left-handed." There are lots of things that people do that do not necessarily come from any-sort of preconditioning from before birth. There is a huge jump from behavior to "mental illness".

Good post. Thank you for some actual knowlege on the history and studies done.

I just have to say that you (or anyone else - you seem to have a firm grasp on what is fact and what isn't) have to remember that just because it is not a "mental illness" it does not mean it's "kind of like being left-handed." There are lots of things that people do that do not necessarily come from any-sort of preconditioning from before birth. There is a huge jump from behavior to "mental illness".


Agreed... an interesting perspective as well.

We now have very strong evidence that there is a biological role in homosexuality. Studies of twins showed a clear genetic connection. In 1993 the NIH ran a study of male siblings with maternal gay relatives, where they identified an X linked chromosomal association in homosexuals.


Anatomical studies suggest a difference in the hypothalamus. There is also evidence that prenatal hormone levels are a factor.


Homosexuality exists in nearly every species of observed mammals. Here's an interesting article about this: http://www.subversions.com/french/pages/science/animals.html


Most believe it is irreversibly established in humans at a very early age, probably around five. Research has not supported the belief that the way someone is raised (uninvolved father or castrating mother) is a sufficient or a necessary condition of homosexuality.After reviewing some of the data, I agree that there may be a genetic connection, but not as heritable as one might expect. Thanks for clarifying that, that was news to me.

Still doesn't explain everything, however, and certainly doesn't provide ammunition to support legitimization of their unions, although they might be better off attacking via the disability angle (AWDA), if they were willing to consider that approach.

Because someone doesn't choose to be black or disabled. And all citizens do enjoy equal protection and rights under the law. I don't have the "right" to marry my sister, and Richard doesn't have the "right" to marry Peter.

We'll forever butt heads on this then -- I'm convinced that homosexuality is not a choice, nor is it ignorance. Gays and lesbians no more chose to be gay than you chose to have thinning hair (hypothetically speaking, of course. ;))

We'll forever butt heads on this then -- I'm convinced that homosexuality is not a choice, nor is it ignorance. Gays and lesbians no more chose to be gay than you chose to have thinning hair (hypothetically speaking, of course. ;))
As I wrote above, I was surprised to find even a possible genetic component might exist. If confirmed with more studies, I could see gay marriages someday approved by using the AWDA to attack the current restrictions. After all, if they have a disability that prevents them from marrying members of the opposite sex, then it would be wrong to limit them from doing what they are genetically programmed to do. I'm not sure the evidence is strong enough to support that at this time however.

After all, if only 50% of gay MZ twins are gay, why is it not 100%? There must be a reason. Even 50% suggests some genetic link, since that is higher than the random occurrence of gayness, but apparently it can be overcome with other factors. And if we find a way to "cure" the genetic deformity, then opposition might still occur to legitimizing their unions (and probably will, since most Americans are not as liberal as me). ;)

If there are gays without the gay gene (if one is isolated), should they be given the same benefit?

After all, if only 50% of gay MZ twins are gay, why is it not 100%? There must be a reason. Even 50% suggests some genetic link, since that is higher than the random occurrence of gayness, but apparently it can be overcome with other factors. And if we find a way to "cure" the genetic deformity, then opposition might still occur to legitimizing their unions (and probably will, since most Americans are not as liberal as me). ;)

If there are gays without the gay gene (if one is isolated), should they be given the same benefit?

All very good questions. One of the most repeated arguments against the "limiting" of gays' rights in this thread is that "It's homosexuals' nature - they can't help it." If a set of twins contain the hypothetical gene, and one turns out heterosexual - what then? Obviously it's not a gene that determines a "must" (like skin color) - much like how in many aspects of our behavior (if not all) our genetic makeup sets the stage for our personality, but it is shaped and molded from the day we are born by the environment we are in.

I strongly believe (faith, yes -- but faith that will be borne out eventually by genetic and/or physiological evidence) that sexual attraction is not something we can control or choose at the most fundamental level. Doc, I'm surprised that you hadn't heard about the hypothalamus studies before. I like this article (http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html) as a good overview of current physiological and MZ/DZ (ac/dc? ;)) twin studies.

I also have many gay and lesbian friends and relatives. To a person, they all will tell you that they have known they were somehow different from their peers from a very early age. Many of them, learning that their true inclinations toward members of their own sex would not be socially acceptable, forced themselves to conform to societal norms and dated heterosexually; a few of them even went so far as to marry and bear or father children. However, none of the marriages lasted and eventually my friends acknowledged their true selves and "came out". Most are now happily involved in long-term marriage-like same-sex relationships.

Don't tell me, "See? They CHOSE to be gay after being married!" They simply chose to no longer DENY how they had truly felt from the beginning.

As for homosexuality as a "disability" -- I think the closest analogy I can come up with would be deafness. Hear me out now (pun intended...sorry.) Deaf people (and yes, they prefer that term to "hearing-impaired") used to be treated as if they were defective; they were fitted with cumbersome hearing aids and were encouraged to learn to speak and lip-read in order to better fit into a hearing world. Now, however, the deaf do not regard themselves as handicapped; they prefer to communicate via ASL with both other deaf and hearing people and do not consider themselves as defective -- just different.

The deaf don't choose to be deaf any more than homosexuals choose to be gay. The choice is made when one decides how to live with one's condition -- deny it and conform, or accept it and move forward.

I like this article (http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html) as a good overview of current physiological and MZ/DZ (ac/dc? ;)) twin studies.That's one of the articles I read yesterday. I would like to see more studies showing that homosexuality is heritable, that it runs in the family. I think the possibility that some gays may indeed choose that lifestyle (without having the gay gene, if one exists) while some who might be genetically determined to go that route in fact do not become gay may complicate the genetic discovery process. You would think that if it truly ran in the family, it would have been noticed before now. Another X-linked chromosomal defect, that causing hemophilia A, was figured out a long time ago.

edit: Have any of the gay members here plotted out a family tree? Noticed any trends? That would be interesting.

I'm left-handed...if someone would not let me marry because of, well things wouldn't get pretty

I am SOOOOO impressed how the GLBT community is handling the Conservative War against their rights as human beings

WE SHOULD DISSOLVE THE LEGAL INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE...period!

Why is it that we have the government holding the contract of our personal relationships? The only type of Marriage there should be is spiritual based ones...how you define it, NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT how the state or US gov't defines it.

So yes that is right...I say down with Heterosexual AND Homosexual law/gov't based marriage marriage.

That would end the debate wouldn't it?

.

.

defintely dissolve the legal institution as we know it :) I don't think britney speare's dumb ass should get tax benefits for marrying a guy during a coke binge

It may work on TV on The West Wing, but getting rid of marriage as a legal civil partnership won't fly here. That WOULD have a negative effect on heterosexuals. However, giving gays and lesbians the right to also legally marry would not.

I still don't get why so many otherwise reasonable people are so strongly opposed to this. Who is being harmed? I keep asking, and no one has yet given me an answer -- unless I missed something.

WE SHOULD DISSOLVE THE LEGAL INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE...period!

Why is it that we have the government holding the contract of our personal relationships? The only type of Marriage there should be is spiritual based ones...how you define it, NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT how the state or US gov't defines it.

So yes that is right...I say down with Heterosexual AND Homosexual law/gov't based marriage marriage.

That would end the debate wouldn't it?Sorry, bud. It would certainly end this debate, but the chaos that would ensue would hardly be worth the benefit. As noted in an earlier post in this thread, my preference would be to replace all legal marriages with civil unions and leave the institution of "marriage" where it belongs as a religious entity. And that proposal has about as much chance of acceptance as Donald Rumsfeld taking responsibility for the mess in Iraq.

what is the big deal about dissolving the legal institution of marriage? It is a SEVERLY antiquated institution...that really has no business in the law.

I still don't get why so many otherwise reasonable people are so strongly opposed to this. Who is being harmed? I keep asking, and no one has yet given me an answer -- unless I missed something.Society. The family unit. Normalcy. And yes Christian values. Despite the dismissive attitude of many here towards it, Christianity is still one of the most powerful entities in this country. There are a lot of self-proclaimed atheists on this board....sorry, but Christians outnumber you in America by over 8 to 1 (Gallup, 2003).

Society. The family unit. Normalcy. And yes Christian values. Despite the dismissive attitude of many here towards it, Christianity is still one of the most powerful entities in this country. There are a lot of self-proclaimed atheists on this board....sorry, but Christians outnumber you in America by over 8 to 1 (Gallup, 2003).

don't get me started with Christian 'values'
but what you are saying is the rights of Christians, as the majority should be allowed to dominate?

I am a Twin, I call myself "Bi" but, I am much more attracted to guyz then gurlz. Yes, I have slept with both. If I had my choice between the two I would date a guy way before any girl. Most people say this makes me gay. .... Well since I am a twin and I am attracted to guyz and my twin brother is married and is str8 as an arrow. Umm question for those people out there that say it is not genetic??? How so? Help me out here.... My Brother and I where born at the same time and raise the exact same way. Please explain your theory. I would luv to hear it.

I am a Twin, I call myself "Bi" but, I am much more attracted to guyz then gurlz. Yes, I have slept with both. If I had my choice between the two I would date a guy way before any girl. Most people say this makes me gay. .... Well since I am a twin and I am attracted to guyz and my twin brother is married and is str8 as an arrow. Umm question for those people out there that say it is not genetic??? How so? Help me out here.... My Brother and I where born at the same time and raise the exact same way. Please explain your theory. I would luv to hear it.
Are you and your brother "identical" twins? Do you have any grandparents or cousins who are gay?

but what you are saying is the rights of Christians, as the majority should be allowed to dominate?Why not?

It may work on TV on The West Wing, but getting rid of marriage as a legal civil partnership won't fly here. That WOULD have a negative effect on heterosexuals. However, giving gays and lesbians the right to also legally marry would not.

I still don't get why so many otherwise reasonable people are so strongly opposed to this. Who is being harmed? I keep asking, and no one has yet given me an answer -- unless I missed something.

Actually, it's not really about who is being harmed. The way the country is set up, rights and privileges are afforded to each person depending on his/her situation. It just so happens that "marriage" rights are afforded to a man & a woman who fit the criteria. Yes, there is still criteria.

Would you support welfare being given out to those who don't really deserve it? Tax breaks to people who didn't donate to a charity? Disability protection given to someone who is not really disabled?

I recently went through the immigration process with my wife for her to attain Permanent Resident status. She had a valid reason to be - we all knew it, but she still had to fit EVERY criteria on the list. Of the other two people in the U.S. Consulate office in Australia applying that day, one was sent home to await further decision based on suspicion, and the other because she didn't have a Police Record from Canada -- which she had tried and tried but couldn't get -- and because she was wearing earrings in her photo.

Rights are based on criteria. A gay couple does not fit what the majority of Americans believe to be the criteria for marriage. That's really all there is to it.

Since this is an open forum. Same sex relationships are forbidden in the Bible.

God's way is always the best way.

Yes, we are identical twins and yes there are others family members (cousins) that are gay too.

Since this is an open forum. Same sex relationships are forbidden in the Bible.

God's way is always the best way.

God Words "Thou Shall Not Judge" Look at all the people in here passing "Judgements"

Since this is an open forum. Same sex relationships are forbidden in the Bible.

God's way is always the best way.

Bible...Ummm that was written how many 1000's of years after his death?

Have you ever tried a game ... where you say one phase and tell someone to pass it on and reapeat it exactly. what happens when it get backs to you? Nothing even close to what was said in the begining.

The person that wrote it put it into his own words and beliefs

Bible...Ummm that was written how many 1000's of years after his death?


Wrong.

And quoting God's word is not judging... No one is judging, just stating what they believe to be God's word.

Yes, the english translation clearly condemns homosexual acts, but the older hebrew and greek versions really only speak out against homosexual prostitution in pagan temples and heterosexual who engage in homosexual acts.


The different sections people point to to show that god hates fags can be interpreted in a number of ways. For instance Genesis 19, everybody's favorite Sodom passage, can be read as explaining that the men's sin was attempting to rape strangers. Also, there are other parts of that passage that show the sin of Sodom was uncharitable behavior toward strangers, their uncarring conduct towards the poor, widows, and the needy.

Basically you have three options in your interpretations:


1. Accept the teachings of one's faith group. If you do so, and if you follow a conservative denomination then you will probably be taught that homosexual behavior is chosen, changeable and condemned by God. It is something that a person does. If you follow a liberal faith group, you may well accept homosexuality as an alternate, normal, unchangeable sexual orientation for a minority of humans. It is something that a person is.


2. Study passages from your favorite English version of the Bible, which is filtered by the theological beliefs and homophobia (if any) of the translators. If so, then you will find many passages in the Bible which condemn certain forms of homosexual behavior.


3. Follow the ancient Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek writings and attempt to understand precisely what the writers taught. If so, then you will find that these same passages condemn specific homosexual activities (rape, prostitution, etc.) But the Bible appears to be silent about same-sex, committed, monogamous relationships.


Now there are three words which are constantly mistranslated in engish versions of the bible. The first is qadesh, which means a male prostitute who engaged in ritualistic sex in a pagan temple, which was a fairly common activity in ancient Israel and the surrounding areas. This is mistranslated in english versions simply as "homosexual." On the other side the word for a female temple prostitute, quedeshaw, is translated as simply "whore" or "prostitute."


Also, the word "to'ebah," means a condemned foreign pagan practice, which is translated as simply "abomination." So eating foods that contained both meat and dairy products was to'ebah, eating with an egyptian was to'ebah, etc.


Now the bible talks about homosexuality in rapes, sexual abuse of children, ritual sex in pagan temples, prostitution, and sexual orgies. And, just like we believe, spoke out against those acts. But the bible does not have any unambigious occasions of monogamous homosexuality in a commited relationship, which would be what we would have to look at to see what the bible believed about them.


Now the really blatant mistranslation occurs in leviticus 18:22, which reads
"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable."


Earlier greek and hebrew versions read:
"Two men must not engage in sexual activity on a woman's bed; it is ritually unclean."


So rather than a passage about how wrong homosexuality is, you receive a passage talking about maintaining the sacrosanct location of a woman's bed.

A word by word analysis and translation can be found here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bibh.htm#ngpa


Now that is the last I will say about the bible before this devolves into a religious thread and is closed.

Wrong.

And quoting God's word is not judging... No one is judging, just stating what they believe to be God's word.


That's what I was going to say in response. So I don't intend to start religion discussions but its a statement of true fact is all. Its written there and that's all I want to say.

Bible...Ummm that was written how many 1000's of years after his death?



thousands, plural, would actually necessitate the Bible to have been written no sooner than about AD 2034...29 years from today. :)

;)

Well Zihzoe that was what I was trying to stay away from. I suspected in the back of my mind my statement might cause some comments in which it did. I could comment on your analysis which is ok in some areas but this should not be religious discussion as you ended in saying.

I will say no more.

...bible stuff...


You have some fairly good information there, to be taken by each with what they believe of the validity of the source you provide. I think we can leave it at that.

Actually, it's not really about who is being harmed. The way the country is set up, rights and privileges are afforded to each person depending on his/her situation. It just so happens that "marriage" rights are afforded to a man & a woman who fit the criteria. Yes, there is still criteria.
...
Rights are based on criteria. A gay couple does not fit what the majority of Americans believe to be the criteria for marriage. That's really all there is to it.

No, that's NOT really all there is to it. The criteria MUST BE FAIR, and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or based on religious dogma.

By your reasoning, it would be perfectly OK for black people to be forbidden from attending public schools with white kids because the majority, who happen to be white, want it that way... even though having a black child in the classroom in no way harms the white students.

And can we please remove all arguments based on religion from this discussion!? For those of you who are christian, muslim, whatever -- if your religion condemns homosexuality, fine. NO ONE WILL EVER FORCE YOU to engage in homosexual acts. That's all you have the right to be concerned about -- not what other people who don't subscribe to your beliefs do.

No, that's NOT really all there is to it. The criteria MUST BE FAIR, and not arbitrary, discriminatory, or based on religious dogma.

By your reasoning, it would be perfectly OK for black people to be forbidden from attending public schools with white kids because the majority, who happen to be white, want it that way... even though having a black child in the classroom in no way harms the white students.


No, my reasoning would still not allow that - I said nothing about what creates a criteria.

Any one of the things I mentioned could looked upon as being "arbitrary" or "discriminatory". But those have been determined to be valid criteria.

This is why I feel this discussion comes down to whether or not you believe that a homosexual is born homosexual and MUST turn out homosexual. I don't believe that. And right now, it IS up for belief (sorry to say - it would be better if we all really KNEW, but we don't).

That brings me to a question for ZoomBoy: Wouldn't the fact that you are identical twins and your brother did NOT turn out gay be a stronger point for NON-inherited homosexuality?

Aratinga, all I wanted all along was that those on both sides see that this comes down to a simple fact: we don't know the facts. We can't keep purporting our claims to BE facts. Therefore, one cannot PROVE the other to be right or wrong - and as disappointing as it is for some, that means we have to leave it in the hands of majority voters.

P.S. please don't claim that my logic allows racism - it doesn't. :( That makes me sad.

your logic allows racism...period

just like speeder's 'christian values' assertions, suggesting the majority is the authority

well here is a lighthearted analogy to this...
95% of car owners either don't wash their car or use an auto wash or have someone wash it for them

while around 5% (ROUGH estimate) wash their car by hand, the CORRECT way to do it

so by this 'majority logic' the 95% is Correct and the 5% are wrong

hmm starting to sound crazy now eh :p

I'll NEVER trust the majority authority of Christian America...that would be down right irresponsible!

That brings me to a question for Zoom: Wouldn't the fact that you are identical twins and your brother did NOT turn out gay be a stronger point for NON-inherited homosexuality?



im not sure if your just asking my opinion or if you are confusing me with a previous poster who is a twin and gay while his brother is not gay. but ill answer anyway.

no it wouldnt. in could be argued that both twins have the gene that makes one straight or gay but that it is only "turned on" or "defective" in one brother. the gene could just be responsible for having a certain organ produce a certain chemical. it might even be "defective" in both brothers. one might just hav e"enough" of the chemical to be straight. itd be interesting to see if the straight twin realized he was gay later in life. that could indicate a chemical change.

your logic allows racism...period

just like speeder's 'christian values' assertions, suggesting the majority is the authority

well here is a lighthearted analogy to this...
95% of car owners either don't wash their car or use an auto wash or have someone wash it for them

while around 5% (ROUGH estimate) wash their car by hand, the CORRECT way to do it

so by this 'majority logic' the 95% is Correct and the 5% are wrong

hmm starting to sound crazy now eh :p


:confused: Crazy, and illogical.

I think you missed the point the founding father's were trying to make when they drafted the constitution. You have a really, really warped view of "majority" and how it is used.

By the way, my logic does NOT allow racism, "period." Did you not read the many specific examples I stated?? Those are all some form of discrimination - all based on who doesn't fit any given criteria.

Lest anyone be confused that my logic allows racism, I'll say it for myself:

Criteria cannot be based upon a human characteristic that does not change.

This fact does not negate criteria altogether, AND:
Homosexuality does not yet fit into that category, while there are many pushing it either way.

im not sure if your just asking my opinion or if you are confusing me with a previous poster who is a twin and gay while his brother is not gay. but ill answer anyway.

no it wouldnt. in could be argued that both twins have the gene that makes one straight or gay but that it is only "turned on" or "defective" in one brother. the gene could just be responsible for having a certain organ produce a certain chemical. it might even be "defective" in both brothers. one might just hav e"enough" of the chemical to be straight. itd be interesting to see if the straight twin realized he was gay later in life. that could indicate a chemical change.

Sorry - post corrected. I just over-abbreviated!

So I guess we all see that this is an explosive subject. So I guess some opinon polls can dictate what Americans think? Not really sure about opinon polls anyway.

Wrong.

And quoting God's word is not judging... No one is judging, just stating what they believe to be God's word.

What a wonderful cop-out! We can espouse hateful, exclusive values, and blame God. Hate, and judging people like this, is not in my reading of Jesus's intent in the New Testament, yet so many people hide behind this exclusive view of the word of God, as written by men over the millenia, to justify hate. And, yes, when you deny a loving couple the ability to marry solely because of this prejudice, which doesn't affect you in any way (except that it tweaks your prejudices), you are expressing your hate of those people.

What a wonderful cop-out! We can espouse hateful, exclusive values, and blame God. Hate, and judging people like this, is not in my reading of Jesus's intent in the New Testament, yet so many people hide behind this exclusive view of the word of God, as written by men over the millenia, to justify hate. And, yes, when you deny a loving couple the ability to marry solely because of this prejudice, which doesn't affect you in any way (except that it tweaks your prejudices), you are expressing your hate of those people.


It has nothing to do with what you are saying at all. Those are God's words. God said it, that's the end of it. No one is expressing hate to anyone. It is what it is.

It has nothing to do with what you are saying at all. Those are God's words. God said it, that's the end of it. No one is expressing hate to anyone. It is what it is.

You keep telling yourself that; don't waste your breath trying to justify your hate to me. The simple fact is that you are espousing a hateful, bigoted "value," and justifying it by blaming God. It's very convenient to tell yourself you are not responsible, but, in fact, you are. God does not hate his children, you do.

What a wonderful cop-out! We can espouse hateful, exclusive values, and blame God. Hate, and judging people like this, is not in my reading of Jesus's intent in the New Testament, yet so many people hide behind this exclusive view of the word of God, as written by men over the millenia, to justify hate. And, yes, when you deny a loving couple the ability to marry solely because of this prejudice, which doesn't affect you in any way (except that it tweaks your prejudices), you are expressing your hate of those people.

Blame God? To validate your statements made here, I must be

a) Denying a loving couple the ability to marry
b) solely because of my prejudiced, exclusive values
c) that are apparent from my:
1) hate and
2) judging
d) for others of God's children
e) and hiding behind God's word to justify this.

How many of those statements can you validate?

I can say that all of them are wrong.

a) for all the reasons stated since the beginning of this thread, I do not think it is necessarily a right of homosexuals to marry. You can review those reasons yourself.

b)It is not to be exclusive. It is simply the way I believe the facts apply to the law. And it's not from any prejudice. (pre-judging) - I don't see in what position I am to judge any of these people, nor have I. Discussing who the right of marriage applies to is a separate issue.

c-1 and 2) if there was any judging happening, it would be of the behavior, as I've been taught from the word of God. If it weren't for this, I'd have no reason to care. But like I said - I am not condemning anybody anyway. I just simply think it is wrong - and that's my right. (remember religious freedom?) I'm not telling anybody to stop, or treating anyone badly in any way. I have two close relative who are gay (though none in my immediate family). I'm sorry, but I just don't see that I have any "hate and prejudice" to them or any other gay people I know or don't know.

d) this entire issue is not about the PEOPLE but the behavior

e) as I said before, if God said it, and I repeat it, that's all I'm doing. Sorry.



I can't believe I wrote all this out - I didn't even say it in the first place! I was just defending an unfair attack against Tayninh!

If you want to hear my official position - I believe God teaches not to do this. I am not preaching this. This is simply the foundation for my feelings. I believe that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman - why is that so hurtful? I have a right to believe that as well. I've discussed this here in a logical and fair manner - I have not tried to convince anyone to believe the way I do, just simply discussed the facts and how they apply to the issue in question.

P.S. I take it that by "espousing this ... value" you mean my believing homosexuality is wrong. That I do - but if you take that to be hateful or bigoted, then you have obviously read too much into ANY of my posts. It's simply my belief, that I can only apply to my own life. And it does not affect how I treat others.

As mentioned in the earlier post i find religious justification for hate to be a complete cop out. Not to offend christians (but i probably will) the bible is a book written by man not god. Its man's own interpretation of what he or she believes God's words are. Anything written down is always subject to interpretation and anything written down can be re-written however one see's fit. Therefor, To justify hate through the context of what is written in some book is to blindly follow that faith.

That being said, being that I'm not a christian and that I am gay, i am not bound by any christian rhetoric that my lifestyle is wrong in some way and I'm going to hell. All gay people are not christians and those that are (i hope) see there is more to their religion then a written word.

As mentioned in the earlier post i find religious justification for hate to be a complete cop out. Not to offend christians (but i probably will) the bible is a book written by man not god. Its man's own interpretation of what he or she believes God's words are. Anything written down is always subject to interpretation and anything written down can be re-written however one see's fit. Therefor, To justify hate through the context of what is written in some book is to blindly follow that faith.

That being said, being that I'm not a christian and that I am gay, i am not bound by any christian rhetoric that my lifestyle is wrong in some way and I'm going to hell. All gay people are not christians and those that are (i hope) see there is more to their religion then a written word.

I hope you realize that first of all I have no hate to cause me to need to hide behind God's word. I would never tell ANYONE that they are going to hell. That is DEFINITELY not my place, right, or desire.

Second I hope you realize I have a right to believe what is and what isn't God's word. I don't need to assume that the entire bible is some miscellaneous scribe's interpretation, although I do believe that mans' interpretation has made it into the bible somewhat. I follow my own faith in my own way, based on what is shown to me to be God's word, not what I take blindly.

I hope you realize that first of all I have no hate to cause me to need to hide behind God's word. I would never tell ANYONE that they are going to hell. That is DEFINITELY not my place, right, or desire.

Second I hope you realize I have a right to believe what is and what isn't God's word. I don't need to assume that the entire bible is some miscellaneous scribe's interpretation, although I do believe that mans' interpretation has made it into the bible somewhat. I follow my own faith in my own way, based on what is shown to me to be God's word, not what I take blindly.


Then i believe you follow your faith rightly so and you are entitled follow it how you see fit. My statement was mainly meant for those that see religious justification for hate as a black and white issue, when in fact the issue itself is very grey.

The issue is not gray in the Bible.

The push is on for homosexual “marriage,” the removal of structures and laws considered oppressive to homosexuals, and the recognition of homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and others as “erotic minorities” deserving of special legal protection.

These days, anyone who would oppose homosexuality as a fully valid lifestyle is depicted as a narrow-minded bigot and described as “homophobic.” Anyone who suggests that heterosexual marriage is the only acceptable and legitimate area of sexual activity is lambasted as out-dated, oppressive, and outrageously out of step with modern culture. Opponents of same-sex marriage are disparaged as intolerant, judgmental, and fundamentalist.

I affirm Biblical authority. The Bible is the Word of God in written form, inerrant and infallible, inspired by the Holy Spirit and “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) Those churches that reject the authority of Scripture will eventually succumb to cultural pressure and accommodate their understanding of homosexuality to the spirit of the age.

The homosexual agenda is pushed by activists who are totally committed to the cause of making homosexuality a sanctioned and recognized form of sexual activity - and the basis for legitimate marriages and family relationships. Every obstacle that stands in the way of progress towards this agenda may be removed, and Scripture stands as the most formidable obstacle to that agenda.

The intention from the very beginning was to create humans in two genders or sexes –“male and female He created them.” Both man and woman were created in the image of God. They were and are distinct, and yet inseparately linked by God’s design. The genders really are different, and the distinction goes far beyond mere physical differences, but the man recognized the woman as “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.”

The bond between man and woman is marriage, which is not an historical accident or the result of socialization and cultural evolution. To the contrary, marriage and the establishment of the heterosexual covenant union is central to God’s intention. Immediately following the creation of man and woman come the instructive words: “For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.”

Any sexual expression outside of a heterosexual marriage relationship is illicit, immoral, and outlawed by God’s explicit command and law.

The modern --- and highly political --- notion of homosexual “orientation” as a natural human condition cannot be squared with the Bible.

Leviticus 18:22 speaks of male homosexuality as an ‘abomination” – the strongest word used of God’s judgment against a human act. The most extensive argument against homosexuality is found in Romans 1:22-27. Here is some of that passage,” For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever: Amen, For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for the women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and is the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

Men and women have forfeited the natural complementarity of God’s intention for heterosexual marriage and have turned to members of their own sex, burning with an illicit desire which is in itself both degrading and dishonorable.

The Biblical witness is clear: Homosexual acts are expressly and unconditionally forbidden by God through His Word (the Bible), and such acts are an abomination to the Lord by His own declaration. These are strong words, but they are the Bible’s words.

The issue is not gray in the Bible.

The push is on for homosexual “marriage,” the removal of structures and laws considered oppressive to homosexuals, and the recognition of homosexuals, bisexuals, transsexuals, and others as “erotic minorities” deserving of special legal protection.

These days, anyone who would oppose homosexuality as a fully valid lifestyle is depicted as a narrow-minded bigot and described as “homophobic.” Anyone who suggests that heterosexual marriage is the only acceptable and legitimate area of sexual activity is lambasted as out-dated, oppressive, and outrageously out of step with modern culture. Opponents of same-sex marriage are disparaged as intolerant, judgmental, and fundamentalist.

I affirm Biblical authority. The Bible is the Word of God in written form, inerrant and infallible, inspired by the Holy Spirit and “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16) Those churches that reject the authority of Scripture will eventually succumb to cultural pressure and accommodate their understanding of homosexuality to the spirit of the age.

The homosexual agenda is pushed by activists who are totally committed to the cause of making homosexuality a sanctioned and recognized form of sexual activity - and the basis for legitimate marriages and family relationships. Every obstacle that stands in the way of progress towards this agenda may be removed, and Scripture stands as the most formidable obstacle to that agenda.

The intention from the very beginning was to create humans in two genders or sexes –“male and female He created them.” Both man and woman were created in the image of God. They were and are distinct, and yet inseparately linked by God’s design. The genders really are different, and the distinction goes far beyond mere physical differences, but the man recognized the woman as “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.”

The bond between man and woman is marriage, which is not an historical accident or the result of socialization and cultural evolution. To the contrary, marriage and the establishment of the heterosexual covenant union is central to God’s intention. Immediately following the creation of man and woman come the instructive words: “For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed.”

Any sexual expression outside of a heterosexual marriage relationship is illicit, immoral, and outlawed by God’s explicit command and law.

The modern --- and highly political --- notion of homosexual “orientation” as a natural human condition cannot be squared with the Bible.

Leviticus 18:22 speaks of male homosexuality as an ‘abomination” – the strongest word used of God’s judgment against a human act. The most extensive argument against homosexuality is found in Romans 1:22-27. Here is some of that passage,” For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever: Amen, For this reason, God gave them over to degrading passions; for the women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and is the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.”

Men and women have forfeited the natural complementarity of God’s intention for heterosexual marriage and have turned to members of their own sex, burning with an illicit desire which is in itself both degrading and dishonorable.

The Biblical witness is clear: Homosexual acts are expressly and unconditionally forbidden by God through His Word (the Bible), and such acts are an abomination to the Lord by His own declaration. These are strong words, but they are the Bible’s words.




And what would you do if you had a child that turned out to be gay? Would you still love him or her... or would you consider them an abomination?

I would still love my child. Its not a gene thing though. Its acquired I would think. Yet, its still an abomination. I have no ill feelings with people who outwardly say they are homosexual as well. I don't agree with what they are doing.

Tayninh, again that is from the english translation, as we had talked about before. What was actually written was that pagan prostitution was forbidden. Also the same section of the bible calls eating a cheeseburger an abomination. So I would say it is pretty grey, nowhere in the bible is the issue of homosexual marriage mentioned.


As far as Romans 1:26-27, first of all these are Paul's beliefs, who the bible shows as clearly human. Paul also supports slavery(Philemon 1:15-16), and the oppression of women(Corinthians 14:34-35.) This section reads mostly as a criticism of greek behavior in temple worship.


Some believe the "men...with other men" clause to be a corruption of the original greek which referred to pederastry. But most believe that Paul is speaking of men who are naturally heterosexual, but are committing acts of homosexuality. The complete passage describes how the ex-Christians engaged in orgiastic, presumably heterosexual sexual activities. This type of behavior was common among Pagan fertility religions in Rome during Paul's time. Paul writes that, later, God "gave them over" to something new: homosexual behavior. This implies that throughout their lifetime they had had a heterosexual orientation and had engaged only in heterosexual sex. God influenced them so that they engaged in homosexual sex. This was, for them, an unnatural activity. They were criticized because they were engaged in sexual activity which was unnatural for them. For a person with a heterosexual orientation, homosexual behavior is "shameful," "unnatural," "indecent," and a "perversion." The passage in Romans is not a condemnation of homosexual behavior. Rather, it disapproves of sexual behavior that is against a person's basic nature (i.e. homosexual behaviors by people whose orientation is heterosexual). Presumably this would condemn heterosexual behavior by gays and lesbians -- activity which is equally against their nature.


C Ann Shepherd wrote a lot about this interpretation.


Pope Paul VI, approved the reading as "...why their women have turned from natural intercourse to unnatural practices and why their menfolk have given up natural intercourse to be consumed with passion for each other, men doing shameless things with men and getting an appropriate reward for their perversion," a little bit different, exluding lesbianism.

How is it special protection? You can marry who you want, they can marry who they want.


As far as the majority rules, it was not until the late 90s that the majority of the country supported interracial couples.

You gotta love how the Christians pick and choose which passages of the bible to take literally, and which to completely ignore. Tayninh, Wannahave, et al, had any good pork chops lately? AN ABOMINATION! Shrimp scampi? DITTO! Slept in the same bed with your wife while she's menstruating? UNCLEAN!

Catch my drift? If you're going to use the bible to condemn the actions of others, you'd better make sure you're not violating any of those edicts yourself. Or, as one of those bible dudes you're so fond of would say: Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

I would still love my child. Its not a gene thing though. Its acquired I would think. Yet, its still an abomination. I have no ill feelings with people who outwardly say they are homosexual as well. I don't agree with what they are doing.

It's remarkable to me how people all over the world use their own brand of religion to justify really horrible behavior toward their fellow man. "It's not a gene thing." Says who? You? And you're a genetics expert? And this is based on what scientifically valid research? Or is this your God telling you these things again.

It's an "abomination," but you're not being judgmental?

You really think people choose that "preference?" Why, because it's so much easier to live your life being reviled? Right....

Of course you have "ill feelings with people who outwardly say they are homosexual as well," whatever it means to "outwardly say one is homosexual" (he or she is pretending to be homosexual? That sure makes sense). Why else would so many, who feel like you do on this issue, rally and work to prevent gay marriage, when gay marriage would not harm you at all? How can you even convince yourself, much less try to convince others, that you should deny people important legal rights based solely on sexual orientation, but you nevertheless have no "ill feelings" toward them. Your deeds--denying rights to those who don't share your religion--speak louder about your "ill feelings" than any words of denial can. You can't have it both ways, pretending to love your fellow man, while working to harm people who have never done you any harm. And it's really unseemly to foist your hate off on God.

To many of us who don't share your brand of Christianity, your religion is very frightening; I would no more choose to live in a world dominated by your beliefs than I would choose to live in a world dominated by the extreme form of Isalm we all fear, and I do thank my God that the founding fathers well understood the importance of separating church and state, to protect both church and state. May the Supreme Court remain vigilant in this time of need.

Here's something the scripture spewers might actually understand -- or maybe it's in that part of the bible that they choose to ignore:

Mark 4:24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.

Matt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Matt 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.

Matt 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Matt 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye?
Matt 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

And my personal favorite:
John 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
John 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
John 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
John 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not].
John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
John 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
John 8:9 And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
John 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
John 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

Here's something the scripture spewers might actually understand -- or maybe it's in that part of the bible that they choose to ignore:

Mark 4:24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.

Matt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Matt 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.


[snip]

John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
John 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
John 8:9 And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
John 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
John 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.


It's a good book, isn't it, when read for the real message of Jesus Christ, that of love and acceptance? It's too bad that many who call themselves "Christians" choose to ignore that fundamental message of the New Covenant, and instead trot out the more virulent, hateful pieces of the Old Testament, as a buttress for their bigotry. The irony is stunning, and sad.

It's a good book, isn't it, when read for the real message of Jesus Christ, that of love and acceptance? It's too bad that many who call themselves "Christians" choose to ignore that fundamental message of the New Covenant, and instead trot out the more virulent, hateful pieces of the Old Testament, as a buttress for their bigotry. The irony is stunning, and sad.

Just make sure you know who you are including and who you aren't. I've stated my Christian beliefs in this thread (though I wouldn't be grouped to be a "general" Christian) and I feel a little attacked by the feelings of the last several posts, despite as fair as I've attempted to be, and as much as I've tried to separate the (few) real facts in this discussion from all of our personal beliefs.

Nick,

The object of my fear is the person who has a controlling social agenda, with the intent of legislating their view of morals, based on their interpretation of the bible. These days, that often takes the form of actively working against equal rights for gay people, and often violent actions to try to prevent people from exercising their constitutional right to abortion. At times past, it was used to fight, e.g., the equal rights amendment. In general, it seems more intent on limiting rights than on protecting rights.

Having been raised in a religious family, having attended religious school for many years, and having attended more church services myself than most families, I have a deep reverence for religious freedom and religious beliefs. However, when folks want to force their religious beliefs on others, that is un-American, and I will do what I can to oppose them.

If you are one of those who would use his religion to mask bigotry, my messages were meant for you; if you are one who has deeply-held religious beliefs, but respects the rights of those who don't agree, and isn't trying to impose your religious beliefs on others, my messages are not meant for you.

ok I'm pulling this post...adios :) (friends request)

edited for drunkin insanity (friend's request)

LOOOLL I swear I read that post thinking "Is he drunk?" then I hit the next page and there's my answer..

I would no more choose to live in a world dominated by your beliefs than I would choose to live in a world dominated by the extreme form of Isalm we all fear, and I do thank my God that the founding fathers well understood the importance of separating church and state, to protect both church and state. May the Supreme Court remain vigilant in this time of need.You choose to live in a country in which 80% of the citizens are Christian, and many (most) of them have strong beliefs that gays should not marry. Deal with it.

And gays HAVE equal rights. Men don't have the right to marry other men, whether or not they are gay. ---SLAM DUNK :D

You choose to live in a country in which 80% of the citizens are Christian, and many (most) of them have strong beliefs that gays should not marry. Deal with it.

And gays HAVE equal rights. Men don't have the right to marry other men, whether or not they are gay.


There you go with making assumptions again, without having any facts to back it up. If 80% are christian how do you know that most or many believe that gays should not marry or that the lifestlye is wrong. Have you asked each and every one of them or have you taken a random statistical sample of the population and came to that conclusion?

Saying that 80% are christian and of those 80% have strong beliefs against it is all here say.

There you go with making assumptions again, without having any facts to back it up. If 80% are christian how do you know that most or many believe that gays should not marry or that the lifestlye is wrong. Have you asked each and every one of them or have you taken a random statistical sample of the population and came to that conclusion?

Saying that 80% are christian and of those 80% have strong beliefs against it is all here say.The recent elections in which 11 states voted strongly against gay marriage is all the evidence I need. There are polls too, but I don't feel the need to dig them up. It's rather obvious to anyone paying attention.

If you think I am wrong, then show me.

Doc, come on, that's like Plessy v. Ferguson. You guys are separate, but you're equal. Both sides don't have equal rights. I have the right to find the perfect person for me and marry them. A person over in Dupont doesn't have that right, although they have gained some headway through the years.


Your post actually reminds me of a famous statement about the law in france. The name of the person who came up with it escapes me, but he or she said, "The law in France is impartial; it forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges." The point of course, is that the law in France is hardly impartial, it is targeting only those who would sleep under bridges, so the poor. Here we have the same thing. The law is far from impartial, it is targeting only those who would marry the same sex.


Stanley Fish has some great articles about the language of impartiality and equality and how they are used for the exact opposite goals.

Your post actually reminds me of a famous statement about the law in france. The name of the person who came up with it escapes me, but he or she said, "The law in France is impartial; it forbids both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges." The point of course, is that the law in France is hardly impartial, it is targeting only those who would sleep under bridges, so the poor. Here we have the same thing. The law is far from impartial, it is targeting only those who would marry the same sex.
I couldn't disagree more, although I see your point. I think there might be reasons why nongays might benefit from saying they were married (for example to get cheaper health insurance or perhaps tax benefits).

The recent elections in which 11 states voted strongly against gay marriage is all the evidence I need. There are polls too, but I don't feel the need to dig them up. It's rather obvious to anyone paying attention.

If you think I am wrong, then show me.


An Thats 11 states out of what 50. With the majority of the population residing in the other 39 states. If you look at the polls you will notice obivious shifts over public opinion. One day a poll may say the majority opposes gay marriage and another day only 50% oppose and 50% agree. Polls can be biased too depending on who's giving them and who is being polled.

But by the same token, a man and a women can put together a sham marriage and take the same benefits. What makes you think this would become any more of a problem if same sex marriages were allowed? If anything there is more social stigma preventing two heterosexuals pretending to be gay to get benefits than a man and a woman doing the same.


If you want you can put in a disclaimer that says anyone who gets married to a partner of the same sex will no longer be entitled to any benefits if they marry someone of a different sex later. Would anyone here disagree with that?

If you want you can put in a disclaimer that says anyone who gets married to a partner of the same sex will no longer be entitled to any benefits if they marry someone of a different sex later. Would anyone here disagree with that?Nah, I'll just stick with my current view against gay marriage altogether, But thanks for asking. :)

An Thats 11 states out of what 50. With the majority of the population residing in the other 39 states. If you look at the polls you will notice obivious shifts over public opinion. One day a poll may say the majority opposes gay marriage and another day only 50% oppose and 50% agree. Polls can be biased too depending on who's giving them and who is being polled.The polls are consistent in showing that the older you are, the more likely you are to be against gay marriage. Old folks vote a lot more, as the last election showed. Thus my earlier statement that it will take another generation (or more) for you to get what you want.

I disagree, look at the miscegenation laws, they were deemed unconstitutional long before the majority of people accepted miscegeny. Or integration for that matter. But if it is up to voting, then Doc is probably right, because even though only 51% of america says they are opposed to civil unions, those 51% normally feel a whole lot stronger than the rest of the group.


Here is a page full of polls if anyone is interested: http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm.


From my experience, a lot of it depends on where you are and your experience. Poll groups in Alabama and Texas you'll get a much different result from DC and NY.


So it seems like those people who actualy know a homosexual couple are much more supporting of homosexual marriage than those who have never really been exposed to it.

You choose to live in a country in which 80% of the citizens are Christian, and many (most) of them have strong beliefs that gays should not marry. Deal with it.

There you've hit on one of my favorite aspects of so many fundamentalist "Christians." When convenient for your purposes, you include me as a Christian; otherwise, because I don't subscribe to your extreme form of Christianity, I'm not a Christian. But then I remember that the Devil quotes scripture for his own purposes, so I understand....


And gays HAVE equal rights. Men don't have the right to marry other men, whether or not they are gay. ---SLAM DUNK :D

What a ludicrous statement. I get to marry the person I love; heck, I could marry someone I don't even love, so long as it's a female. However, a gay person can't marry the person he or she loves, only because the majority doesn't approve of that, even though it hurts nobody. That's an interesting form of "equal rights," but not one I recognize.

I'm neither a Christian nor an atheist, nor a Muslim for that matter, although I respect the Christians' views more than the rest. And I don't see where I included you as a Christian, but as a citizen of this country dominated by Christianity, you are going to be affected by their wishes, whether you like it or not.

And yes, you can marry whoever you want, as long as she is female. That rule has been around a long time, and just because a handful of outspoken people are bitching about it now, doesn't mean we are ready to change it yet.

I'm neither a Christian nor an atheist, nor a Muslim for that matter, although I respect the Christians' views more than the rest. And I don't see where I included you as a Christian, but as a citizen of this country dominated by Christianity, you are going to be affected by their wishes, whether you like it or not.

And yes, you can marry whoever you want, as long as she is female. That rule has been around a long time, and just because a handful of outspoken people are bitching about it now, doesn't mean we are ready to change it yet.

Well, then, I guess I'll give you credit (?) that at least you aren't hiding your bigotry behind expressions of religious belief.

The majority of the country once supported slavery; did that make slavery right? The majority of the country once supported racial segregation; did that make segregation right? The majority of the country once supported laws against inter-racial marriage; did that make anti-miscegenation statutes right? The fact is that the majority of the country shares your aversion to gay marriage, not because it would have any effect on them, but because of various levels of bigotry, but that doesn't make laws against gay marriage right. Gay marriage would harm nobody, and would benefit many. Homosexuality is not "catching," so you needn't worry about your children catching it if they become acquainted with a gay couple.

And, if it were a "handful" of folks supporting gay marriage, you wouldn't either (i) be so concerned about the issue, or (ii) be implicitly acknowledging that the day will come when public opinion changes, and gay marriage is legalized. It is, in fact, a very significant minority, and growing all the time. You can hold back the tide only so long, but it's still bigotry.

Speed-er we keep meeting in this threads...and as usual I have to disagree It doesn't matter if the country was %99.99 christitan, seperation fo church and state beliefs ever heard of it?-THREE POINTER!

Well, it's me...the false Christian according to Aratinga

I agree with everything Tayninh said so I don't need to add more there.

Aratinga let me explain something to you that you apparently don't understand.

Christians ARE NOT PERFECT!!!!! We are ALL sinners and have fallen short. What have I said or done to make you think that I am perfect in any way, shape, or form? The difference between a believer and a nonbeliever is that we admit our inperfection, recognize it, repent of it, and submit our souls to the lamb of GOD...JESUS CHRIST.

Furthermore I for one am not afraid to say that I have MUCH MUCH more to grow, in GOD's word, but speaking in ignorance as you have proves to me your condition. Welcome to the club, it's called...a sinner. We are all sinners, some more than others...some sin by doing X others by doing Y, it's humanities fallen condition.

"Judge not least you be judged" Everyone that keeps bringing that up does not even understand it...yet they use it as their battle cry. When I or Tayninh mention GOD's word we are not bringing you "OUR" opinion but what the WORD OF GOD tells us.

As they have said, this is not the place to discuss this but you did not even follow your own battle cry...You judged me and indicated that I pick and choose what I believe in, YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW ME!!! But, I don't expect much from humanity so I'm not too amazed by the comments on this website.

Hate me...so be it, disrespect me...so be it, judge me...so be it...

I WILL NOT STAND BY WHILE FALSE TEACHINGS ARE BEING SPREAD! Those that wish we were quiet (it's not new...they were killing us for thousands of years before the recent animosity that keeps growing in this nation and the world) stop attacking our faith and maybe we can hold back, for the sake of what this forum is about...but spread lies about the Bible, GOD, or JESUS CHRIST and I WILL NOT STAND BY!

GOD's word told us this would happen and we can not do anything to stop it. It will get worse and worse...but people like me & Tayninh (with GOD's help) will not waiver...will not stay quiet, and will not back down.

I do not hate anyone, I"m Cuban and I don't even hate Fidel Castro with all the evil he has done to Cuba. Homosexuality is wrong PER GOD'S WORD, but per our savior JESUS CHRIST we are to love everyone...EVEN OUR ENEMIES, so TRUE Christians will not hate homosexuals or wish them pain. They will not hurt them or seek after their death but we will not sit by and watch them live a self distructive life...PER GOD'S WORD. Why, and I'm learning this little by little, because WE ARE TO LOVE EVERYONE, but not compromise GOD's word.

Those that say, hey...I don't care they aint hurting me, just show a selfish attitude. (Keep in mind that we are ALL selfish to a certain degree). Christians can not, because JESUS CHRIST called us to be the light of the world and actually put the weight on our shoulders to speak the truth...allow people to fall away in ignorance. Fall away as we were before we knew of our condition and that old serpant.

Tell me, what do we gain by standing out? By telling others we live by GOD's standard? By telling everyone that GOD's word is perfect and DOES NOT CONTRIDICT ITSELF?

What do we gain? Insults, persecution, hate, injustice, and in many nations around the world DEATH! Why would we speak up?

I can feel that so many on this website don't like me, it's OK, I"ll do my best to be honest, friendly, and care about others...no matter what others might think of me. I'm not here to impress the world or people on this website, I"m here (on Earth) to grow into a better Christian and to be a postive and encourageing memeber of this website and the world comunity.

Judge and hate, call us ignorant bigots, but JESUS TOLD US this would happen but I'll keep speaking up if our faith, savior, or GOD's word is trashed on this website. Till I'm kicked off one day...which if could be voted on, I'd probably would be.

This is long, but since I'm accused of taking bit's and pieces I posted all of the chapter, read it if you wish:

Matthew Chapter 10

1: And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.
2: Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;
3: Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;
4: Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.
5: These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not:
6: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
7: And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.
8: Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
9: Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses,
10: Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat.
11: And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, inquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence.
12: And when ye come into an house, salute it.
13: And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you.
14: And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.
15: Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.
16: Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves.
17: But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues;
18: And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.
19: But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak.
20: For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you.
21: And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.
22: And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.
23: But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
24: The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord.
25: It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?
26: Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known.
27: What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops.
28: And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
29: Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.
30: But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.
31: Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows.
32: Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.
33: But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.
34: Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
35: For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
36: And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
37: He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.
38: And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me.
39: He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.
40: He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.
41: He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward.
42: And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.


There goes the thread, and probably me too!

thats fair, may I ask what is your position? My thoughts are (and don't hold me to this) you scientific processing of the situation can only allow for freedom to prevail and this allows marriage

on the other hand your conservative leanings, do sometimes lock your free mind and your posts become in conflict with your views on reality

This was a serious case of IMHO...but I would like to hear your 'IMHO' for this matter

-the other JI don't have a problem with marriage for gay and lesbians, but I do have a problem with a group pushing a social agenda on the public. As I said before, I don't think the marriage debate is the real issue at stake. So I'm somewhat caught inbetween. I can see it from both viewpoints.

Here's something the scripture spewers might actually understand -- or maybe it's in that part of the bible that they choose to ignore:

Mark 4:24 And he said unto them, Take heed what ye hear: with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you: and unto you that hear shall more be given.

Matt 7:1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
Matt 7:2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.

Matt 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
Matt 7:4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam [is] in thine own eye?
Matt 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

And my personal favorite:
John 8:3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,
John 8:4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.
John 8:5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
John 8:6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with [his] finger wrote on the ground, [as though he heard them not].
John 8:7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
John 8:8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.
John 8:9 And they which heard [it], being convicted by [their own] conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, [even] unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.
John 8:10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?
John 8:11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

What are you trying to do here? Negate some parts of the Bible by taking other parts to explain a reason? The Bible is the last fense for this issue and some will try to explain it away. What's written is written for a purpose. No one is judging anyone. Its what God has said. Because its the last pole in front of this life choice, there will be many who will try to go around it. Its Truth and that's what's the issue to many who want this sort of illegal "marriage". I don't speak for myself, all I am doing is letting God speak His own words.

I don't have a problem with marriage for gay and lesbians, but I do have a problem with a group pushing a social agenda on the public. As I said before, I don't think the marriage debate is the real issue at stake. So I'm somewhat caught inbetween. I can see it from both viewpoints.

I like that you can see both view points...but please ponder this...

the 'anti-gay marriage' side is constanty pushing a social agenda on the public, whether it is in our children's textbooks (creationism in class), abortion, etc. etc. etc.!

Could you critique their social agenda pushing? thanks

-the other J

Folks,

This isn't my forum. And I'm not the moderator. So if you all wish to continue the back-and-forth regarding what is and isn't the "word of God," it's up to you (and the moderator.)

Having said that, however, I was under the impression that long-winded religious arguments were prohibited here (for good reason.) Granted that issues such as this one are intricately linked to many people's religious beliefs. But there's a difference, imo, in discussions that refer to the religious implications/sources of a perspective and extended assertions about the content/truth of God's word and his/her existence.

Thus, there's a difference in noting that one's views about social issues are formed by one's religious perspective and long-winded assertions about the inerrant "truth" of a particular religious perspective.

Frankly, I don't read this forum in order to regaled by posts that assert the truth/error of a particular version of the Bible. I might be alone in this view, but I don't think so.

For those who aren't able to contain their missionary zeal in promoting/defending a particular religious perspective, I'd suggest there are other forums where such
assertions are more appropriate.

I don't have a problem with marriage for gay and lesbians, but I do have a problem with a group pushing a social agenda on the public.

Sorry, friend. But the nature of politics is "pushing a social agenda on the public."

What are you trying to do here? Negate some parts of the Bible by taking other parts to explain a reason? The Bible is the last fense for this issue and some will try to explain it away. What's written is written for a purpose. No one is judging anyone. Its what God has said. Because its the last pole in front of this life choice, there will be many who will try to go around it. Its Truth and that's what's the issue to many who want this sort of illegal "marriage". I don't speak for myself, all I am doing is letting God speak His own words.
Said something like this before but it got lost in the torrent.

There are a number of sects of Christianity. Some hold to a literal interpretation of some parts of the Bible, though that is not the case with most Christian denominations. Passages in the Bible are interpreted different ways by different sects. Personally, I give very little consideration to a line of reasoning that is based on one particular interpretation of Biblical passages.

That being said, I think much of the opposition to same-sex marriage is not so much opposition to homosexuality (though obviously there's much of that, as we've seen) but more on the "sanctity of marriage" thing. Many people view marriage from a religious perspective, and when you cross the line into religious territory people can go apeshit (as we've also seen).

I support the idea of same-sex couples having the same rights and legal privileges as opposite-sex couples. But I'm against using the label "marriage" mainly because it causes so much anger, controversy and negative backlash (as we've also seen). I would support a "marriage-like" status for same-sex couples that would have the same rights and legal privileges as opposite-sex couples. Call it a compromise, call it a cop-out, call it Life In The Big City if you want. But I think getting away from the word "marriage" would put a serious dent in the opposition.

<snip>

Frankly, I don't read this forum in order to regaled by posts that assert the truth/error of a particular version of the Bible. I might be alone in this view, but I don't think so.

For those who aren't able to contain their missionary zeal in promoting/defending a particular religious perspective, I'd suggest there are other forums where such assertions are more appropriate.
You're not alone in that view. Posting "101 resons why yadda yadda" is a waste of bandwidth, and potentially offensive. And I agree that there are other more appropriate media for it, such as Usenet Newsgroups.

Sorry, friend. But the nature of politics is "pushing a social agenda on the public."

But one side sees only the other as doing so...

What it comes down to for me is not that I want to withhold rights from gays and lesbians. I have no reason for doing so, nor do I want to. What it comes down to for me is what "marriage" means. If that means something different for you, fine. That's what we're discussing here. I agree that the rights that come with marriage should not be withheld from ANY person, if it is not a choice you make.

For example,

A. If science determined that homosexuals were born homosexual and had no choice but to be that way, then they should have access to all rights.

B. If it is found that homosexuality, regardless of whether or not they are born with a tendency, is still a choice, then I believe marriage should not need to apply. It's like any choice - if I choose to own a more expensive house, I have to pay the extra taxes on that house. If someone chooses to be gay, then they would be choosing also to accept not being able to be married. I agree whole-heartedly that this viewpoint would be unconstitutional if it were entirely in their nature to be gay.

Right now, I believe B. That's my choice, my viewpoint, and none of it has become science yet.

I'm not trying to push this "social agenda" on anyone - it's simply the way I see it.

By the way, with B there is still the possibility of a status that does grant similar rights. My major issue is with the field of Marriage - it is something I hold sacred to be between a man and a woman. (This is my opinion!)

I understand your reasoning...but you are the PERFECT example of the misunderstanding that is occuring in this issue...

There are TWO seperate and distinct types of marriage and most people partake in both:

1. The ceremony marriage...usually religious based, it is for 'sprititual reasons' and we will call this the Church/Synagogue/Chapel whatever option.

2. The legal contract with the state marriage. This legal contract identifies to entities, and creates a legal link between the two that defines them as individuals and as a unit together with different legal provisions then when the entities were not linked.

Here is the problem in MOST cases, people CANNOT seem to seperate Ceremony Marriage from Legal Contract w/state marriage. There is no 'sanctity of marriage' in the Legal Contract w/state marriage! It is simply a piece of paper...that defines rights to a unit.

It is these overzealous groups who are moralistic tyrants...attempting to 'uphold' the supposed 'santity of marriage' but IN FACT they are simply defining law and in doing so blindly limiting the rights of individuals in the United States.

Yes sir it is this clear cut.

This is why I constantly state...DISSOLVE THE LEGAL INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE...it is and has ALWAYS been a legal quagmire that has no place in US government.
Said something like this before but it got lost in the torrent.

There are a number of sects of Christianity. Some hold to a literal interpretation of some parts of the Bible, though that is not the case with most Christian denominations. Passages in the Bible are interpreted different ways by different sects. Personally, I give very little consideration to a line of reasoning that is based on one particular interpretation of Biblical passages.

That being said, I think much of the opposition to same-sex marriage is not so much opposition to homosexuality (though obviously there's much of that, as we've seen) but more on the "sanctity of marriage" thing. Many people view marriage from a religious perspective, and when you cross the line into religious territory people can go apeshit (as we've also seen).

I support the idea of same-sex couples having the same rights and legal privileges as opposite-sex couples. But I'm against using the label "marriage" mainly because it causes so much anger, controversy and negative backlash (as we've also seen). I would support a "marriage-like" status for same-sex couples that would have the same rights and legal privileges as opposite-sex couples. Call it a compromise, call it a cop-out, call it Life In The Big City if you want. But I think getting away from the word "marriage" would put a serious dent in the opposition.

But one side sees only the other as doing so...

What it comes down to for me is not that I want to withhold rights from gays and lesbians. I have no reason for doing so, nor do I want to. What it comes down to for me is what "marriage" means. If that means something different for you, fine. That's what we're discussing here. I agree that the rights that come with marriage should not be withheld from ANY person, if it is not a choice you make.

For example,

A. If science determined that homosexuals were born homosexual and had no choice but to be that way, then they should have access to all rights.

B. If it is found that homosexuality, regardless of whether or not they are born with a tendency, is still a choice, then I believe marriage should not need to apply. It's like any choice - if I choose to own a more expensive house, I have to pay the extra taxes on that house. If someone chooses to be gay, then they would be choosing also to accept not being able to be married. I agree whole-heartedly that this viewpoint would be unconstitutional if it were entirely in their nature to be gay.

Right now, I believe B. That's my choice, my viewpoint, and none of it has become science yet.

I'm not trying to push this "social agenda" on anyone - it's simply the way I see it.

By the way, with B there is still the possibility of a status that does grant similar rights. My major issue is with the field of Marriage - it is something I hold sacred to be between a man and a woman. (This is my opinion!)

Sorry, Nick, but the reasoning that civil rights should only apply in cases where one's behavior "is not a choice" is inherently faulty. Consider, for example, the First Amendment to the Constitution and the related civil rights protection provided for religious belief/behavior.

Try replacing "gay and lesbian" in your comments above with "agnostics and atheists" and see how it sounds.

Sorry, Nick, but the reasoning that civil rights should only apply in cases where one's behavior "is not a choice" is inherently faulty. Consider, for example, the First Amendment to the Constitution and the related civil rights protection provided for religious belief/behavior.

Try replacing "gay and lesbian" in your comments above with "agnostics and atheists" and see how it sounds.

You're looking at what I said from the wrong angle. I didn't say it should ONLY apply if one's behavior is not a choice - that is the only reason that my viewpoint on marriage is not unconstitutional - as so many claim it is.


Truemagellen, I do understand the separation of state marriage and cermonial marriage. I had a ceremonial marriage. But for me, it applies to both. And I'm sorry if I'm going to stand by my beliefs - I simply don't see how you can feel that my purpose for doing so is to be tyrannical. :-/ By the way, I was able to understand your point without the giant font ;)

I understand your reasoning...but you are the PERFECT example of the misunderstanding that is occuring in this issue...
<snip>
This is why I constantly state...DISSOLVE THE LEGAL INSTITUTION OF MARRIAGE...it is and has ALWAYS been a legal quagmire that has no place in US government.
Note to self: Put things in LARGE FONT to make them more authoritative. ;)

Misunderstanding the difference between secular and religious definitions is not the issue. Perceptions and emotions are the issue. Look how many people go apeshit over flag burning, which (if I'm not mistaken) is still legal.

I emphatically predict ;) that if same-sex unions had an identical legal status to marriage, but under a different label, the opposition would be far less.

Dissolving the legal institution of marriage is a non-starter. Imagine the hoards of children who would have no legal standing for getting child support from a divorced parent. :(

From the posts we all can see this is as an explosive issue. We are passed the "shock" factor as is seen on TV and the movies what is now an "accepted" practice. Its all there for us to see. We have become deluted to its effect on us. I perceive in my opinion that the majority of Americans regardless of what they believe in are against same-sex unions for now. Perhaps in the future this will happen. Sadly in my view but like everything else, its like a squeaky wheel. It keeps squeaking until it gets oil. Its yet another nail to our demise. A nation without moral values will NOT continue to remain a nation for any length of time. There, that's my view. Enough said.

I emphatically predict ;) that if same-sex unions had an identical legal status to marriage, but under a different label, the opposition would be far less.



I openly admit :) that my only position is over "marriage" itself. It is what my religious beliefs cause me to hold sacred - I believe that the importance of marriage is more than just as a political legal issue - hence the reason that I care about this issue at all. A union by another name is a different issue, to me.

For the record, I much more respect any couple that is truly committed to each other than any one who abuses marriage for whatever reason (case in point: Britney Spears). I don't have a problem with these couples being treated as such.

:shrug:

giant font is cool dudes! ;) :) :p

Can't vote... my choice is not available. :confused:

Nick, love isn't a choice. Your logic could be applied to miscegenation laws as well, because after all marrying someone of a different race is a choice, right?


But I didn't fall in love with a white girl, I fell in love with an asian girl. And you would be keeping me from marrying the person that I love. I can't see how that is not discriminatory, and how that is any different from the gay marriage issue.


RX8wannahave, if you want to talk about what the bible does or doesn't say on the subject of gay mariage, PM me.

Nick, love isn't a choice. Your logic could be applied to miscegenation laws as well, because after all marrying someone of a different race is a choice, right?


But I didn't fall in love with a white girl, I fell in love with an asian girl. And you would be keeping me from marrying the person that I love. I can't see how that is not discriminatory, and how that is any different from the gay marriage issue.



You make an interesting point. I see that my logic can be applied to that - of course, in that case, the cause is just purely wrong. My personal beliefs do not lead me to believe that marriage excludes a man and a woman of a different race.

What it comes down to is what I believe marriage is. To me, it's important that marriage is defined as a man and a woman. This is my personal belief.

Like I said, it's not the rights, it's not the benefits, and I don't have any desire to create a more negative world for homosexuals.

The more we talk about it, the more I realize that it comes to each persons' beliefs and opinions. But I would ask that everyone allow me my right to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. So I will work to uphold that. I respect all of you for your beliefs as well, and think I have clearly avoided telling anyone that their beliefs are "wrong."

Speed-er we keep meeting in this threads...and as usual I have to disagree It doesn't matter if the country was %99.99 christitan, seperation fo church and state beliefs ever heard of it?-THREE POINTER!
Sounds like you haven't read the constitution. You shot an airball. :p

That being said, I think much of the opposition to same-sex marriage is not so much opposition to homosexuality (though obviously there's much of that, as we've seen) but more on the "sanctity of marriage" thing.
Pretty much my view. I also strongly agree with Jason that what they want is not equal rights, but acceptance in society.

I support the idea of same-sex couples having the same rights and legal privileges as opposite-sex couples. But I'm against using the label "marriage." I would support a "marriage-like" status for same-sex couples that would have the same rights and legal privileges as opposite-sex couples. Call it a compromise, call it a cop-out, call it Life In The Big City if you want. But I think getting away from the word "marriage" would put a serious dent in the opposition.These were recently my views too, but actually, I am starting to lean away from giving them any additional rights the more we debate it. Maybe it's the militant way they express their views, but I am actually becoming more cold to the idea. They can make a will and a POA already, maybe we should leave it at that.

And I'm getting tired of the Bible quotes too, not that I've read them here. We don't need that in the discussion.

From the posts we all can see this is as an explosive issue. We are passed the "shock" factor as is seen on TV and the movies what is now an "accepted" practice. Its all there for us to see. We have become deluted to its effect on us. I perceive in my opinion that the majority of Americans regardless of what they believe in are against same-sex unions for now. Perhaps in the future this will happen. Sadly in my view but like everything else, its like a squeaky wheel. It keeps squeaking until it gets oil. Its yet another nail to our demise. A nation without moral values will NOT continue to remain a nation for any length of time. There, that's my view. Enough said.
Let's talk about perceptions for a moment. Homosexuality is not a new phenomenon. It has existed since the dawn of man/woman. What we see nowadays is gays refusing to hide in the closet any more, or wanting to stop living a lie and come out of the closet and into the open. Consider gays in the military. When I heard the statement long ago that there was a "ban on gays in the military," I knew it was patently absurd. There ARE gays in the military, they've always been there, and they always will be there. Denying that fact is just foolish.

In my experience, as people learn more about what homosexuality is and what it isn't, the chuckling and shocked looks tend to dissipate. I believe in the old saying that "the right to extend your fist stops where my nose begins." The existence of homosexuality is not a threat to me. The openness of gays isn't a threat to me, except when I'll have to spend a little extra time explaining one more fact of life to my daughter some day. :)

While you consider the moral values, consider the implication of reverting to ignoring the existence of homosexuality, living in total ignorance of it, or claiming it doesn't exist. Certainly some things about the world can make us uncomfortable (like the evening news) but do you really want to live a lie?

While you consider the moral values, consider the implication of reverting to ignoring the existence of homosexuality, living in total ignorance of it, or claiming it doesn't exist. Certainly some things about the world can make us uncomfortable (like the evening news) but do you really want to live a lie?

Perhaps some people would prefer to ignore it and revert to its just a small group of people and I don't have to believe it exists. I don't have any problem with people however I don't agree with what they do to themselves, their bodies or what they smoke or what they drink. Many don't like what I believe either but that's ok however, Christianity seems to be the boot to kick last year and its starting this year. Part of it deals just what this thread has discussions on. I know their our church groups that omit what the Bible says as truth and then hide it and accept things the way folks want it right now. They are accepting gay ministers and such. I find it impossible for someone to be shepard of a congregation and live a life style in confict with the Bible. However I consider those churches living a lie and therefore they are pretending to be Christians. Their yes should be yes and their no should be no. Those who choose this life style is their choice but frankly I am getting tired of them forcing there views upon us. Why does it make the news? Why can't it just be an vote issue with a specific state and let the voters decide? They can vote for it but I don't have to agree with it. I can find an understanding somewhere where folks don't want to hide anymore. That's fine for them and makes them feel good so be it.

Perhaps some people would prefer to ignore it and revert to its just a small group of people and I don't have to believe it exists. I don't have any problem with people however I don't agree with what they do to themselves, their bodies or what they smoke or what they drink. Many don't like what I believe either but that's ok however, Christianity seems to be the boot to kick last year and its starting this year. Part of it deals just what this thread has discussions on. I know their our church groups that omit what the Bible says as truth and then hide it and accept things the way folks want it right now. They are accepting gay ministers and such. I find it impossible for someone to be shepard of a congregation and live a life style in confict with the Bible. However I consider those churches living a lie and therefore they are pretending to be Christians. Their yes should be yes and their no should be no. Those who choose this life style is their choice but frankly I am getting tired of them forcing there views upon us. Why does it make the news? Why can't it just be an vote issue with a specific state and let the voters decide? They can vote for it but I don't have to agree with it. I can find an understanding somewhere where folks don't want to hide anymore. That's fine for them and makes them feel good so be it.

Gee, where does one begin when dealing with views such as this?

I have no problem with what you believe; I have a huge problem with your insistence of forcing your views on society. To the extent that "Christianity is the boot to kick," it is not the religion I object to, however extreme your version of it may be, but, rather, the way you hold yourselves to be above others, and seek to enforce your beliefs on the rest of us. Who are you to judge the Episcopal Church for consecrating a gay Bishop? Who are you to judge the "life style" of another? Who are you to say, so smugly, that sexual preference is a "life style," as if that's an established scientific fact, when the vast majority of scientists view it as genetic, not a choice? Have you ever asked a gay person if he or she "chose" to be gay, as if they could just as easily have chosen to be straight? You have every right to believe what you want, but you lose all credibility when you call those who don't agree with you to be living a lie. I don't accuse you of living a lie for your beliefs; it's the way you condemn others, and seek to enforce your views on the rest of us, that gives me such chills.

Again, those who advocate the availability of gay marriage are seeking to expand individual liberties; you are seeking stop that, even though it harms nobody, and many like you are seeking to otherwise contract individual liberties. You apparently can't be happy that you have the choice to live life as you like in this great country of ours; you need to make sure that some others cannot live life as they would want to, even though that would have absolutely no effect on you other than tweaking your prejudices.

The irony of you saying "but frankly I am getting tired of them forcing there views upon us" is rich. They aren't forcing their views on anybody; they are just attempting to gain equal rights. Rather, you are forcing your bigoted views on them to keep them down.

Actually the govenment condoning gay marriage would be allowing to gays to force their views on others. In any area, young children would be exposed to gay couples and would have to question whether it is righ or wrong. Most would have to say that the goverentment say it is ok, so except it. There may be nothing wrong with adults doing things together behind closed doors but there should be no government condonng of the practice. Should poligomy be ok? What is the age of being a real pedophile? What about sex with animals? These aren't really extremes, just the reality that if you let one lifestyle be excepted that we (for the most part) agree is not right, where do you draw the line. Inncest, Gee your honor, I was born to love my daughter, I had no choice? When you start accepting one immoral lifestyle as ok, where do you stop it?

Actually the govenment condoning gay marriage would be allowing to gays to force their views on others. In any area, young children would be exposed to gay couples and would have to question whether it is righ or wrong. Most would have to say that the goverentment say it is ok, so except it. There may be nothing wrong with adults doing things together behind closed doors but there should be no government condonng of the practice. Should poligomy be ok? What is the age of being a real pedophile? What about sex with animals? These aren't really extremes, just the reality that if you let one lifestyle be excepted that we (for the most part) agree is not right, where do you draw the line. Inncest, Gee your honor, I was born to love my daughter, I had no choice? When you start accepting one immoral lifestyle as ok, where do you stop it?

Surely you jest! How is allowing gays to be married forcing their views on anybody else? Does it force you to marry a gay person? Does it force you to celebrate a gay marriage? Of course not. It merely gives them the same rights as anybody else. The government should not be in the business of deciding morals where nobody is injured by the thing being considersd; some people don't approve of it, some do, but it hurts nobody, so it is not a legitimate thing for the government to prohibit. We have a constitution, thank God, a huge part of whose purpose is to protect individual liberties from the tyranny of the majority.

What's wrong with having the conversation with your kids about gays? I have to have conversations with my kids about why we started a war half way across the world. Life is complicated, but ignoring reality doesn't simplify it. It's not as if the government invented homosexuality. This really seems to come back to your discomfort with homosexuality, and a preference that you never had to deal with it. I'm sure that most gays wish they never had to deal with it, either, but they have no choice on the matger. Homosexuality is here, it's always been here, and it always will be here. Forcing it back in the closet may increase your comfort level, but it doesn't make it do away.

And bringing up polygamy and, even more absurd, pedophilia and beastiality, in this discussion only exposes the extremity of your views, although, frankly, it never surprises me when gay-bashers trot out something like pedophilia in a discussion like this, as if gays are are any more likely to be pedophiles than non-gays.

Homosexuality is here, it's always been here, and it always will be here. Forcing it back in the closet may increase your comfort level, but it doesn't make it do away.We'll take what we can get.

...frankly, it never surprises me when gay-bashers trot out something like pedophilia in a discussion like this, as if gays are are any more likely to be pedophiles than non-gays.They are, as I explained earlier in the thread.

We'll take what we can get.

They are, as I explained earlier in the thread.

The bigotry, hatred and just plain meanness just keeps on coming.

I'd be curious to see the scientifically-valid studies to support your remarkable opinions that gays are more likely to be pedophiles than non-gays.

The bigotry, hatred and just plain meanness just keeps on coming.

I'd be curious to see the scientifically-valid studies to support your remarkable opinions that gays are more likely to be pedophiles than non-gays.I have zero hatred of gays, and I do not discriminate against them at all. I work with several nurses who are gay, and enjoy doing so. I am not bigoted in the least, and resent your accusation. Mean? Well, I'll give you that one. ;)

Since you apparently didn't read the thread, I'll point you to the post about gay pedophilia.

http://www.rx8club.com/showpost.php?p=690608&postcount=47

I have zero hatred of gays, and I do not discriminate against them at all. I work with several nurses who are gay, and enjoy doing so. I am not bigoted in the least, and resent your accusation. Mean? Well, I'll give you that one. ;)

Nonsense; by your own words, you want to force them back into the closet, and you want to deny them the right to marry loved ones. Resent away.

Since you apparently didn't read the thread, I'll point you to the post about gay pedophilia.

http://www.rx8club.com/showpost.php?p=690608&postcount=47

Actually, I meant real science, published in nationally-recognized, peer-reviewed journals, demonstrating to a high degree of statistical confidence, that a greater percentage of gay people are pedophiles than non-gay people. Instead, you show me a mismash article, not showing that at all, displayed on a gay-bashing site. Not quite the same thing, and I would expect an M.D. to know the difference.

Actually, I meant real science, published in nationally-recognized, peer-reviewed journals, demonstrating to a high degree of statistical confidence, that a greater percentage of gay people are pedophiles than non-gay people. Instead, you show me a mismash article, not showing that at all, displayed on a gay-bashing site. Not quite the same thing, and I would expect an M.D. to know the difference.

in DSM-IV-TR™. (American Psychiatric Association, 2000) pp. 302.302.
V. L. Quinsey, T. C. Chaplin, etc, Behav Ther 10, 562 (1979).
J. B. Murray, J Psychol 134, 211 (Mar, 2000).
J. W. Mohr, R. E. Turner, M. B. Jerry, Pedophilia and exhibitionism. (University of Toronto Press, 1964), pp.
P. Gebhard, J. Gagnon, W. Pomeroy, C. Christenson, Sex offenders: an analysis of types. (Harper & Row, New York, 1965), pp.
K. Freund, G. Heasman, I. G. Racansky, G. Glancy, J Sex Marital Ther 10, 193 (1984).
K. Freund, R. J. Watson, J Sex Marital Ther 18, 34 (1992).
K. Freund, R. Watson, D. Rienzo, J Sex Marital Ther 13, 260 (Winter, 1987).
K. Freund, R. J. Watson, Psychol Assess 3, 254 (1991).
K. M. Beier, Int J Legal Med 111, 133 (1998).
G. Abel, J. Becker, M. Mittleman, etc, J Interpersonal Violence 2, 3 (1987).
W. L. Marshall, H. E. Barbaree, A. Eccles, J Interpersonal Violence 6, 323 (1991).
E. Brongersma, J Homosex 20, 145 (1990).
M. Gordon, J Family Violence 5, 321 (1990).
W. C. Holmes, G. B. Slap, Jama 280, 1855 (Dec 2, 1998).
G. R. Holmes, L. Offen, G. Waller, Clin Psychol Rev 17, 69 (1997).
K. Freund, R. Blanchard, J Homosex 9, 7 (Fall, 1983).
K. Freund, R. Blanchard, J Sex Marital Ther 13, 25 (1987).
G. Phillips, R. Over, Arch Sex Behav 21, 543 (Dec, 1992).
R. Blanchard, R. Dickey, Sex Abuse 10, 273 (1998).
R. Blanchard, A. F. Bogaert, Arch Sex Behav 25, 551 (Dec, 1996).
M. B. Jones, R. Blanchard, Hum Biol 70, 775 (Aug, 1998).
A. F. Bogaert, Arch Sex Behav 27, 467 (Oct, 1998).
R. Blanchard, Ann Rev Sex Res 8, 27 (1997).
R. Blanchard, K. J. Zucker, P. T. Cohen-Kettenis, L. J. Gooren, J. M. Bailey, Arch Sex Behav 25, 495 (Oct, 1996).
D. W. Purcell, R. Blanchard, K. J. Zucker, Arch Sex Behav 29, 349 (Aug, 2000).
R. Blanchard, A. F. Bogaert, Arch Sex Behav 27, 595 (Dec, 1998).
R. Blanchard et al., Arch Sex Behav 29, 463 (Oct, 2000).
R. Blanchard, A. F. Bogaert, Am J Psychiatry 153, 27 (Jan, 1996).
A. F. Bogaert, S. Bezeau, M. Kuban, R. Blanchard, J Abnorm Psychol 106, 331 (May, 1997).
R. Blanchard, K. J. Zucker, Am J Psychiatry 151, 1375 (Sep, 1994).
R. Blanchard, K. J. Zucker, M. Siegelman, R. Dickey, P. Klassen, J Biosoc Sci 30, 511 (Oct, 1998).
R. Blanchard, P. M. Sheridan, J Nerv Ment Dis 180, 40 (Jan, 1992).
T. J. Williams et al., Nature 404, 455 (2000).
R. Green, Psychol Med 30, 789 (Jul, 2000).
K. J. Zucker, R. Blanchard, M. Siegelman, Psychol Rep 92, 117 (Feb, 2003).
K. H. Poasa, R. Blanchard, K. J. Zucker, J Sex Marital Ther 30, 13 (Jan-Feb, 2004).
P. H. Connolly, R. Blanchard, K. J. Zucker, paper presented at the International Academy of Sex Research conference, Bloomington 2003.
A. F. Bogaert, J. Cairney, J Biosoc Sci 36, 19 (Jan, 2004).
K. Freund, M. Kuban, Arch Sex Behav 22, 619 (Dec, 1993).
K. Freund, R. Langevin, Arch Sex Behav 5, 415 (Sep, 1976).
K. Freund, Behav Res Ther 5, 339 (1967).
J. M. Cantor, R. Blanchard, A. D. Paterson, A. F. Bogaert, Arch Sex Behav 31, 63 (Feb, 2002).
R. Blanchard, A. F. Bogaert, Am J Human Biol 16, 151 (Mar-Apr, 2004).
E. O. Laumann, J. H. Gagnon, R. T. Michael, etc, The social organization of sexuality: sexual practices in the United States (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1994), pp. xxxii, 718 p.
A. M. Johnson, J. Wadsworth, K. Wellings, J. Field, Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles. (Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 1995), pp.
W. R. Lindsay, J Intellect Disabil Res 46, 74 (2002).
C. J. Parry, W. R. Lindsay, J Intellect Disabil Res 47, 483 (Sep, 2003).
H. Brown, J. Stein, J Intellect Disabil Res 41 ( Pt 3), 215 (Jun, 1997).
R. Blanchard et al., Arch Sex Behav 28, 111 (Apr, 1999).
J. M. Cantor et al., Neuropsychology 18, 3 (Jan, 2004).
P. T. Ackerman, C. M. Goolsby, N. P. Paal, J Pediatr Psychol 13, 49 (Mar, 1988).
C. Lord, J Autism Dev Disord 22, 663 (Dec, 1992).
K. A. Flannery, J. Liederman, Dev Neuropsychol 10, 481 (1994).
J. M. Cantor, B. K. Christensen, P. E. Klassen, R. Dickey, R. Blanchard, paper presented at the International Academy of Sex Research conference, Montreal 2001.
F. B. Furlow, T. Armijo-Prewitt, S. W. Gangestad, R. Thornhill, Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 264, 823 (Jun 22, 1997).
L. Ellis, A. Walsh, in The scientific study of general intelligence: tribute to Arthur R. Jensen H. Nyborg, Ed. (Elsevier Science, Oxford, U.K., 2003).
G. Duffield, A. Hassiotis, E. Vizard, J Forensic Psychiatry 9, 294–304 (1998).
K. Côté, C. M. Earls, M. L. Lalumière, Sex Abuse 14, 67 (2002).
M. L. Lalumière, G. T. Harris, V. L. Quinsey, M. E. Rice, Sex Abuse 10, 5 (1998).
M. L. Lalumiere et al., paper presented at the Paper presented at the Annual Forensic Day of the University of Toronto, Penetanguishene, ON, Canada 2000.
T. Lang, Zeitschrift fuXr die GesaXmte Neurologie und Psychiatrie 155, 702 (1936).
T. Lang, J Nerv Ment Dis 92, 55 (1940).
T. Lang, Acta Geneticae Medicae et Gemellologiae 9, 370 (1960).
B. K. Suarez, T. R. Przybeck, Arch Sex Behav 9, 1 (1980).
E. Slater, Lancet 1, 69 (1962).
K. J. Zucker, R. Blanchard, J Nerv Ment Dis 182, 528 (Sep, 1994).
E. Slater, in Symposium on Nuclear Sex. D. R. Smith, W. M. Davidson, Eds. (Heinemann, London, 1958) pp. 79-83.
A. Bell, M. Weinberg, Homosexualities: a study of diversities among men and women. (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1978), pp.
K. Jay, A. Young, The gay report. (Summit Books, New York, 1979), pp.
P. Weatherburn, A. J. Hunt, F. C. I. Hickson, P. M. Davies, The sexual lifestyles of gay and bisexual men in England and Wales. (Project SIGMA, London, 1992. [See http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRR_98_12.html]), pp.
D. Thorstad, J Homosex 20, 251 (1990).
M. C. Seto, M. L. Lalumiere, R. Blanchard, Psychol Assess 12, 319 (Sep, 2000).
M. C. Seto, W. D. Murphy, J. Page, L. Ennis, Ann N Y Acad Sci 989, 118 (Jun, 2003).
K. Freund, R. Langevin, S. Cibiri, Y. Zajac, Br J Psychiatry 122, 163 (Feb, 1973).
J. M. Bailey, S. Gaulin, Y. Agyei, B. Gladue, J Person Soc Psychol 66, 1081 (1994).
W. Jankowiak, E. Hill, J. Donovan, Ethol Sociobiol 13, 73 (1992).
Z. A. Silverthorne, V. L. Quinsey, Arch Sex Behav 29, 67 (2000).
W. Pedersen, K. Hegna, Soc Sci Med 56, 135 (Jan, 2003).
W. Pedersen, K. Hegna, Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen 120, 215 (Jan 20, 2000).
T. W. Haywood, H. M. Kravitz, L. S. Grossman, O. E. Wasyliw, D. W. Hardy, Child Abuse Negl 20, 527 (Jun, 1996).
T. W. Haywood, H. M. Kravitz, O. E. Wasyliw, J. Goldberg, J. L. Cavanaugh, Jr., Child Abuse Negl 20, 1233 (Dec, 1996).
T. G. Plante, G. Manuel, C. Bryant, Pastoral Psychology 45, 129 (1996).
J. A. Loftus, R. J. Camargo, Ann Sex Res 6, 287 (1993).
R. Langevin, S. Curnoe, J. Bain, Child Abuse Negl 24, 535 (Apr, 2000).
F. Goss, in The Advocate. (1997), vol. 735 (June 10), pp. 27, 28, 37, 39.
A. N. Groth, H. J. Birnbaum, Arch Sex Behav 7, 175 (May, 1978).
C. Jenny, T. A. Roesler, K. L. Poyer, Pediatrics 94, 41 (1994).
D. Finkelhor, in Child sex abuse: new theory and research. (Free Press, New York, 1984) pp. 47.
J. Halpern, Social Casework 68, 88 (1987).
W. D. Erickson, N. H. Walbek, R. K. Seely, Arch Sex Behav 17, 77 (Feb, 1988).
M. J. Spencer, P. Dunklee, Pediatrics 78, 133 (1986).
C. Black, W. Pokorny, C. McGill, F. Harberg, J Pediatr Surg 17, 501 (1982).
K. Edgardh, K. Ormstad, Acta Paediatr 89, 310 (Mar, 2000).
K. M. Gorey, D. R. Leslie, Child Abuse Negl 21, 391 (Apr, 1997).
E. W. Chow, A. L. Choy, Arch Sex Behav 31, 211 (Apr, 2002).
A. J. Cooper, S. Swaminath, D. Baxter, C. Poulin, Can J Psychiatry 35, 334 (May, 1990).
D. M. Vandiver, G. Kercher, Sex Abuse 16, 121 (Apr, 2004).
L. Mealey, J Sex Res 34, 223 (1997).
C. Yelland, M. Tiggemann, Eat Behav 4, 107 (Aug, 2003).

Doc,

You tried this one before. The second time deserves comment. All you've done is to lift the bibliography from a website and implied that the articles cited support your viewpoint. In fact, that is not the case. Before you post this list again, I suggest you actually read the articles cited and note the ones that support your contention. (Hint: The one at the top of the list does not.)

Doc,

You tried this one before. The second time deserves comment. All you've done is to lift the bibliography from a website and implied that the articles cited support your viewpoint. In fact, that is not the case. Before you post this list again, I suggest you actually read the articles cited and note the ones that support your contention. (Hint: The one at the top of the list does not.)
Each of the articles is referenced in the website. If you want to keep your eyes closed, go ahead. The fact is, gays are more likely to be pedophiles.

Prove otherwise. I haven't seen any articles to the contrary.

Doc, that's a myth, all studies done to try and prove it have failed. As early as 1978 in fact:


In 1978 psychologist Nicholas Groth screened 175 men who had been convicted in Massachusetts of sexual molestation of children and referred by a court for psychological evaluation. He found not a single gay man in this sample. Every one of the perpetrators was either an exclusive heterosexual, a bisexual with a predominantly heterosexual orientation, or a fixated pedophile with no sexual interest in adults.[A. Nicholas Groth and H. Jean Birnbaum, "Adult Sexual Orientation and Attraction to Underage Persons," Archives of Sexual Behavior, 7(3), 1978, pp. 175-181.]


His conclusion? That "the adult heterosexual male constitutes a greater risk to the underage child than does the adult homosexual male."


I can show you more studies if you're interested.

In the same year, researcher David Newton reviewed the scientific literature and found no reason to believe that anything other than a "random connection" existed between homosexual orientation and child molestation.[David E. Newton, "Homosexual Behavior and Child Molestation: A Review of the Evidence," Adolescence, vol. 13, no. 49, Spring 1978, pp. 29-43.]


In 1988, renowned sex researcher Kurt Freund at the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry in Toronto studied two groups of paid volunteers and found that gay men responded no more to male child stimuli than heterosexual men responded to female child stimuli.[Kurt Freund, Robin Watson, and Douglas Rienzo, "Heterosexuality, Homosexuality, and Erotic Age Preference," The Journal of Sex Research, 26(1), Feb. 1989, pp. 107-117.] He later described as a "myth" the notion that gay men are more likely than straight men to be child molesters.[Kurt Freund and Robin Watson, "The Proportion of Heterosexual and Homosexual Pedophiles Among Sex Offenders Against Children: An Exploratory Study," Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy, 18(1), Spring, 1992, pp. 34-43, at p. 41.]


In 1992, alarmed over claims made during a campaign for an anti-gay state constitutional amendment in Colorado, two physicians reviewed every case of suspected child molestation evaluated at Children's Hospital in Denver over a one-year period. Of the 269 cases determined to involve molestation by an adult, only two of the perpetrators could be identified as gay or lesbian. The researchers concluded that the risk of child sexual abuse by an identifiably gay or lesbian person was between zero and 3.1%, and that the risk of such abuse by the heterosexual partner of a relative was over 100 times greater.[Carole Jenny, Tom Roesler, and Kimberly Poyer, "Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?," Pediatrics, 94(1), July 1994, pp. 41-44.]


Child abuse, including sexual abuse, is a terrible reality in this country. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, established by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, 88,238 children were sexually abused last year. According to some researchers, the true number may be five times this.[Cheryl Ann Macdonald, "Treatment Effects of Pedophilia," Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences & Engineering, Vol. 59(6-B), Dec 1998, 3065.]

Approximately 80 percent of these sexually molested children are girls.[Department of Health and Human Services report] Persons focusing only on the remaining 20 percent of molestations--and, even then, only on the small fraction of these crimes committed by gay men--are not authentically concerned with combating sexual abuse of children. Their primary interest lies in perpetuating fear.

The source of the right's statistics linking gay men with child molestation is discredited psychologist Paul Cameron, who operates the Family Research Institute in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[For general information on Cameron, see Ward Harkavy, "Slay It With a Smile," Westword (Denver alternative weekly), October 3, 1996; Mark Pietrzyk, "Queer Science: Paul Cameron, Professional Sham," The New Republic, October 3, 1994; Ann Giudici Fettner, "The Evil That Men Do," New York Native, Sept. 23-29, 1985, pp. 23-24; Dave Walter, "Paul Cameron," The Advocate, October 29, 1985, pp. 29-33.] Cameron is responsible for many of the right's most bizarre allegations about gays and lesbians, such as that gays constitute 44 percent of sexual mass murderers, that two-thirds of gay men "ingest biologically significant amounts of feces," and that being a gay male takes 30 years off one's life.[Gays constitute 44 percent of sexual mass murderers, see "Homosexuality--Everybody's Problem," 1987 pamphlet from Cameron's Family Research Institute.
Two-thirds of gay men "ingest biologically significant amounts of feces," see "What Homosexuals Do (It's More Than Merely Disgusting)," 1987 pamphlet from Cameron's Family Research Institute.

Being a gay male takes 30 years off one's life, see Paul Cameron, William Playfair, and Stephen Wellum, "The Longevity of Homosexuals: Before and After the AIDS Epidemic," Omega: Journal of Death and Dying, vol. 29, pp. 249-272, 1994.]


But Cameron is hardly a credible source. He was dropped from the American Psychological Association back in 1983 for a violation of its Ethical Principles of Psychologists. And he's been censured by four other professional associations and a federal court.[In 1982, the Nebraska Psychological Association deplored the "misleading and untrue statements about psychological research on homosexuality" circulated by Cameron. (Minutes of the NPA's spring business meeting on April 17, 1982, at Nebraska Wesleyan University. Copy in the possession of the author.)


In 1985, both the Midwest Sociological Society (Minutes of the second meeting of the 1985-1986 board of directors for the MSS, held on Oct. 11-12, 1985 in Des Moines, Iowa. Copy in the possession of the author.) and the Society for the Study of Social Problems (Minutes of the 1985 SSSP annual meeting on Aug. 25, 1985 in Washington, D.C. Copy in the possession of the author.) declared that Cameron had "consistently misinterpreted and misrepresented" sociological research.


In 1986, the American Sociological Association condemned Cameron's "consistent misrepresentation of sociological research." (Memo from ASA Executive Officer Willaim D'Antonio to state and regional associations. Copy in the possession of the author.)


Federal court:
In Baker v. Wade, 106 F.R.D. 526 (1985), the judge stated that Cameron "made misrepresentations" before the court.]


The key to understanding research on this issue is to recognize three things. First, a person's sexual attraction to adults, whether homosexual, heterosexual, or bisexual, is wholly distinct from an attraction to children. A person can be attracted only to adults, only to children, or occasionally to both, but these attractions are independent facets of a person's psychology.


Second, a significant proportion of child molestation is perpetrated by men who are not sexually attracted to children, but who "regress" to sexual interactions with children under the stress of life events.


Third, while pedophilia is sometimes denominated as "heterosexual" or "homosexual," this usage is simply descriptive, that is, it is intended only to characterize the relationship between the offender's and the victim's genders, and not to define the offender's sexual orientation, if any, toward adults.


The child molestation myth parallels in many ways the blood libel against European Jews, who during the twelfth through nineteenth centuries were accused of kidnapping Christian children and slowly bleeding them to death in ritual sacrifices.

So you are going to let your gay teenage neighbor babysit for your kids?

Good luck. At least you have references to make you feel better if something happens.

Each of the articles is referenced in the website. If you want to keep your eyes closed, go ahead. The fact is, gays are more likely to be pedophiles.

Science, doc, not a wonferful list of irreleveant references, which prove what I asked for. Remember what a peer-reviewed journal is?

Prove otherwise. I haven't seen any articles to the contrary.

I get it--guilty until proven innocent. Nice.

So you are going to let your gay teenage neighbor babysit for your kids?

Sure, we've done that, with no regrets. Why not?

Oh, I forgot, you've proven that they are all pedophiles; or is it that we haven't proven that they aren't; or something....

Good luck. At least you have references to make you feel better if something happens.

Science, doc, if you remember what that is....

Remember what a peer-reviewed journal is?

I know for a fact that Pediatrics is peer-reviewed, as well as Neuropsychology, and I would bet that the Archive of Sexual Behavior and the Journal of Abnormal Psychology, and most of the rest of them are too. I don't know about the Journal of Homosexuality, however. :)

Sure, we've done that, with no regrets. Why not?
I'm honestly surprised you have kids. I thought you were.....never mind.

Gee, where does one begin when dealing with views such as this?

I have no problem with what you believe; I have a huge problem with your insistence of forcing your views on society. To the extent that "Christianity is the boot to kick," it is not the religion I object to, however extreme your version of it may be, but, rather, the way you hold yourselves to be above others, and seek to enforce your beliefs on the rest of us. Who are you to judge the Episcopal Church for consecrating a gay Bishop? Who are you to judge the "life style" of another? Who are you to say, so smugly, that sexual preference is a "life style," as if that's an established scientific fact, when the vast majority of scientists view it as genetic, not a choice? Have you ever asked a gay person if he or she "chose" to be gay, as if they could just as easily have chosen to be straight? You have every right to believe what you want, but you lose all credibility when you call those who don't agree with you to be living a lie. I don't accuse you of living a lie for your beliefs; it's the way you condemn others, and seek to enforce your views on the rest of us, that gives me such chills.

Again, those who advocate the availability of gay marriage are seeking to expand individual liberties; you are seeking stop that, even though it harms nobody, and many like you are seeking to otherwise contract individual liberties. You apparently can't be happy that you have the choice to live life as you like in this great country of ours; you need to make sure that some others cannot live life as they would want to, even though that would have absolutely no effect on you other than tweaking your prejudices.

The irony of you saying "but frankly I am getting tired of them forcing there views upon us" is rich. They aren't forcing their views on anybody; they are just attempting to gain equal rights. Rather, you are forcing your bigoted views on them to keep them down.

Note: I qualify to criticise the Episcoal Church and so does the rest of the Anglican Communion. That was a VERY bad example to bring into this... or maybe it was good as it is full of under-the-table politics and is creating a schizm in the both the Episcopal Church of the USA as well as the Anglican Communion.

Saying scientists view something ans one way or another is meaningless. They believed they could prove blacks to be inferior in the 19th century... we know they are very wrong now. The same can be said about some astronomy and physics concepts as well. When there is soild proof... evidence that can be repeatedly verified, then we'll talk. Until then it's just opinions and beliefs vs opinions and beliefs. Hasn't this been said already?:p

I'm honestly surprised you have kids. I thought you were.....never mind.

It's stunning to you, I suppose, that not all heterosexuals are homophobes like you. Many, many of us actually judge our fellow man by the content of their character, rather than their sexual orientation, or skin color, or the various other artificial ways bigots judge people.

I'll leave you with a thought (if you remember what that is)--Every day, more and more of us support the rights of gay people to live a life with the same dignity as you and I have. I have no doubt that the day will come when that will happen. You and your hating, bigoted cohorts can and will delay that day, but you cannot hold back the tide forever.

Surely you jest! How is allowing gays to be married forcing their views on anybody else? Does it force you to marry a gay person? Does it force you to celebrate a gay marriage? Of course not. It merely gives them the same rights as anybody else. The government should not be in the business of deciding morals where nobody is injured by the thing being considersd; some people don't approve of it, some do, but it hurts nobody, so it is not a legitimate thing for the government to prohibit. We have a constitution, thank God, a huge part of whose purpose is to protect individual liberties from the tyranny of the majority.

You're wrong about the purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Reread them and do some studies of political philosophy. The purpose of them is to protect the rights of the PEOPLE (not individual) from a tyrannical government/ruler/despot/etc. (not majority).

I believe someone else posted it earlier... isn't making laws... advocating a particular perspective "forcing one's view upon others?" And in that same vain isn't that deciding the "core" morality of society (possibly reversing what I said in a different thread)? In this day and age, isn't part of deciding what is right and wrong essentially revolve around "negative liberty"... you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect someone else negatively? It seems that "ultimate truths" and "universal maixms" havbe given way to "do as one pleases as along as one doesn't "harm" another.... or if stopping you infringes upon your rights"...

Each of the articles is referenced in the website. If you want to keep your eyes closed, go ahead. The fact is, gays are more likely to be pedophiles.

Prove otherwise. I haven't seen any articles to the contrary.

Doc... they got you on this one earlier. If you said a pedophile is more likely to be gay than there are gays as a percentage of the population. That's different. But then as pointed out... pedophiles aren't interested in adults of the same sex and many times the sex doesn't matter. Thinking about the Lolita Complex in Japan... it seems pretty plausible to me.

Note: I qualify to criticise the Episcoal Church and so does the rest of the Anglican Communion. That was a VERY bad example to bring into this... or maybe it was good as it is full of under-the-table politics and is creating a schizm in the both the Episcopal Church of the USA as well as the Anglican Communion.

Yeah, it is really horrible for a church body to apply the teachings of Jesus Christ, and actually love their fellow men, choosing a leader based on his qualifications rather than using some artificial criteria to disqualify him. It is not the church's job to be popular, and it is not "rule of the majority." If the rest of the Anglican Communion is in an uproar over this, that's fine, since someone has to come out and call BS to bigotry.

Saying scientists view something ans one way or another is meaningless. They believed they could prove blacks to be inferior in the 19th century... we know they are very wrong now. The same can be said about some astronomy and physics concepts as well. When there is soild proof... evidence that can be repeatedly verified, then we'll talk. Until then it's just opinions and beliefs vs opinions and beliefs. Hasn't this been said already?:p

Precisely; "doc" is using mumbo-jumbo pseudo-science to supposedly prove that gays are perverts; all I've asked is for real science to prove his assertions. Just as the bigots in times past tried to use pseudo-science to prove blacks inferior, bigots these days use pseudo-science to try to prove their baseless assertions. One can believe anything one wants; when one asserts something as a matter of fact, one needs to have proof; I asked "doc" for articles in peer-reviewed, well-respected scientific journals which prove that a higher proportion of gays are pedophiles than non-gays, and all he could point me to was a mumbo-jumbo article on a gay-bashing website, which has in its bibliography a whole bunch of real articles, none of which has anything to do with what I asked for proof on.

Child abuse, including sexual abuse, is a terrible reality in this country. According to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, established by the federal Department of Health and Human Services, 88,238 children were sexually abused last year. According to some researchers, the true number may be five times this.[Cheryl Ann Macdonald, "Treatment Effects of Pedophilia," Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: the Sciences & Engineering, Vol. 59(6-B), Dec 1998, 3065.]

Approximately 80 percent of these sexually molested children are girls.[Department of Health and Human Services report] Persons focusing only on the remaining 20 percent of molestations--and, even then, only on the small fraction of these crimes committed by gay men--are not authentically concerned with combating sexual abuse of children. Their primary interest lies in perpetuating fear.



Child abuse, including sexual abuse is a terrible reality in every society I know of. It like other terrible crimes of this nature (like rape) are also terribly under-reported. Cultural practices and biases only make this worse in other societies. When a significant number of fans of the group "Morning Musume" (girls 12 to 20ish now... originally all under 18) are men in their 40's and 50's... I'd say we have a problem. When porno mags all regularly show "special shots" like peeks of panties of girls going up stairs, girls in school girl uniforms, girls tied up in ropes, and the list goes on.. I'd say we have a problem. When you have to have "women only" cars on the train because girls regularly get molsted by middle age salarymen on crowded morngin rush hour trains... I'd say we have a problem. When a fair number of the men you meet and work with say their "strike zone" is 15 years old and up or 15 to 25 years old.... I'd say we have a problem.

So Doc... I dunno about your conclusion and those sites' about pedophilia and homosexuals. Been looking A LOT different to me...

You're wrong about the purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Reread them and do some studies of political philosophy. The purpose of them is to protect the rights of the PEOPLE (not individual) from a tyrannical government/ruler/despot/etc. (not majority).

Better than that, I've taken a number of Constitutional Law courses at a very well-respected law school, so I know very well the purpose of the Constitution, and particularly the amendments to the Constitution. You're certainly entitled to your own interpretation of the Constitution, but I don't agree with your narrow interpretation, and, fortunately, neither does the Supereme Court.

I believe someone else posted it earlier... isn't making laws... advocating a particular perspective "forcing one's view upon others?" And in that same vain isn't that deciding the "core" morality of society (possibly reversing what I said in a different thread)? In this day and age, isn't part of deciding what is right and wrong essentially revolve around "negative liberty"... you can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't affect someone else negatively? It seems that "ultimate truths" and "universal maixms" havbe given way to "do as one pleases as along as one doesn't "harm" another.... or if stopping you infringes upon your rights"...

Making laws protecting the rights of people is not "forcing one's view upon others." Allowing gay marriage does not force you to do anything you don't want to do; it doesn't require you to attend such a ceremony, bless such a ceremony, celebrate such a ceremony, or even approve of such a ceremony. It does not affect others in any way except to tweak prejudices. On the other hand, preventing gays from marrying certainly affects them adversely, and forces your view on them.

I don't quite follow the rest of that paragraph, but one man's "universal truth" can be another man's prejudices, as this thread demonstrates rather vividly There's a huge difference between "universal truths," such as "Thou shalt do no murder," and majority opinion, such as outlawing gay marriage. What is the legitimate basis for legislating against an activity which does no harm? I personally don't consider as a legitimate basis for outlawing gay marriage that allowing gay marriage would offend some puritan sensibilities many Americans still have, when they otherwise will not be affected at all.

Doc... they got you on this one earlier. If you said a pedophile is more likely to be gay than there are gays as a percentage of the population. That's different.That's what I meant. Percentage-wise, a gay person is more likely to be a pedophile than a straight person. That is not to say that most gays are pedophiles or that most pedophiles are gay. Just that pedophiles are overrepresented in the gay population.

It has been clearly shown that gay men have a preference for younger-looking men (see website), and that many gays in their early teens have their first sexual experience before age 17, often with an older man (above age 17). I guess either some don't believe the statistic or choose to ignore it, but it is scientifically proven. This is pedophilia.

It may not be the same pathology as those having sex with infants or younger children, but it is still pathologic (and illegal).

Yeah, it is really horrible for a church body to apply the teachings of Jesus Christ, and actually love their fellow men, choosing a leader based on his qualifications rather than using some artificial criteria to disqualify him. It is not the church's job to be popular, and it is not "rule of the majority." If the rest of the Anglican Communion is in an uproar over this, that's fine, since someone has to come out and call BS to bigotry.

No, it's the church's job to follow it's cannon and dogma. When something is in question, call a council, research it, debate it and make a ruling. It is NOT appropriate for the Episcopal Church of the USA to go off on its own and do as it pleases. Not while it wishes to keep that official name and its official connection to the Anglican Communion. To use your own words... " it is not the church's job to be popular and it is not 'rule of majority.'" You call it BS or bigotry, however, as it stands homosexuality has NOT been deemed OK by the church, the bible or Christ. Practicing homosexuals are NOT OFFICIALLY allowed to be priests or bishops (although some have ordained them as they wished). Heterosexuals having sex outside of marriage are NOT OFFICIALLY allowed to be priests or bishops (although there are some who do) either. But no... homosexual marriage has not been OFFICIALLY approved by the church at this time. As these are the rules... they should be kept to until as I mentioned earlier a council is held and the rules OFFICIALLY changed. Until then... call the church bigoted or whatever you want... it's not the church's job to be popular... it is the church's job to be righteous. They haven't officially ok'd it and until then it's not ok.


Precisely; "doc" is using mumbo-jumbo pseudo-science to supposedly prove that gays are perverts; all I've asked is for real science to prove his assertions. Just as the bigots in times past tried to use pseudo-science to prove blacks inferior, bigots these days use pseudo-science to try to prove their baseless assertions. One can believe anything one wants; when one asserts something as a matter of fact, one needs to have proof; I asked "doc" for articles in peer-reviewed, well-respected scientific journals which prove that a higher proportion of gays are pedophiles than non-gays, and all he could point me to was a mumbo-jumbo article on a gay-bashing website, which has in its bibliography a whole bunch of real articles, none of which has anything to do with what I asked for proof on.

I agree. While it may "shoot my credibility" with some people here... others already know from past threads. I'm not a proponent of the lifestyle... not until theologians (yes zhizoe people who can and are reading the texts in their original language) write me a convincing paper that stands up to both peer review and my own. Until then... (the cliched line) I know and have worked with many homosexuals and they all are great people. I would have few concerns about having them babysit as compared to some heterosexual men I know. However my beliefs don't allow me to condone their lifestyle. But hey... what they do behind closed doors... My stance on marriage? Paul in DC's solution works as a compromise for me... all unions by city hall involve NO vows. Just paperwork... like in Japan. You want vows? Go find a church. All the government does is register unions... not confer, or condone marriages.

That's what I meant. Percentage-wise, a gay person is more likely to be a pedophile than a straight person. That is not to say that most gays are pedophiles or that most pedophiles are gay. Just that pedophiles are overrepresented in the gay population.

It has been clearly shown that gay men have a preference for younger-looking men (see website), and that many gays in their early teens have their first sexual experience before age 17, often with an older man (above age 17). I guess either some don't believe the statistic or choose to ignore it, but it is scientifically proven. This is pedophilia.

It may not be the same pathology as those having sex with infants or younger children, but it is still pathologic (and illegal).

Now that's some science, "doc." Let's see, you cite to a gay-bashing website, and then baldly state, without even that flimsy site as a source, something as fact, which, even it it is true, is probably equally true of heterosexuals, and means nothing, except to bigots. Once could just as easily, and more believably, state that "straight men have a preference for younger-looking women, and that many heterosexuals ... have thier first sexual experience before age 17, often with an older partner (above age 17)." I guess this proves that a disproportionate number of heterosexuals are pedophiles.

I guess you really don't remember what science is.... You can trot out your garbage to support your prejudices, but none of it passes for science, and none of it carries any weight beyond convincing me of your malignant feelings.

IF you look on the internet and try to research this topic, you will find three types of sites: the religious gay-bashing sites, the non-religious gay-bashing sites, and the pro-gay sites. There isn't much in the way of objective data there.

The site I listed, had you bothered to even look at it, is one of the more objective sites I could find. The statements made there are at least supported by peer-reviewed science journals.

I am not prejudiced in any way. It is obvious that you are nothing more than a textbook liberal, bleeding heart tree-hugging lawyer wannabe, stamped out of a mold. Yawn.

Good luck saving the world. :rolleyes:

I am not prejudiced in any way.

I didn't know you were a Doctor AND a comedian....MUHAHAHAHAHA :cool:

I didn't know you were a Doctor AND a comedian....MUHAHAHAHAHA :cool:Amazing... with all your mods, your car is even slower and ricier than a regular RX-8. BWAHHAHAHAHAHA!


SunSilver GT 6MT, App. Pack, Rotary Accents, Spoiler, Navi Sys, clear corners and running lights (w/bright white LEDs), bright white interior lighting, Dmenac7 stealth 3rd brake light, custom RX-8 license plates, Aldehyde Filter, Visor Decal Removal, HU upgrade w/PIE, super-white LED rev/turn signals (w/load equalizers), rx8garage.net video on NAV, Blizzaks LM-22s on stock rims for winter, 2k5 Retractable Key!

Amazing... with all your mods, your car is even slower and ricier than a regular RX-8. BWAHHAHAHAHAHA!

How is your Camaro treating you?

Oh oops I mean mustang.

...
It has been clearly shown that gay men have a preference for younger-looking men (see website), and that many gays in their early teens have their first sexual experience before age 17, often with an older man (above age 17). I guess either some don't believe the statistic or choose to ignore it, but it is scientifically proven. This is pedophilia.
...
And heterosexual men have a preference for younger-looking women. Many heterosexuals also have their first sexual experience before age 17, sometimes with someone over 17. You've just demonstrated that homosexuals have early experiences much like heterosexuals do.

And heterosexual men have a preference for younger-looking women. Many heterosexuals also have their first sexual experience before age 17, sometimes with someone over 17. You've just demonstrated that homosexuals have early experiences much like heterosexuals do.As shown in the link I posted (I can't access it, I'm at work and a filter blocks the site), the homosexual age preference is statistically quite a bit younger than the heterosexual preference. From my recollection, the hetero preference peaks at 21-26, and the homo preference peaks younger, even below 18. For those of you who claim the site I posted is unscientific (because as a knee jerk liberal, of course you haven't read any of it or maybe a cursory glance), the study they quoted actually used penile manometry, or the blood flow to the penis to measure "excitement" when shown pictures of different aged subjects. It's really quite interesting.

Edit: below is the graph I referenced

...blah, blah, blah, blah.......

Oh, by the way..... :D

How is your Camaro treating you?

Oh oops I mean mustang.
Not as good as your girlfriend does.....aaaahhhhh. (click on the thumbnail) :D

...
For those of you who claim the site I posted is unscientific (because as a knee jerk liberal, of course you haven't read any of it or maybe a cursory glance), the study they quoted actually used penile manometry, or the blood flow to the penis to measure "excitement" when shown pictures of different aged subjects. It's really quite interesting.

The site is a right-wing Christian site with an anti-gay agenda. It's unscientific because it starts with a conclusion, and only posts material that supports that conclusion. That's not how legitimate science works.

IF you look on the internet and try to research this topic, you will find three types of sites: the religious gay-bashing sites, the non-religious gay-bashing sites, and the pro-gay sites. There isn't much in the way of objective data there.

The internet is no place to do serious research, and, if you really are a medical person, you should be acutely aware of that. It's a great place to find garbage to support any conclusion you've alread drawn from your prejudices, however, as you so ably demonstrate.

The site I listed, had you bothered to even look at it, is one of the more objective sites I could find. The statements made there are at least supported by peer-reviewed science journals.

And what generally accepted, scientific, peer-reviewed journal was that "article" to which you are sending us published in? Not that it really matters, since it doesn't say what you have trottted it out to say, but I'm curious.

I am not prejudiced in any way.

Now that's a pretty funny statement, unless you actually believe it, in which case it's truly frightening.

It is obvious that you are nothing more than a textbook liberal, bleeding heart tree-hugging lawyer wannabe, stamped out of a mold. Yawn.

Thanks! Those of us who actually seek proof from bigots are an annoying group, aren't we? "wannabe?" Gee, my clients would be surprised at that, as would the three states which have admitted me to the practice of law. Knowledge is the real enemy of ignorance and bigotry, as you well know, and it must frustrate you when confronted with the demand for proof, as witness by your most recent posts, where you descend to the level of bashing two of my cars, and bash another poster's Mazda. If you weren't such a malignant character, doing your best to continue a great harm to people who have never done you any harm, I could find a bit of sympathy.

Good luck saving the world. :rolleyes:

Yeah, with folks like you out there, I will need all the luck I can get. At least my idea of saving the world does not involve lying to the people of America, and then starting a war based on those lies.

Japan8, that was the purpose of the supreme court and checks and balances, to prevent a tyranny of the majority. There have been many sucesses of this idea, like deeming antimiscegenation laws unconstitutional. And doc, there are many of us heterosexuals who are in favor of gay marrige.

This debate will continue and continue but most opinions will not change a bit. It all comes down to where you get your beliefs from? Those people that do not believe in GOD form their opinions on what? Based on what?

How you feel? What the general society preaches around them? What?

Note: I"m asking without any attitude or anything like that.

Side note: I don't need someone to explain to me what GOD states in his word...a prayer, time spent with GOD, and my own study of the Bible is enough. Yes, I'll listen to other ideas but I don't look to people to form my opinion but pray pray pray pray and ask GOD to reveal to me what his word is trying to tell me. Why, because it's too easy for the human mind by arrogance or hypocrisies to build up a personally defined but still FALSE faith or belief system. They will always be flawed by the limited human mind. That's why we have so many religions to begin with.

Anyway...

This is something I think about all the time:

In our Post Modern society truth is said to be personal or personally defined. So, what is true to me is not true to you and that's OK. Both are equal. I could give specific names of these theories to act smart or show off, but I just don't remember the specific names sorry. This why of thinking is a huge fallacy, take a look at this link for a better perspective.

http://www.str.org/free/commentarie...ns/pluralis.htm

I do not believe that truth is relative. That means:

Terrorist are justified
Hitler was justified
Slavery was justified
Murder can be justified

Other words, if it's true to me...then I can not be judged. Your truth is not above mine so you can not pass judgment on my actions, reactions, or lack of action. Furthermore you can not make laws stopping me to act on "my truth".

I belive that truth is universal, can not be altered, modified, or changed based on time, culture, or our desires. Why, because then those things above are justified.

We can not tell Hitler he was wrong, he "believed and felt" the Jews were bad for Germany and the world.

We can not tell Bin Ladden he was wrong, because he "believed and felt" he is doing the only thing he can to force America to act diff with Muslims.

etc etc etc, it goes on and on. If that is the case...why not just call it Anarchy by it's real name.

TRUTH, like GOD, exists outside of our ability to manipulate it. It is what it is and there is no changing it. It's universal and not personal or based on culture. Too many things (which we agree is evil) would be justified by that theory.

SO, where do you get truth from? A universal place or a temporary and constantly changing personal location. If it's the 2nd one then IF I hated gay people (which I do NOT) you have to respect it and not pass judgment. You have no right because your truth is not better than mine (it's equal to but not better). Funny, how can two so called truths be completely oposite yet equal...again, that does not make sense.

If I wanted to kill someone (I want his/her job, I want his wife, I want their property, I'm jealous, etc) then if my truth stated murder is justified if it helps my life or makes it better, then you can not pass judgment...

My truth is as good as yours and equal, again...this does not make sense.

What we are arguing about needs the above reasoned with first, then we can further discuss. Truth...is not defined by me, truth is defined by the creator of all things and owner of all...Tayninh and I, some others also, believe the Bible is GOD's word so we speak of it and share it as the truth. Others will get their truth from some other place, religion, etc but if it can not be universally applied then it's false.

One thing is for sure, truth is not relative nor personally defined, someone is right and someone is wrong, and only GOD can define it...not us or our "feelings". Oh yeah, honesty has to be a HUGE and MAIN part of your learning, reasoning, and growth...without it...it will always be filled with fallacy, falsehood, and remain imperfect.

Discuss.... :) :rolleyes:

Not to shabby there Rx8wannahave.

rx8wannahave, what do you say to muslims who belive that their god says there is only one true religion and the only way for the world to have peace is to have all humans under islam?

This debate will continue and continue but most opinions will not change a bit. It all comes down to where you get your beliefs from? Those people that do not believe in GOD form their opinions on what? Based on what?

<SNIP>
Well, our laws were derived from Enlish Common Law, which was derived to a great extent from Roman laws, with quite a bit of input from a multitude of other sources (e.g., Saxon) some Christian, some not. Our laws, and especially our Constitution, are for everyone, religious or otherwise.

Be that as it may, what point were you trying to make here? Your diatribe sounds more like some of the anti-atheist tracts I've seen. It has diddly to do with what we were discussing.

However, I'm very uncomfortable with some of your pronouncements concerning GOD. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I sense an attitude that you feel only your religious beliefs (or those very similar) are "correct" in their interpretation of morality?

BTW, the link you provided is broken.

That's what I meant. Percentage-wise, a gay person is more likely to be a pedophile than a straight person. That is not to say that most gays are pedophiles or that most pedophiles are gay. Just that pedophiles are overrepresented in the gay population.

It has been clearly shown that gay men have a preference for younger-looking men (see website), and that many gays in their early teens have their first sexual experience before age 17, often with an older man (above age 17). I guess either some don't believe the statistic or choose to ignore it, but it is scientifically proven. This is pedophilia.

It may not be the same pathology as those having sex with infants or younger children, but it is still pathologic (and illegal).


It suprises me how out of touch you really are. You say you don't discriminate against gays but you blatantly hold such a discriminatory view with every post you have contributed to in this thread. Str8 men have equally (or even more so) equal preference for younger looking women. And many have un-equivically acted on those urges with someone under the age of 17. In fact i know more twenty-something str8 males who have dated women in their teens then i can count. Does this make most straight men pedaphiles, of course not. It seems to me you want justify your homophobia with what ever little piece of scientific data you can collect and apply it to every gay man and woman out there. But the obvious truth is you are ignorant to a lifestyle you know nothing about. I can assure you every scientic data you pull up that opposes homo-sexuality you will find a plethera of data that supports it. What's reassuring though is the tides are changing. And your homophobic mindset is a dieing breed as our country becomes more and more tolerant of the way people choose to live their lives. You say you work with gay nurses, but how many of them have you really got to know. How many gay friends do you actually have? Without physically seeing both sides of the issue i would have to say your argument is really one-sided.

To say gay man feel awkard around woman could not be further from the truth. A str8 woman's best friend is a gay man (although i can't speak for all str8 woman). I have dated women in the past and i would not put a woman thru the misery of being with someone who was not sexually attracted to her or who could not return the same kind of love she would show for me.

rx8wannahave, what do you say to muslims who belive that their god says there is only one true religion and the only way for the world to have peace is to have all humans under islam?

That's interesting. I know what is written in the Bible but don't know what is in the Koran about this topic. Anyone know this?

That's interesting. I know what is written in the Bible but don't know what is in the Koran about this topic. Anyone know this?
I know that some Muslim fundamentalists believe that Allah is the one true God, and that all non-Muslims are destined for hell.

Sounds kinda familiar, doesn't it? :(

The internet is no place to do serious research, and, if you really are a medical person, you should be acutely aware of that.It's good enough for most purposes, if you choose your sources well, like I have. This isn't life or death, just a friendly discussion. Until you trolled along anyway.

And what generally accepted, scientific, peer-reviewed journal was that "article" to which you are sending us published in? Not that it really matters, since it doesn't say what you have trottted it out to say, but I'm curious.If you weren't so frigging dense, you would see that I listed some of them above. Do I need to type slower? Typical lawyer, only looks at the side of the story that helps his case.

rx8wannahave, what do you say to Muslims who believe that their god says there is only one true religion and the only way for the world to have peace is to have all humans under Islam?

I would tell them, Hindu’s, Buddhist, and all others what the Bible has told me. What I am called to proclaim…

No one comes to the father if not by the son (JESUS CHRIST) If you do not believe in JESUS CHRIST (not that he existed, he was a nice guy, preacher, etc) but that he was EVERYTHING he said he was…he is, then I’m sorry and I pray that GOD helps you understand that outside of CHRIST…you, me, or anyone else is LOST.

Will this be popular…NOPE! Not in our Pluralistic religious society, but again…I don’t agree with that logic or teaching so I’m OK. Others will not be, but again honestly take a look at were truth comes from and what “personal” or “truth is relative” imply and you will at least come to the conclusion that something is either right or wrong, there are NO SHADES of truth because a half truth is still in error or a lie. Our enemy works by half truths…”Hey, that sounds about right” but does not talk about the consequences. Just ask Eve, and then ask Adam.

That is my honest answer…

Our laws, and especially our Constitution, are for everyone, religious or otherwise.

Be that as it may, what point were you trying to make here? Your diatribe sounds more like some of the anti-atheist tracts I've seen. It has diddly to do with what we were discussing.

AMEN, yes they are. I’m not preaching death to those who disagree (I have no right) nor do I wish harm on them. All I’m doing is what I am called to do, without compromises and without fear. Our founding fathers were Christian and used the Mosaic law and the Bible as a reference for the laws of this nation. It was founded by Christians and I believe we are blessed because of it. No nation gives more or does more good than America. No we are FAR from perfect but so is humanity in general.

So, why is this topic important? Because NO NATION is strong enough to continually disregard GOD and require him to stand aside? If America continues to lose its moral fiber…its historical culture and belief…we will be no different than all the previous nations of the world who fell away or were founded on pagan principals. We will fall away and become just another nation that rose and fell.

However, I'm very uncomfortable with some of your pronouncements concerning GOD. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I sense an attitude that you feel only your religious beliefs (or those very similar) are "correct" in their interpretation of morality?

Sorry you are uncomfortable and PLEASE go read and check what ever I might be saying about GOD’s word (In the Bible) yourself. I am far from perfect and the last thing I want to do is mislead anyone. But, yes…the Christian faith is the ONLY real faith and the only path back to GOD. That is what I have read and what I have learned from GOD’s word.

I do not hate you if you disagree nor will I suggest that people that do not agree should be treated differently. JESUS CHRIST stated to love everyone and to share the gospel when the opportunity presented itself and actively seek to share it. In this website it’s about the RX8, in this section it’s about polls, but in this topic we can not argue or disagree without getting into the details why. These are the details…

Here is the link again, I hope it works.

http://str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/comparisons/replural.htm

To everyone I ask you to hold yourself, people around you, and ESPECIALLY Christians to the following:

Respect everyone
Do not be afraid to apologize
Care about what happens to others
Do not live by selfishness
Give as much as you can of your time, money, etc (share your skills, your blessings, so others might be blessed too)
Note: Not saying to give everything up just not to live like your taking it with you and thinking you cant help others by time, money, a thank you, helping others, sharing your skills for good, etc
Seek truth, wisdom, and understanding love
Live by love, not because others will return it but because it’s the most POWERFUL force in the universe
Take your spiritual life seriously because you are given only one life(soul) to live with, seek it out before all things for NON of us will have an excuse when facing the ALL MIGHTY

Little by little I'm working to learn and live by the above.

I don’t hate ANYONE nor do I wish to take from them, hurt them, etc. If I did not care I would leave you be and follow my own selfish wishes in disregard to anyone else. I can not stress enough how polluted this world and we are (not pollution caused by our lovely rotary…LOL) and I’m sorry if anything I’ve said hurt but if you want me to be honest…I have been and I can not nor will not worry what people say about me but speak the truth.

You can say it’s mine but I’ll direct right to the Bible which is where I got it from. It’s not of my own because if it was up to me I would be a HUGE mess today. I have much to learn and I just hope everyone is honest enough to take a serious look into this topic and their spiritual life.