PDA

View Full Version : A question for conservatives



Matt McKenzie
05-11-2009, 09:27 AM
Why should I be opposed to gay marriage?

Nor_Cal_Angler
05-11-2009, 09:34 AM
I'm a Conservative.

My response is:

You shouldn't if you dont want to...

quickly followed by:

but dont force me to accept it....

and say I'm wierd/distorted/intolerant/not willing to accept...any other discriptive phrase you want to choose, if I do not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Miss USA regards.

NCA

BonMallari
05-11-2009, 09:45 AM
I'm a Conservative.

My response is:

You shouldn't if you dont want to...

quickly followed by:

but dont force me to accept it....

and say I'm wierd/distorted/intolerant/not willing to accept...any other discriptive phrase you want to choose, if I do not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Miss USA regards.

NCA

I agree with you whole heartedly....case in point, one of my brother's who lives in Durango has a gay son who wanted to have a civil union with his male friend in their home state of Mass. my brother is a devout Christian and although he loves his son refused to be forced into attending their "marriage" ceremony..he caught a lot of heat including some from his wife but I applauded him for sticking to his faith and " talking the talk, and walking the walk" I know it was agonizing for him but he refused to be forced to accept something that was against his religious beliefs

Matt McKenzie
05-11-2009, 09:47 AM
I'm not saying that we should all support gay marriage. What I want to know is why should I want it to be illegal?

Marvin S
05-11-2009, 09:51 AM
Why should I be opposed to gay marriage?

You shouldn't if you don't want to be. :p

But I believe the institution of marriage B/T individuals of opposite sex was instituted to allow an orderly transfer of property to one's heirs & had nothing to do with what we see today.

In my day gay meant being happy, & the individuals forementioned were described in lesser terms. I personally find the proponents of this type of conduct reprehensible, as I believe them to be dishonest in their eventual goals.

Raymond Little
05-11-2009, 10:04 AM
You shouldn't if you don't want to be. :p

But I believe the institution of marriage B/T individuals of opposite sex was instituted to allow an orderly transfer of property to one's heirs & had nothing to do with what we see today.

In my day gay meant being happy, & the individuals forementioned were described in lesser terms. I personally find the proponents of this type of conduct reprehensible, as I believe them to be dishonest in their eventual goals.
Bingo!!! We have a winner!!!!
Damn Marvin, you have got it going on for an old codger!;)

Nor_Cal_Angler
05-11-2009, 10:07 AM
I'm not saying that we should all support gay marriage. What I want to know is why should I want it to be illegal?

Im sorry, Matt

but I think I said,

You Shouldnt if you dont want it to be....

and then I gave my personal rebuttal which says..

But I do want it illegal, and because I am willing to accept the fact that you (dont know for sure, maybe your playing devils advocate) dont want it illegal, dont condem me, or force me to accept it being legal.

you could boil it down to PHYSICS....

FOR EVERY ACTION THERE IS AN EQUAL AND OPPSITE REACTION....

YOU want it I dont, I want it YOU dont.....

FUNNY THAT WAY, HUH????

NCA

Goose
05-11-2009, 10:18 AM
Exegete Gen 19. It doesn't end well.

Patrick Johndrow
05-11-2009, 10:52 AM
You shouldn't if you don't want to be. :p

But I believe the institution of marriage B/T individuals of opposite sex was instituted to allow an orderly transfer of property to one's heirs & had nothing to do with what we see today.

In my day gay meant being happy, & the individuals forementioned were described in lesser terms. I personally find the proponents of this type of conduct reprehensible, as I believe them to be dishonest in their eventual goals.


This cannot be said enough.

Juli H
05-11-2009, 11:15 AM
Why should I be opposed to polygamy?
Really, what is WRONG with polygamy? Is it MORE wrong than gay marriage?

wrong is wrong, regards

Juli

Matt McKenzie
05-11-2009, 11:53 AM
I think we can agree that we are all entitled to our opinion on marriage, but I haven't heard a cogent argument from anyone (here or anywhere else) as to how any marriage agreement between two (or more, for that matter) adults affects me or my marriage in any way. Most of my beliefs tend to fall in the conservative or libertarian camp. I guess on this one, I'm pretty libertarian. I may have religious beliefs that disapprove of homosexuality and polygamy, but that doesn't mean I want to impose my religeous beliefs on everyone in the country any more than I want ANYONE imposing thier religeous beliefs on me. I'm certainly not a believer in "gay rights". As far as I can tell, everybody has the same rights. In my state, I have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, but not someone of the same sex. A gay person has the exact same right. If the law is changed to allow us to marry someone of the same sex, we will still have the exact same right, just a difference in inclination.
I guess I just don't quite understand why folks get so worked up about gay marriage. It's not like if they are allowed to marry, they are going to reproduce and take over the world.

Marvin, you spoke of dishonest goals. Could you elaborate so that I can understand what you mean?

twall
05-11-2009, 12:07 PM
Juli,

My wife and I have recently been talking about this. If you leagalize homosexual marriage what is next? Why not polygamy? Why not dirty old perverts marrying minors? Shouldn't it be "their" right?

I do not beleive in homosexual marriage. The definition of marriage has been understood by everyone for several millenia. It dosn't need to be changed now. For too long "we" have allowed things in this country to happen because they didn't hurt or affect us. Now we are facing problems that could have been prevented.

Tom

Marvin S
05-11-2009, 12:27 PM
Marvin, you spoke of dishonest goals. Could you elaborate so that I can understand what you mean?

I've hung around life long enough to know that a cause that has received the benefits this group has in the public arena would normally quiet down. That they haven't & are still in the public's face tells me they have not accomplished their mission.

But then again, I could be wrong, they only have their own selfish behavior to worry about so can be as irresponsible as they want.

As the subject of polgamy has been brought up - I see nothing wrong with that action as long as the Head of the Household can support them all. In general, the wacko from Waco & all the others you read about have them on public assistance. I personally don't care to pay for someone else's beliefs &/or pleasures.

Though I don't quite understand how anyone could stand having that many women around! ;-) ;-)

Franco
05-11-2009, 12:44 PM
A question for conservatives
Why should I be opposed to gay marriage?
__________________

It depends on which kind of Conservative you are.

If you are a Limbaugh/Hannity Conservative, you oppose it because they say Republicans should be against it. They are the voice of the failing Republican party and a huge part of the problem of why Repubicans have fallen so far with voters.

If you are a REAL Political Conservative, well...real Political Conservatives don't bother themselves with issues that don't pertain to Defending the Constitution, protecting the citizens, being fiscally responsible and maintaining the infastructure for commerce. Real Conservatives don't get sidetracked by social issues.

Personally, I'm a real Conservative and I don't care what other people do with thier lives as long as it doesn't infringe on my Constitutional Rights! They can call it whatever they want to; gay marriage/union, homo-binding, gay/lesbian merger, whatever...why should I care?

badbullgator
05-11-2009, 12:51 PM
I'm not saying that we should all support gay marriage. What I want to know is why should I want it to be illegal?


By the same token why should it be legal. What can marriage give you that a non married couple, be it male/female. male/male, of female/female cannot get. Don't tell me insurance, property rights, or any of that stuff because they can get it, it just may be a little more difficult in some cases, but everything they cry about not have equal rights to are not in fact rights and can be had.
I know several long term non married heterosexuals and they have gone to the extent of having legal documents drafted that allow for every thing that married couples have (i.e. will, HIPPA releases for sharing of medical information, real estate contracts…..). Why is that any different than what a gay couple can do?
I am of the thought that marriage has to do mostly with having children more than anything else and we all know that without help (my help in fact) it is impossiable for a gay couple to get each other pregnant


BTW- I feel the same as MrBootey....not my issue

Cody Covey
05-11-2009, 01:11 PM
The reason religious beliefs come into play on this issue is because marriage is a religious instition. No matter which religion it is it's between a man and woman. I don't think government should be in marriage at all. Give everyone a civil union(contract rights that marriage allows) and if you want a civil union go for it i don't care what you do with your life, as long as you take responsibility for your actions (proven fact that homosexuals have higher instance of AIDS therefore you are going to cost more money in health care). I don't want to pay for your fun. Its not mean or cruel but if you ingage in risky behaviors i should not be held responsible for your actions.

Steve Amrein
05-11-2009, 01:28 PM
With a failure rate of hetero marriage I cant be believe no hetero folks would desire it.

My brother in law is gay and he and his partner have been together longer than me and my bride of almost 25 years.

Other than the religious reasons which I thought the left is usually using it as a put down or derogatory. Why are they trying so hard to water it down. Its like the similar argument of making QAA a title. It just makes the real thing worth a bit less. I am fine with the civil union thing just call it something different. Kinda the pig in lipstick quote.

Matt McKenzie
05-11-2009, 01:40 PM
Tom,
Why NOT polygamy? As far as perverts and minors go, we are discussing consenting adults. Most states do not allow minors to marry. I don't see the strength of that argument.

Mr Booty,
I think you and I are of like mind on this non-issue.

Eildydar,
I don't want may tax dollars paying for anyone's health care, gay or straight, unless they are military, law enforcement or some other necessary government employee.

In my opinion, the only role government should have in the religious institution of marriage is to figure out how to lawfully divvy up the loot in the event of divorce. The same rules should apply regardless of gender of either or both parties.

For the life of me, I just don't get why some folks expend effort fighting gay marriage while our country is being converted from a nation founded on individual liberty into a socialist nanny state. The ship is slowly sinking and we're complaining about the music.

Hew
05-11-2009, 03:37 PM
Real Conservatives don't get sidetracked by social issues.

Huh? Remove the social issues and there's very little distinction between Conservatism and Libertarianism. Now, and historically, a large chunk of Conservatism has been rooted in social issues. From civil rights in the 60's, to capital punishment and abortion in the 70's and 80's, on up to gay marriage and federally funded stem cell research now...all have been key issues that have helped unite/motivate Conservatives. A famous Conservative once said in a speech:


The Democratic Party turned its back on the majority of social conservatives during the 1960s. The New Republican Party of the late ’70s and ’80s must welcome them, seek them out, enlist them, not only as rank-and-file members but as leaders and as candidates.

Ronald Reagan wasn't a "real Conservative?"

Nobody has to follow the conservative orthodoxy to the letter in order to be considered a "real conservative," but you darn sure don't get to rewrite the orthodoxy in order to match your beliefs so you can hang a medal around your neck as the ordained "Real Conservative."

Franco
05-11-2009, 03:44 PM
Ronald Reagan wasn't a "real Conservative?"

."

No, I don't consider Ron Reagan a real Conservative. He fails in the, "fiscally responsible" category. His Amnesty for illegals was no stoke of Conservatism and neither was the Iran-Contra scandel.

Hew
05-11-2009, 03:47 PM
No, I don't consider Ron Reagan a real Conservative. He fails in the, "fiscally responsible" category.
Alrigiiiiiihty then.

K.Bullock
05-11-2009, 04:12 PM
Tom,
Why NOT polygamy? As far as perverts and minors go, we are discussing consenting adults. Most states do not allow minors to marry. I don't see the strength of that argument.

Mr Booty,
I think you and I are of like mind on this non-issue.

Eildydar,
I don't want may tax dollars paying for anyone's health care, gay or straight, unless they are military, law enforcement or some other necessary government employee.

In my opinion, the only role government should have in the religious institution of marriage is to figure out how to lawfully divvy up the loot in the event of divorce. The same rules should apply regardless of gender of either or both parties.

For the life of me, I just don't get why some folks expend effort fighting gay marriage while our country is being converted from a nation founded on individual liberty into a socialist nanny state. The ship is slowly sinking and we're complaining about the music.


If it was just about individual liberties of just gay people I think it would be simpler, but it isn't. For those in opposition to gay marriage it is more involved.

Issues range from sociological to religious. To sum it all up on an internet forum is unrealistic and to decide which side of the fence your on just from a few internet posts doesn't really seem the best way to form an opinion on something.

For me the biggest reason I oppose gay marriage is the serious legal consequences and threats to religious liberty if marriage is redefined by the courts, as well as the consequences that will face future generations that stray from the norm.

We are already experiencing the consequences of the sexual revolution of the sixties that changed our societal norm from sex being for procreation and marital unity to being a a personal pleasurable experience a form of personal expression.

Yes, their have always been homosexuals and other deviations of the norm but not until the sexual revolution was sex as a personal expression, viewed as a societal norm.


Check out data from European countries that have already experimented with same sex union, when the traditional family decreases societal ills increase. You can Google the same stuff I can if your really interested.


Don't forget your country was founded by Christians that were persecuted everywhere else for their religion. It was not founded for anybody that felt like violating any natural law or societal norm they felt like. It sometimes seems to me that the libertarians would rewrite early American history as one big pagan burning man festival where drugs and sex flow liberally out of Independence Hall. It's not so.

Franco
05-11-2009, 04:14 PM
I voted for Reagan twice though I never considered him a Conservative.

Lets face it, anyone was better than Jimmy Carter. Reagan's amnesty for 12 million illegals has led to another 20 million illegals and is not a Conservative ideal. His Iran/Conta deal was not in our best interest and Reagan left us with a huge national debt.

He was clearly the best choice twice but, a Conservative? No.

luvalab
05-11-2009, 04:28 PM
...

For the life of me, I just don't get why some folks expend effort fighting gay marriage while our country is being converted from a nation founded on individual liberty into a socialist nanny state. The ship is slowly sinking and we're complaining about the music.

Maybe because those same folks, under the guise of conservatism, are themselves trying to convert a nation founded on individual liberty into a socialist nanny state.

It's just the socialist nanny state of the right, not the socialist nanny state of the left.

Find me an actual conservative that will butt out of peoples business and allow the country to grow [up], and he or she will get my vote; put that actual conservative up against a libertarian, and my vote may very well go there.

For most of my voting life, however, when it's come to national politics, I've had to choose between the nannies on the right, the nannies on the left, and tossing my vote away.

I'm told I lean enough that I occasionally limp; I choose to blame arthritis in an old broken ankle... ;-)

Marvin S
05-11-2009, 04:31 PM
If you are a REAL Political Conservative, well...real Political Conservatives don't bother themselves with issues that don't pertain to Defending the Constitution, protecting the citizens, being fiscally responsible and maintaining the infastructure for commerce. Real Conservatives don't get sidetracked by social issues.

So - all these benefits that are showered on these people - the funding that was moved ahead in the line for HIV - that's what you call fiscally responsible?

Contrary to what many of you think - Family Values is a normal conservative issue having little to do with thumping on the Bible. I have never read the bible, the last time I was in church was to go to a funeral for a dog friend of mine - 15 years ago. I believe along with many others there are times when aborting a fetus is permissible. I am of the personal belief that what is good for a family is good for our country, with no slack for weird beliefs. It would be very hard to classify me as a Social Conservative.

As for the willingness to be open minded about the issue - the people of whom we speak are as predatory as any criminal. So if it's OK in your mind, go ahead & believe that way. I just know that if one of them harms one of mine, they will never get an opportunity to go there again.

YardleyLabs
05-11-2009, 04:50 PM
You shouldn't if you don't want to be. :p

But I believe the institution of marriage B/T individuals of opposite sex was instituted to allow an orderly transfer of property to one's heirs & had nothing to do with what we see today.

In my day gay meant being happy, & the individuals forementioned were described in lesser terms. I personally find the proponents of this type of conduct reprehensible, as I believe them to be dishonest in their eventual goals.
I guess I'm not understanding you're normally clear logic. How are supporters of the legalization of same sex marriage being dishonest about their ultimate goal? Do you think homosexuals are actually trying to "convert" heterosexuals?

It is a relatively recent development for the government to have any involvement in marriage at all. Rather, marriage was viewed as a religious institution and governed solely by the rules of each individual's own religious beliefs.

As you noted, marriage was embodied in law to manage property and custody issues at death and at dissolution of the marriage. In the 100-150 years in which marriage has become increasingly ingrained in secular law, it has become attached to other peripheral issues such as defining economic units for tax purposes, defining "next of kin" for assigning custodial rights when an individual is unable to act for himself, etc.

It is not clear to me how any of these issues are limited to male/female relationships; they are equally at issue for male/female and single sex relationships. For that reason, I can see no reason at all for having distinctions in civil law between the two. Let churches establish any rules they wish concerning marriage. That should not limit or be limited by what is done in civil law.

Franco
05-11-2009, 04:59 PM
So - all these benefits that are showered on these people - the funding that was moved ahead in the line for HIV - that's what you call fiscally responsible?

Contrary to what many of you think - Family Values is a normal conservative issue having little to do with thumping on the Bible. I have never read the bible, the last time I was in church was to go to a funeral for a dog friend of mine - 15 years ago. I believe along with many others there are times when aborting a fetus is permissible. I am of the personal belief that what is good for a family is good for our country, with no slack for weird beliefs. It would be very hard to classify me as a Social Conservative.

As for the willingness to be open minded about the issue - the people of whom we speak are as predatory as any criminal. So if it's OK in your mind, go ahead & believe that way. I just know that if one of them harms one of mine, they will never get an opportunity to go there again.

Lets see Marv, I highlighted three areas of your post.

1)HIV funding? Where did I write where that was responsible?
2) Family Values? I'm all for strong families and strong small businesses.
3) Predatory Criminals? Who are we writing about here? Independents? Libertarians?

Confused by your post.

YardleyLabs
05-11-2009, 05:11 PM
So - all these benefits that are showered on these people - the funding that was moved ahead in the line for HIV - that's what you call fiscally responsible?

Contrary to what many of you think - Family Values is a normal conservative issue having little to do with thumping on the Bible. I have never read the bible, the last time I was in church was to go to a funeral for a dog friend of mine - 15 years ago. I believe along with many others there are times when aborting a fetus is permissible. I am of the personal belief that what is good for a family is good for our country, with no slack for weird beliefs. It would be very hard to classify me as a Social Conservative.

As for the willingness to be open minded about the issue - the people of whom we speak are as predatory as any criminal. So if it's OK in your mind, go ahead & believe that way. I just know that if one of them harms one of mine, they will never get an opportunity to go there again.

1. I'm not sure what you mean by "weird beliefs". Personally, my kids think that my weekend activities playing with dogs and dead birds would rank high in the list. However, the minute you try to define weird and non-weird relationships among individuals,I think you may be looking for trouble. Many (most) of us are or have been involved in long-term monogamous relationships, with or without children involved. Some of these relationships were legally defined as marriages and others were not.

2. If you are saying that homosexuals are more predatory than heterosexuals, I would love to see you evidence. My own personal experience suggests that opposite since homosexuals are seldom able to establish the same physical dominance over their partners that is routinely possible with heterosexuals. Homosexuality has nothing at all to do with pedophilia. They are very different and pedophiles generally don't care about the gender of their victims.

zeus3925
05-11-2009, 06:02 PM
Ronald Reagan wasn't a "real Conservative?"



Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher are actually classified by political scientists as neo-liberal.

road kill
05-11-2009, 06:26 PM
Sorry fella's, this is not a roght wing left wing thing.

I can tell you with all certainty that a HUGE left wing voting block is extremely anti-gay.

The demographics are very clear.
In fact, it was this voting block that turned out in force for Obama, and squashed the Gay-marriage amendment in CA.

just sayin'

Pete
05-11-2009, 06:30 PM
The acceptance of a man sticking his pecker up another guys dirty sphincter and often licking off the residue is the least of our problems.
If they kept their perversion to themselves it would be fine. However
They take it to the classroom and initiate our children to the harmless and highly acceptable behavior of this mentally ill phycotic fetish.. It is their goal to make it as normal as sex between a guy and a gal.


So yes it does affect many normal families. Like bobby has 2 mommies or 2 daddies. which many schools now indoctrinate our kids with.


They need to keep their buisiness private,,,, its weird,,has been socially unacceptable for almost 6 thousand years. And all of a sudden its good stuff.?
I would feel the same if they taught mommie is married to a donkey as well and I have nothing against donkeys either.
What the hell is wrong with this Fn picture.
It sounds like I don't like queers but nothing can be further from the trueth. I feel for them in a way. It must be hell growing up being attracted to the same sex,,,and being ridiculed and sometimes beat up by your peers.,but the standard is the standard.
Why should I lower mine so somebody can feel good about their perversion.

They ought to be able to live in peace like anyone else without being mocked. However their flagrant fluffy feathered behavior in a public setting ,,,and their desire for their perversion to be noticed and accepted leaves them wide open for some rather strong opposision.

Our society can go no lower when it glorifys perversion and silences rational thought.

Buy the way I know,and love and accept as a friends some who are of this persuasion. And have counceled some and understand the pressures they can face. But it still is destructive behavior. And should not be considered acceptable in any arena.

To call it marraige is no different than spitting in Gods face and telling God he's or she is an idiot.

Pete

Marvin S
05-11-2009, 06:42 PM
1. I'm not sure what you mean by "weird beliefs".

U R putting me on, in your own way.


2. If you are saying that homosexuals are more predatory than heterosexuals, I would love to see you evidence. My own personal experience suggests that opposite since homosexuals are seldom able to establish the same physical dominance over their partners that is routinely possible with heterosexuals. Homosexuality has nothing at all to do with pedophilia. They are very different and pedophiles generally don't care about the gender of their victims.

When I was in the service I was stationed at Hdqtrs SAC. As a young buck I was out & about, Omaha is only 2nd to Denver (at the time) for interesting female companionship. But there was a darker side to that fair little midwestern city.

Omaha at the time was on the entertainment circuit - Chicago, Omaha, Denver & on to Vegas - many of the entertainers still rode trains so these were convenient stops. The Blackstone hotel with it's great lounge was about 3 blocks up the street from Mutual of Omaha Headquarters & their hordes of good looking file clerks. They regularly hosted entertainers of the caliber of Nat "King" Cole. So we spent a lot of time in their lounge. A male could not go to the head without being accosted by these people you say are not "predators". Fortunately I had a friend who liked to chase the skirts as much as I did, so had someone to cover my back. The cops in Omaha wouldn't even listen to one of them if you popped them, which we did regularly. Fortunately my friend was HM for Little All American FB with enough skill to play on our Base Basketball team so he was a handy guy in a brawl.

& I would note the queers (as we called them) were all over the city.




Lets see Marv, I highlighted three areas of your post.

1)HIV funding? Where did I write where that was responsible?
2) Family Values? I'm all for strong families and strong small businesses.
3) Predatory Criminals? Who are we writing about here? Independents? Libertarians?

Confused by your post.

1) You are saying it is OK to act that way, are you happy about them moving into line for funding ahead of people who act responsibly?
2) You are not if you believe the type of conduct practiced by queers is acceptable.
3) Please see my post to Jeff for your answer.

Patrick Johndrow
05-11-2009, 06:52 PM
Guys while you all are debating the legality of homosexuals the liberal pigs are looting our country…I suggest we deal with the liberal first then the homos.

Battle Priority Regards

Franco
05-11-2009, 07:56 PM
1) You are saying it is OK to act that way, are you happy about them moving into line for funding ahead of people who act responsibly?
2) You are not if you believe the type of conduct practiced by queers is acceptable.
3) Please see my post to Jeff for your answer.



1) AIDS just doesn't affect Homos alone. I had a family friend years ago, an active Lt. Commander in the U. S Navy that contracted AIDS through a blood transfusion in a military hospital. Tell his widow and three children AIDS doesn't need research for a cure. Moving in line? Should we divert cancer research money into something else because people smoke tobacco? This LT. Commander was one Conservative worth saving.

2) I don't sit in judgement of anyone's lifestyle. I may not agree with it but, it is none of my business. I'll leave the Christians and Muslims of the world to sit in judgement, since that is what they think they do best. They get that power from thier ancient manuscripts.


Patrick is right on. Much more important to be concerned with the theft of America.

badbullgator
05-11-2009, 08:05 PM
Sorry fella's, this is not a roght wing left wing thing.

I can tell you with all certainty that a HUGE left wing voting block is extremely anti-gay.

The demographics are very clear.
In fact, it was this voting block that turned out in force for Obama, and squashed the Gay-marriage amendment in CA.

just sayin'


Yeah but you don;t see a lot of gays in the rep party, at least not openly....in the mens room maybe, but not out in the open

Pete
05-11-2009, 08:15 PM
Mentally speaking there is a fine line between homexuallity and liberalism.

We live in exciting times,,,can't wait to see what its like in 4 more years.
Time warp regards

Pete

BrianW
05-11-2009, 08:54 PM
Why should I be opposed to gay marriage?
Jmtc, not because of anything against homosexuals, but because it's an essential step to the gradual, inexorable establishment of progressive statism.

In order for the State to become the ultimate authority, there can be no objections to it's rulings based on any moral/religious beliefs.
If the State can say that a religious/moral doctrine such as "Thou shalt not lie with a man as thou shalt a woman..." has NO applicability in this "enlightened" day and age, then everything else can be ruled on in regards to it's "social relativity" too and there will cease to be right and wrong unless the State says so, instead of one's conscience, belief in God or "moral code". .

Imo, but this is an important, if unstated part of Schumer's statement that "the old ways are over" The "enlightened" will "get it", the rest of the "chattering class will either learn or forced into compliance.

Also, fwiw, this issue is a root matter than makes Obama's "outreach" to the
Muslim world irrelevant and a total waste of time and our money regarding this upcoming address in Egypt. This is a core belief and just one more reason why so many followers of Islam despise and fear the US.

Patrick Johndrow
05-11-2009, 09:15 PM
Mentally speaking there is a fine line between homexuallity and liberalism.

Pete


Doesn't matter...to me anyway.

K.Bullock
05-11-2009, 09:20 PM
Guys while you all are debating the legality of homosexuals the liberal pigs are looting our country…I suggest we deal with the liberal first then the homos.

Battle Priority Regards

Battle priorities? If the courts interfere and redefine the definition of acceptable marriage guess what happens ... we have yet another protected class of citizens. Except this time it is based on behavior and not race or ethnicity. ..what a precedent to set in an already morally out of whack generation.

They will receive the same cultural and political considerations that blacks and other minorities (deservedly) enjoy. Their lifestyle and sexual preferences will be taught to your kids in schools like it is no big deal and perfectly natural, if you did go to church , like as has already happened in Norway, your pastor could face indictment for hate speech for simply preaching about sexual morality.

If you want to teach the children in your family that...thats fine. I do not want to be forced to accept a lifestyle .. a destructive one at that, for my family. And if I did not have a family of my own, I would certainly not tell someone else what they did and did not have to accept.

No one is telling homosexuals that they cannot live anyway they please. I simply oppose their lifestyle being forced into the mainstream and touted like it was tantamount to saving the rain forest.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/MarriageDebate/ConsequencesMD.cfm#ChangesInEducation



Changes in Education
If homosexual relationships can be "marriages," homosexuality could be taught as a part of normal family structures. In early 2006, the California state legislature proposed a bill (AB 2311) that would require homosexuality education in California public schools. On May 3, 2006, the legislature voted against the Seeking Educational Equity and Diversity Program (SEED).

National Public Radio did a feature on changing sex education in Massachusetts. Click here for a complete transcript.

The Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network has developed a curriculum to be incorporated in the public schools. Here are a few examples of what your child could be reading. Visit their website www.glsen.org for further information.



Battle priorities? The liberals have already figured out that to change a culture you start with it's children in the schools. That is exactly what has already happened. And what is happening. I could care less if they loot wall street our country has not always been prosperous, we can make the money back. What has been looted has been our decency and willingness to stand for what is right and good. Nobody has the drive or the guts to think for themselves for fear of what evryone else will think about them, like that someone else even cares anyway.

I am aware that some think that conservatives would do better politically if they would back down on a couple of culturally sensitive issues, in psychological terms it is called sycophancy.

Legacy 6
05-11-2009, 09:26 PM
Here's my thing... Traditionally, marriage is between a man and a woman. There are Civil Unions that afford the same "rights" to partners legally as far as the common arguement as the "hospital" thing...

We had a bus load of gay couples from MN drive to Iowa to get married... here's why I don't support Gay Marriage: When a couple get's married in a state that supports gay marriage, and move back to a state where they aren't supported, does that obligate the State to then recognize the couple as married even though it's not legally recognized in that State?

If couples want to be recognized in marriage as gays, and there are states that have legalized gay marriage, then move there. Don't force your state to recognize your marriage...

That's the "force" issue I have. I don't believe in gay marriage, and my state doesn't either (yet). So don't shove it down my throat.

And what about taxes???

Richard Halstead
05-11-2009, 09:32 PM
We live in exciting times,,,can't wait to see what its like in 4 more years.
Time warp regards
Pete


What happens if Obama is not reelected and the new president favors an approach more along the lines of capitalism do we drop the socialism? Do we still have a 3 trillion debt?

Pete
05-11-2009, 10:11 PM
What happens if Obama is not reelected and the new president favors an approach more along the lines of capitalism do we drop the socialism? Do we still have a 3 trillion debt


Richard
I think the debt is here to stay during my life time. Things will probably just get further and further away from the way it was way back when.

Socialism is here to stay,,,,, in part anyway.
It got worse and worse when the Bush administration and its republican majority was in power.
I can only see one way to go back to the good ole days. And that aint gonna happen in my life time either

As for me I'll always be content,,no matter what happens.

Pete

Richard Halstead
05-12-2009, 01:59 AM
Socialism is here to stay,,,,, in part anyway.
It got worse and worse when the Bush administration and its republican majority was in power.
I can only see one way to go back to the good ole days. And that aint gonna happen in my life time either

As for me I'll always be content,,no matter what happens.

Pete

As long as I can buy the essentials ...I may not like our current situation but I will try to be content. mumble, mumble, grin. :(

road kill
05-12-2009, 05:59 AM
Yeah but you don;t see a lot of gays in the rep party, at least not openly....in the mens room maybe, but not out in the open
Maybe most gays are Democrats.
But people who are anti-gays are also Democrats.

The largest voting block in the Democratic party (blacks) are very much anti-gay.
That is way the gay marriage initiative in CA got hammered last election.
The black demographic turned out en masse to vote for Obama.
As a result the also voted against the gay marriage amendment.

Probably most Republicans voted against it as well, but the black vote sealed it's fate.

just sayin'

Hew
05-12-2009, 06:08 AM
Ronald Reagan and Maggie Thatcher are actually classified by political scientists as neo-liberal.
Right. And political scientists would classify all of the PAF's newly-minted libertarians (very limited govt., no welfare state, etc.) as classical liberals. Those are indeed interesting fun facts...along with a donkey's eyes are positioned so that he can see all four feet simultaneously, and the king of hearts is the only one with a moustache...neat factoids, but little practical application to this discussion (or anything else, really).

YardleyLabs
05-12-2009, 06:18 AM
...

Personally, I'm a real Conservative and I don't care what other people do with thier lives as long as it doesn't infringe on my Constitutional Rights! They can call it whatever they want to; gay marriage/union, homo-binding, gay/lesbian merger, whatever...why should I care?
I yearn for the pre-RR (Read Religious Right or Ronald Reagan) Republican Party that believed in balanced budgets, conservation, defense, and having the government stay out of personal lives. That's a party that would occasionally even attract me to voting Republican. Now it seems that the only one of these priorities left is defense. Everything else is about sticking government's nose further up the rear ends of the populace.


U R putting me on, in your own way.



When I was in the service I was stationed at Hdqtrs SAC. As a young buck I was out & about, Omaha is only 2nd to Denver (at the time) for interesting female companionship. But there was a darker side to that fair little midwestern city.

Omaha at the time was on the entertainment circuit - Chicago, Omaha, Denver & on to Vegas - many of the entertainers still rode trains so these were convenient stops. The Blackstone hotel with it's great lounge was about 3 blocks up the street from Mutual of Omaha Headquarters & their hordes of good looking file clerks. They regularly hosted entertainers of the caliber of Nat "King" Cole. So we spent a lot of time in their lounge. A male could not go to the head without being accosted by these people you say are not "predators". Fortunately I had a friend who liked to chase the skirts as much as I did, so had someone to cover my back. The cops in Omaha wouldn't even listen to one of them if you popped them, which we did regularly. Fortunately my friend was HM for Little All American FB with enough skill to play on our Base Basketball team so he was a handy guy in a brawl.

& I would note the queers (as we called them) were all over the city.
....

Is it predatory when a guy whistles at a beautiful (or even not beautiful) woman walking by, or when a guy approaches a young woman in a bar to offer a drink? When it is pushed too far, or the person refuses to take no for an answer, it is. Otherwise, it's just dating.;)


Yeah but you don;t see a lot of gays in the rep party, at least not openly....in the mens room maybe, but not out in the open
You've obviously never heard of the Log Cabin Republicans -- the GOP's own openly gay lobby.


Mentally speaking there is a fine line between homexuallity and liberalism.

....
Pete,

This may the quote for the day (and I'm assuming it's a joke). I guess an equally insightful comment would be that there's a fine line between a conservative and a wife beater.

I suspect that the percentages of gay conservatives and gay liberals are about equal. I suspect that the percentage of gay football players and wrestlers may even be a little above average for the population.

Patrick Johndrow
05-12-2009, 06:51 AM
Battle priorities? If the courts interfere and redefine the definition of acceptable marriage guess what happens ... we have yet another protected class of citizens. Except this time it is based on behavior and not race or ethnicity. ..what a precedent to set in an already morally out of whack generation.

They will receive the same cultural and political considerations that blacks and other minorities (deservedly) enjoy. Their lifestyle and sexual preferences will be taught to your kids in schools like it is no big deal and perfectly natural, if you did go to church , like as has already happened in Norway, your pastor could face indictment for hate speech for simply preaching about sexual morality.

If you want to teach the children in your family that...thats fine. I do not want to be forced to accept a lifestyle .. a destructive one at that, for my family. And if I did not have a family of my own, I would certainly not tell someone else what they did and did not have to accept.

No one is telling homosexuals that they cannot live anyway they please. I simply oppose their lifestyle being forced into the mainstream and touted like it was tantamount to saving the rain forest.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/MarriageDebate/ConsequencesMD.cfm#ChangesInEducation




Battle priorities? The liberals have already figured out that to change a culture you start with it's children in the schools. That is exactly what has already happened. And what is happening. I could care less if they loot wall street our country has not always been prosperous, we can make the money back. What has been looted has been our decency and willingness to stand for what is right and good. Nobody has the drive or the guts to think for themselves for fear of what evryone else will think about them, like that someone else even cares anyway.

I am aware that some think that conservatives would do better politically if they would back down on a couple of culturally sensitive issues, in psychological terms it is called sycophancy.

I never said back down…it battle you kill what is immediate threat then the next. The gooberment isn’t turning out gay people it is parents so your kids are within your control…move them to a private school...I wouldnt have a kid in public schools now days.

Hew
05-12-2009, 06:56 AM
I yearn for the pre-RR (Read Religious Right or Ronald Reagan) Republican Party..... That's a party that would occasionally even attract me to voting Republican.
I'm sure you do yearn for that, as that was a Republican Party that only occasionally attracted anyone to vote for it.

Pete
05-12-2009, 08:36 AM
Pete,

This may the quote for the day (and I'm assuming it's a joke). I guess an equally insightful comment would be that there's a fine line between a conservative and a wife beater.

I suspect that the percentages of gay conservatives and gay liberals are about equal. I suspect that the percentage of gay football players and wrestlers may even be a little above average for the population

Jeff
You know for a joke to be funny there has to be some trueth in it.

My meaning of what I said is that both Homosexuals and Liberals are void of making proper judgement when it counts..
While it is true that on average a homo makes considerably more income than a hetero,,,their life choices are generally destructive to them or others.
They both think hand in hand.( no pun there ) Often the only real difference is one is gay and the other straight.

I would imagine that most conservatives treat their wife really well. And tend to be the head of the household. My wife is the brains of our relationship and I pump her for info. (no pun there) but the final desision belongs to me. Because its my responsability if somethings not right. I take the blame for all that goes on around here.

Libs and gays are never responsible for their decisions. Its always someone elses fault.

So see Jeff ,,,thyere is alot in common. However not all Liberals are that way and not all consevatives are the other way either.


But generally speaking I nailed it to the wall:D

Pete

Matt McKenzie
05-12-2009, 08:59 AM
Pete,
"Generally speaking" you took a pretty civil and interesting discussion of a current political issue and made a disgustingly sexual post and several that were simply idiotic. But thanks to the rest of you for posting your opinions. It's certainly interesting to hear how others view this.

Pete
05-12-2009, 09:01 AM
Oh Jeff
I just remembered why liberals don't beat their wives.
Its because they are considerably weaker than their wives:D. They marry woman who keep them in subjection. So instead of a wife beating problem you have a husband beating problem.:p

Now thats funny I don't care who you are:p:p

Pete

Keith Farmer
05-12-2009, 09:28 AM
If you are saying that homosexuals are more predatory than heterosexuals, I would love to see you evidence.




Is this predatorial enough? (I could not make myself open their official site...maybe you can do that...) the North American Man boy Love Association...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

Do they have an agenda to "convert" straight people?...you tell me:

From Michael Swift:

"
We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups, in your movie theater bathrooms, in your army bunkhouses, in your truck stops, in your all male clubs, in your houses of Congress, wherever men are with men together. Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will be recast in our image. They will come to crave and adore us."

How about GLSEN (gay, lesbian, and straight education network) who pushed its DOS (day of silence) for the homosexual movement/agenda on our publically educated children in several thousand schools nation wide on April 25, 2008? Their goal: to lead students to believe that every person who identifies as a homosexual, bisexual or cross-dresser is a victim of ongoing, unrelenting harassment and hate. Students are taught that homosexuality is a worthy lifestyle, homosexuality has few or no risks, and individuals are born homosexual and cannot change. Those who oppose such teaching are characterized as ignorant and hateful bigots. (exerpt taken from this site: http://thesop.org/index.php?article=10084)



Pat Buchannon wrote partially (in Death of The West) about the demise of the American family unit and its potential impact on society as we know it.
Degrading the institution of marriage from what has stood as one of the corner stones of our society by accepting any other definition for marriage than one man and one women in covenant for life is to fully undermine our social foundation.


KF

YardleyLabs
05-12-2009, 10:06 AM
Is this predatorial enough? (I could not make myself open their official site...maybe you can do that...) the North American Man boy Love Association...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA

Do they have an agenda to "convert" straight people?...you tell me:

From Michael Swift:

"

How about GLSEN (gay, lesbian, and straight education network) who pushed its DOS (day of silence) for the homosexual movement/agenda on our publically educated children in several thousand schools nation wide on April 25, 2008? Their goal: to lead students to believe that every person who identifies as a homosexual, bisexual or cross-dresser is a victim of ongoing, unrelenting harassment and hate. Students are taught that homosexuality is a worthy lifestyle, homosexuality has few or no risks, and individuals are born homosexual and cannot change. Those who oppose such teaching are characterized as ignorant and hateful bigots. (exerpt taken from this site: http://thesop.org/index.php?article=10084)



Pat Buchannon wrote partially (in Death of The West) about the demise of the American family unit and its potential impact on society as we know it.
Degrading the institution of marriage from what has stood as one of the corner stones of our society by accepting any other definition for marriage than one man and one women in covenant for life is to fully undermine our social foundation.


KF

To quote from the Day of Silence web site, the purpose of the Gay Straight Lesbian Education Network is:

"GLSEN, the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, is the leading national education organization focused on ensuring safe schools for all students. Established nationally in 1995, GLSEN envisions a world in which every child learns to respect and accept all people, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity/expression. GLSEN seeks to develop school
climates where difference is valued for the positive contribution it makes to creating a more vibrant and diverse community.For more information on GLSEN’s educator resources, public policy agenda, student organizing programs, research or development initiatives, visit www.glsen.org."

This seems like a pretty decent agenda to me. In my experience, being gay is not a choice; it's something you are born with. I suspect that most gay people that I have known would have been much happier if they could have waved some magical wand and become straight. However, being gay is not a disease, it is not catching, and it should not be a matter of shame. In fact, I've often suspected that those who are most vehemently anti-gay may be overcompensating for questions they have about their own sexual orientation.

In my church, as in most Unitarian and United Church of Christ churches, children participate in a sex education program called Our Whole Lives (OWL) which explicitly addresses questions of sexual orientation in positive ways to help children become comfortable with their sexuality and with the differences that exist among their peers. It is relatively common for members of the gay, lesbian and bisexual communities to be invited to speak to these classes to answer any questions that kids may have. I don't believe there are either more or fewer gays today, as a percentage of our population, than there were in the 1950's, but I certainly think that the treatment of sexual orientation today is infinitely healthier than it was then.

While I will be forever tinged by some of the prejudices of my youth, I am happy that my kids seem to truly accept their own sexuality and the sexuality of their friends without concern for sexual orientation. In that sense they reflect the values of the under-30 generation well. It is clear that any political party that rejects gays will find itself unable to attract either gays or non-gays in the future.

Keith Farmer
05-12-2009, 10:29 AM
In my experience, being gay is not a choice; it's something you are born with.


Are you gay Jeff? If not, what "experience" do you have with whether or not the lifestyle is a choice. The only experience a non-gay individual has with being gay is that which is sold to that individual under the guise of the pro-gay agenda.

From people who are "experienced" I suggest you read their input on the subject...an input that says over 1/3 of those who seek to totally change their lifestyle are successful. Another 1/3 are successful at varying degrees of change...whatever that may be.

Here is a site that you should check out (read the Q & A's):

http://theformers.com/faq.php

The push by pro-gay movements to align their lifestyle with those of true minorities (like that of the black minority...whose members are born black...not a choice) has given rise to the "born with it" stance. Ask any "former" homosexual whether it was a choice and the answer is most likely to be yes...it was a choice.

As far as a "church" teaching kids about homosexuality I can only say that it is sad but believable that in such a perverse setting as we live in now we can call those activities church related.

Marty Lee
05-12-2009, 11:37 AM
we all face "choice" everyday. when we see a good looking female(do we lust?) or may even have a chance to have sex with another other than our wife we are faced with a choice. if a man claims he was "born attrached to children or animals" do we say oh its ok you were born that way i accept you as you are....maybe i can claim i was born to steal and go steal enough money so i dont have to work it must be ok i was born this way

Patrick Johndrow
05-12-2009, 11:57 AM
In my experience, being gay is not a choice; it's something you are born with. I suspect that most gay people that I have known would have been much happier if they could have waved some magical wand and become straight. However, being gay is not a disease, it is not catching, and it should not be a matter of shame. In fact, I've often suspected that those who are most vehemently anti-gay may be overcompensating for questions they have about their own sexual orientation.
In my church, as in most Unitarian and United Church of Christ churches, children participate in a sex education program called Our Whole Lives (OWL) which explicitly addresses questions of sexual orientation in positive ways to help children become comfortable with their sexuality and with the differences that exist among their peers. It is relatively common for members of the gay, lesbian and bisexual communities to be invited to speak to these classes to answer any questions that kids may have. I don't believe there are either more or fewer gays today, as a percentage of our population, than there were in the 1950's, but I certainly think that the treatment of sexual orientation today is infinitely healthier than it was then.

I know two gay men that claim that they were born gay…while I believe neither of them are liars I do know both had traumatic occurrences in their youth that could have led them to where they are today…one was physically and the other was physiological. Both men live very tortured lives personally and professionally because of their lifestyle. My wife and I have been very supportive of them as friend but in no way do we support their lifestyle. The individual has the duty to reconcile themselves with the Church not the Church to reconcile themselves with the individual. Does not matter what the sin the Church should not bend to perversion.

road kill
05-12-2009, 01:07 PM
I was on a number of Championship teams with great team mates.
I was in the Military and served with some great guys (under fire)!!
I coached baseball & basketball for over 20 years.

I love those guys!!








We don't have sex!!








I was "born" hetero (by your stated standards) I had no choice.
I did how ever "CHOOSE" to NOT have sex today!!

Get it??


Just sayin'

Marty Lee
05-12-2009, 01:50 PM
i too have some gay friends i dont bash them about their sexual preferences but i dont buy the i was born this way idea. i beleive we live in a fallen state world and we all have our temptations. sex before marriage in my book is SIN so is lying cheating stealing there is no big sin little sin.... i dont bust their chops on how they live and dont want them critquing my "choices" about how i live. "but you own what you condone". where have i seen that?

Pete
05-12-2009, 02:26 PM
Pete,
"Generally speaking" you took a pretty civil and interesting discussion of a current political issue and made a disgustingly sexual post and several that were simply idiotic. But thanks to the rest of you for posting your opinions. It's certainly interesting to hear how others view this

I didn't do it to be discusting or derogatory
I said it that way because people tend not to understand what really goes on in the gay community. You may think that they just hold hands and hug but the reality is it is incredably vulger and discusting.

I thought it would help bring some who sit on the fence down to reality.
If it sounded discusting and vulger it's because it is. I have made nothing up.
You should thanking me for being honest and up front.

Its not the people but their actions. All of us are screwed up one way or another.
Its not what yoyu think but how you act.

Pete

Keith Farmer
05-12-2009, 03:33 PM
In my church, as in most Unitarian and United Church of Christ churches, children participate in a sex education program called Our Whole Lives (OWL) which explicitly addresses questions of sexual orientation in positive ways to help children become comfortable with their sexuality and with the differences that exist among their peers. It is relatively common for members of the gay, lesbian and bisexual communities to be invited to speak to these classes to answer any questions that kids may have.


Jeff,

Would your "church" be open to inviting Paedophiles to speak? You may have according to the NAMbLA group.

In keeping with that theme how about this from overseas...from 2006 (how long until it reaches our shores?):

Judge HFM Hofhuis ruled that the Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity Party (PNVD) had the same right to exist as any other political party.
The PNVD was formed by three paedophiles in May, prompting outrage in Dutch society. It seeks to lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12 and legalise child pornography and sex with animals...the PNVD...says its aim is to break taboos and fight intolerance and that it wants paedophilia to be freely discussed, arguing that a ban just makes children curious.

Sounds just like what you, and your "church", are promoting Jeff with the liberal approach of exposing children to taboo sexual situations in the forms of gay, lesbian, bi, trans, and/or whatever else you can conjure up type lifestyles and allowing them to become comfortable with the differences...give me a break. Where is the leadership? Where is the moral foundation? Where is the logic in that?

Seems like the approach I quoted earlier is working with your crowd Jeff...here it is again in part:



We shall sodomize your sons, emblems of your feeble masculinity, of your shallow dreams and vulgar lies. We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your sports arenas, in your seminaries, in your youth groups,...


I say, again, that is simply a total disregard for proper parenting than to do anything other than look out for the well being and best interests of our children. To expose them to such outrageous nonsense is not responsible at best.

road kill
05-12-2009, 04:01 PM
Here is an interesting point;

Being somewhat involved in Christianity and the work of some Churchs I have noticed that quite often as individuals mature, they turn to Religion (with out getting to deep) for salvation, forgiveness, direction and fulfillment.
These individuals I am refering to are former prostitutes, felons, women who had abortions and (yep you guessed it) homo-sexuals.

I have never seen a Christian, on the other hand, turn to prostitution, crime, abortion or homo-sexuality.

Can anyone explain this to me??

just askin'

YardleyLabs
05-12-2009, 04:09 PM
Jeff,

Would your "church" be open to inviting Paedophiles to speak? You may have according to the NAMbLA group.

In keeping with that theme how about this from overseas...from 2006 (how long until it reaches our shores?):

Judge HFM Hofhuis ruled that the Brotherly Love, Freedom and Diversity Party (PNVD) had the same right to exist as any other political party.
The PNVD was formed by three paedophiles in May, prompting outrage in Dutch society. It seeks to lower the age of sexual consent from 16 to 12 and legalise child pornography and sex with animals...the PNVD...says its aim is to break taboos and fight intolerance and that it wants paedophilia to be freely discussed, arguing that a ban just makes children curious.

Sounds just like what you, and your "church", are promoting Jeff with the liberal approach of exposing children to taboo sexual situations in the forms of gay, lesbian, bi, trans, and/or whatever else you can conjure up type lifestyles and allowing them to become comfortable with the differences...give me a break. Where is the leadership? Where is the moral foundation? Where is the logic in that?

Seems like the approach I quoted earlier is working with your crowd Jeff...here it is again in part:



I say, again, that is simply a total disregard for proper parenting than to do anything other than look out for the well being and best interests of our children. To expose them to such outrageous nonsense is not responsible at best.

Gee, if they succeed in doing all that it will be just like Tennessee when I was born and marriages of 12 year olds were both legal and not that uncommon. In fact, my mother's roommate in the hospital where I was born in 1949 was just such a child bride. Her family married her off to her 14 year old cousin and the two of them lived with an aunt until he saved enough money to buy them a house. It became the basis for a short story my mother published in 1950.

If you want to identify the most likely culprits for sexual assault, I suggest that heterosexual men be your targets because they are the ones who are almost always involved. Their victim will generally be a female -- often under age -- of the same race. There is a good chance that the victim will be a relative, a family friend, or a person in a position of authority such as a minister or teacher. Given that, I assume you would agree that inviting a heterosexual man to be minister in a church or to teach in a school is an open invitation to pedophiles to attack our children. The way to protect against pedophiles is to protect against pedophiles, not to attack everyone who is not heterosexual.

Keith, my kids are now 35 and 27 respectively. One is married with children and the other will be married in August. They are incredible people and I wish you the good fortune of having your children turn out as well. I am actually very proud of the role I played in their lives as their father.

Hew
05-12-2009, 04:15 PM
I have never seen a Christian, on the other hand, turn to prostitution, crime, abortion or homo-sexuality.
You've never personally known any or you're not aware of any? With google and five minutes I could come up with a list of at least 100 CLERGY who'd fit the bill.

road kill
05-12-2009, 04:20 PM
You've never personally known any or you're not aware of any? With google and five minutes I could come up with a list of at least 100 CLERGY who'd fit the bill.


I am not part of that particular church.

I have personally witnessed several individuals turn to JC.


BTW---most of those you reference eventually realize the error in their ways as well, and did not turn to said vice at maturity. They were there from early on and used the position to their advantage.

As I said, once they mature they seek another direction.

(not all BTW, just some)

Cody Covey
05-12-2009, 06:11 PM
Gee, if they succeed in doing all that it will be just like Tennessee when I was born and marriages of 12 year olds were both legal and not that uncommon. In fact, my mother's roommate in the hospital where I was born in 1949 was just such a child bride. Her family married her off to her 14 year old cousin and the two of them lived with an aunt until he saved enough money to buy them a house. It became the basis for a short story my mother published in 1950.

If you want to identify the most likely culprits for sexual assault, I suggest that heterosexual men be your targets because they are the ones who are almost always involved. Their victim will generally be a female -- often under age -- of the same race. There is a good chance that the victim will be a relative, a family friend, or a person in a position of authority such as a minister or teacher. Given that, I assume you would agree that inviting a heterosexual man to be minister in a church or to teach in a school is an open invitation to pedophiles to attack our children. The way to protect against pedophiles is to protect against pedophiles, not to attack everyone who is not heterosexual.

Keith, my kids are now 35 and 27 respectively. One is married with children and the other will be married in August. They are incredible people and I wish you the good fortune of having your children turn out as well. I am actually very proud of the role I played in their lives as their father.Jeff you are a smart guy. Lets talk science for a bit here. In order for it to be not a choice there would have to be a gene for it. In order for there to be a gene for it there would have to be some evolutionary benefit to homosexuality. Also with no one being able to reproduce how was this gene spread. The possibility of it being a recessive gene and passing along through the ages of man and not becoming extinct are grossly improbable. If you can find me a evolutionary reason for there to be a gay gene then please go ahead and let me know(I am curious about this so if you can think of one i would love to have the discusion.)

Also if its not a choice then aren't you saying that being gay is a birth defect?

YardleyLabs
05-12-2009, 06:38 PM
Jeff you are a smart guy. Lets talk science for a bit here. In order for it to be not a choice there would have to be a gene for it. In order for there to be a gene for it there would have to be some evolutionary benefit to homosexuality. Also with no one being able to reproduce how was this gene spread. The possibility of it being a recessive gene and passing along through the ages of man and not becoming extinct are grossly improbable. If you can find me a evolutionary reason for there to be a gay gene then please go ahead and let me know(I am curious about this so if you can think of one i would love to have the discusion.)

Also if its not a choice then aren't you saying that being gay is a birth defect?
Have you ever seen male dogs humping other male dogs or female dogs humping each other? Nature has many behaviors, some of which are clear aids to survival and others of which, as far as we know, serve no obvious purpose (e.g., the appendix). Largely because of the openness of my church, I have come to know many homosexuals, most of whom are involved in long term monogamous relationships and many of whom have children -- either by adoption or from an earlier marriage. Without exception, every one knew that he or she was homosexual before reaching puberty. There was no time in their lives when they were even vaguely attracted to a person of the opposite sex, even though many of them married in the hope that might somehow "cure" them. In fact, it only served to spread the pain even further. Homosexuality has existed as long as humans have existed. I suspect that one or more of the people sitting at the table for the Last Supper was gay.

With respect to genetic components, I suspect that there may be some. Clearly gender, which we classify simply into male/female, is more of a continuum: male/female/other. Some babies are hermaphroditic at birth and have their gender assigned arbitrarily by the attending physician.

Are variations in sexual orientation a "birth defect"? Not in the manner that we currently use to classify variations among individuals. There is nothing crippling about homosexuality except society's irrational response. In that sense, it is no more of a hindrance to the individual, in the absence of society's reactions, than being left handed in a right handed world. The "cure" lies in changing social attitudes, not in "eliminating" the "condition". For years, homosexuality was treated as a mental illness. All efforts at "treatment" failed, leaving a wide wake of destruction in their path. Who knows, maybe homosexuality is linked genetically to the "designer" gene and eliminating it would condem us all to living in a gray world. Our strengths come from diversity, not homogeneity.

Pete
05-12-2009, 06:40 PM
The problem with this whole deal is the the H/sex community seeks to recriut new blood. They target 12-20 year olds who are very impressionable. And see sex as an exciting and new adventure. Their minds can be easily persuaded in many cases.
I know I found myself in that situation many decades ago. However I was mentally and spiritually strong enough to walk away. There were grown men involved also not just kids being stupid. So much of what goes on today is a product of very sly marketing.
Its sick and so are those who are subversive to ruin the lives of our kids for the sake of their insatiable lusts.

Pete

Cody Covey
05-12-2009, 06:46 PM
Have you ever seen male dogs humping other male dogs or female dogs humping each other? Nature has many behaviors, some of which are clear aids to survival and others of which, as far as we know, serve no obvious purpose (e.g., the appendix). Largely because of the openness of my church, I have come to know many homosexuals, most of whom are involved in long term monogamous relationships and many of whom have children -- either by adoption or from an earlier marriage. Without exception, every one knew that he or she was homosexual before reaching puberty. There was no time in their lives when they were even vaguely attracted to a person of the opposite sex, even though many of them married in the hope that might somehow "cure" them. In fact, it only served to spread the pain even further. Homosexuality has existed as long as humans have existed. I suspect that one or more of the people sitting at the table for the Last Supper was gay.

With respect to genetic components, I suspect that there may be some. Clearly gender, which we classify simply into male/female, is more of a continuum: male/female/other. Some babies are hermaphroditic at birth and have their gender assigned arbitrarily by the attending physician.

Are variations in sexual orientation a "birth defect"? Not in the manner that we currently use to classify variations among individuals. There is nothing crippling about homosexuality except society's irrational response. In that sense, it is no more of a hindrance to the individual, in the absence of society's reactions, than being left handed in a right handed world. The "cure" lies in changing social attitudes, not in "eliminating" the "condition". For years, homosexuality was treated as a mental illness. All efforts at "treatment" failed, leaving a wide wake of destruction in their path. Who knows, maybe homosexuality is linked genetically to the "designer" gene and eliminating it would condem us all to living in a gray world. Our strengths come from diversity, not homogeneity.
and those behaviors are just that...behaviors. choices. the dogs don't hump each other out of anything sexual. its more a dominance issue so comparing dogs humping to humans choosing a parnter doesn't make much sense.

YardleyLabs
05-12-2009, 07:04 PM
and those behaviors are just that...behaviors. choices. the dogs don't hump each other out of anything sexual. its more a dominance issue so comparing dogs humping to humans choosing a parnter doesn't make much sense.
I believe having sex is a choice. I believe sexual orientation is innate although, like gender itself, is probably more of a continuum than an absolute, including people who are clearly homosexual from early on, people who are clearly heterosexual, and people who could swing either way or both.

You were arguing that there is no possible genetic value to being homosexual. Based on that assumption, you infer that if it were a genetic condition that evolution would have eliminated it. Since it still exists, you conclude that it must be a choice.

That logic is impeccably....... ridiculous.

As I noted before, many conditions exist that appear on the surface, to serve no purpose. Some may in fact be useless or even counter productive but still survive after millions of years of evolution. Others may in fact appear useless until we intervene to eliminate them, only discovering afterward that they were linked to something desirable. Evolution is geared to meeting the need of the species, not the individual. The needs of the species are best met through diversity, not having everyone meet some ideal standard of perfection. My observation on canine behavior was simply a way of pointing out that nature's ways are seldom as clear cut as ideologues might prefer.

JDogger
05-12-2009, 07:50 PM
Here is an interesting point;

Being somewhat involved in Christianity and the work of some Churchs I have noticed that quite often as individuals mature, they turn to Religion (with out getting to deep) for salvation, forgiveness, direction and fulfillment.
These individuals I am refering to are former prostitutes, felons, women who had abortions and (yep you guessed it) homo-sexuals.

I have never seen a Christian, on the other hand, turn to prostitution, crime, abortion or homo-sexuality.

Can anyone explain this to me??

just askin'

What about pedaphile priests?

Oh wait, thats right, they're catholics, not christians. Right RK?

JD

Cody Covey
05-12-2009, 07:53 PM
i never said that. read my post. I said what was the point of it. i didn't say there wasn't one. Please don't say my arguement is rediculous unless you can break it. Just because you feel that people don't have a choice doesn't make it fact. I believe they don't that doesn't mean that its fact either. I come with facts on how evolution works and i agree that there may be a evolutionary reason but i don't know thats why i stated i wanted to discuss it with you.

Pete
05-12-2009, 11:22 PM
The "cure" lies in changing social attitudes, not in "eliminating" the "condition". For years, homosexuality was treated as a mental illness. All efforts at "treatment" failed, leaving a wide wake of destruction in their path. Who knows, maybe homosexuality is linked genetically to the "designer" gene and eliminating it would condem us all to living in a gray world. Our strengths come from diversity, not homogeneity

I would agree with you ,,that many are obviously born looking male and female,,,its unfortunate and sad to say the least.
It was considered a mental illness because it is a mental illness. Something is not right in the brain which controlls sexual desire. and many functions of how muscles ,bone structure ,and other developements ect ect take place.

Mental illness comes in so many forms ,irrational fears,compulsions you name it. Its all instability of some form. Socially accepting someone who is attracted to the same sex is different than accepting the notion that its normal and just a perfectly lovely alternative life style.
Many of these people can be helped if they have a great desire to leave that mind set in the past.
I personally know a couple who have changed and beat this affliction.
So genetic ,,,I don't think so,,,,something gone arye physically or in the brain ,,,probably.
Lets not embrase it. People grow up with sexual attractions to children,animals and dead people. Should we embrase that also.

There is much more to this than meets the eye.




Motivation is always the seperation when dealing with people. Where and why are they going with this.


Pete

YardleyLabs
05-13-2009, 05:44 AM
Pete,

For years, being left handed was considered to be something of a disease and definitely shameful. Tremendous effort was expended trying to "cure" left handed kids from their deficiency. In fact, being left handed is a given and is linked to a much broader set of mental functions. By preventing the normal development of left hand dominance in those children, these efforts actually impaired the learning ability of left handed kids with long lasting results.

For years psychologists treated homosexuality as a disease and classified it as such following Freudian theories. In 1975, the American Psychological Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its diagnostic listings of diseases based on extensive evidence that homosexuality is in fact physiological in nature, quite probably genetically linked, and not affected or caused by socialization although socialization can affect how it is expressed. The APA currently states that sexual orientation is not a choice, rather that "...it emerges from most people in early adolescence with no prior sexual experience."

road kill
05-13-2009, 05:57 AM
What about pedaphile priests?

Oh wait, thats right, they're catholics, not christians. Right RK?

JD

Did you read my post?
Again, did you read my post??

One more time, DID YOU READ MY POST???

Rhetorical question, obviously you did not.

I addressed it accurately & succinctly.

Here, reread this;


"BTW---most of those you reference eventually realize the error in their ways as well, and did not turn to said vice at maturity. They were there from early on and used the position to their advantage.

As I said, once they mature they seek another direction."


They did not turn to that behaviour at a later age.
The repent and change at a later age.

Please tell me you can read and comprehend this.
If not, I guess you win.

K.Bullock
05-13-2009, 07:21 AM
Pete,

For years, being left handed was considered to be something of a disease and definitely shameful. Tremendous effort was expended trying to "cure" left handed kids from their deficiency. In fact, being left handed is a given and is linked to a much broader set of mental functions. By preventing the normal development of left hand dominance in those children, these efforts actually impaired the learning ability of left handed kids with long lasting results.

For years psychologists treated homosexuality as a disease and classified it as such following Freudian theories. In 1975, the American Psychological Association (APA) removed homosexuality from its diagnostic listings of diseases based on extensive evidence that homosexuality is in fact physiological in nature, quite probably genetically linked, and not affected or caused by socialization although socialization can affect how it is expressed. The APA currently states that sexual orientation is not a choice, rather that "...it emerges from most people in early adolescence with no prior sexual experience."

Jeff was the reclassification due to a breakthrough in research? Or was it because increasingly vocal gay advocates demanded it be reclassified. To my knowledge the "fact" of genetic homo-sexuality is equivalent to an urban legend.

Goose
05-13-2009, 08:25 AM
Of course there's a "gay" gene. No doubt about it. There's also a "cannibal" gene which would explain away Jeffrey Dahmer's proclivity to eat human flesh.

But research is being done on a new gene. The "I'm better than you so I don't need to pay my taxes" gene which has been discovered in all democrats.

YardleyLabs
05-13-2009, 08:39 AM
Jeff was the reclassification due to a breakthrough in research? Or was it because increasingly vocal gay advocates demanded it be reclassified. To my knowledge the "fact" of genetic homo-sexuality is equivalent to an urban legend.
It was actually attributed to some fairly specifically identified research that appeared to indicate that sexual preferences were accompanied by measurable physiological differences in brains, by research indicating that the emergence of different sexual preferences could not be traced to any other psychological or sociological traits, and research suggesting a strong hereditary component to homosexuality. Specific studies were cited as the basis for the change when it was made, but I do not have those at my fingertips right now.

Keith Farmer
05-13-2009, 08:40 AM
Jeff,

You and I see things from two distinct world views. You have dismissed the documentation I gave from previous homesexuals...individuals who adamantly claim that the sins of homosexual activity were indeed a choice they made, and that they subsequently altered that choice when the decision was made to do so. Innate behavior cannot be arbitrarily altered in such fashion...you know that but must be too stubborn to admit it.

Further, I am glad your kids turned out well in your eyes despite the horrific offerings they were exposed to.

You never answered my questions about what level of debased behavior your church would draw a line at when presenting opposing world views to KIDS...where is that line Jeff? Is there a line? Do you even know that a line exists?

Here is biblical documentation regarding the Creator's stance on this issue. It is obvious that the sin is a choice...one that God has allowed men and women to embrace due to turning their backs on God (I added the emphasis to make it clear) It is also obvious that your "church" has never cracked open these verses and sought to understand their full intent or else you would not be here touting the virtues of the homosexual lifestyle:

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.
26 For this reason (exchanging the truth of God for the lie and worshipping creation and not the Creator) God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

Finally, you said:
There is nothing crippling about homosexuality

I disagree. The lifestyle is debilitating. The lifestyle, taken from folks who are "experienced", is totally driven by sexual deviency. Nearly every motivation arises from the viewpoint of sexuality. Every "former" homosexual describes the lifestyle in such fashion.

Let me add finally that I wholeheartedly believe that God loves His creation. The bible declares that while we were yet sinners and enemies of God that He demonstrated His love for us in that He died for us as the propitiation for our sins. Those sins include the sin of homosexual activity as well as every other sin. That truth is what should be taught to our kids...not that the sin of homosexual activity is ok and natural.


KF

Pete
05-13-2009, 08:47 AM
The "cure" lies in changing social attitudes, not in "eliminating" the "condition". For years, homosexuality was treated as a mental illness. All efforts at "treatment" failed, leaving a wide wake of destruction in their path. Who knows, maybe homosexuality is linked genetically to the "designer" gene and eliminating it would condem us all to living in a gray world. Our strengths come from diversity, not homogeneity


A large proportion of inmates have the extra Y thing going on. Its thought to lead to aggressive behavior. BBG might be able to confirm this. Does it mean that people with an extra Y chromasome (or whatever) are all criminals. some overcome this
Some homosexuals oviously are born with some sort of problem in chemisty,,,,but a l;arge proportion are recruited.
why are they being recruited.?
You say the cure relies in changing our attitude, Does that make them straight ?

I don't think anyone here is condeming anyone. I think we are condeming the activists,,just like PETA, or the ACLU or any group that pushes their belief down your throat clear into your pockets.

In the last 40 years of our 6000 year existance have we become enlightened? If so its making everything fall apart. we have kids and adults that look like they are from another planet,,We have odd fetish's publicly displayed,
we have political figures who have done nothing but look and sound pretty put up on pedisles and worshipped like gods,,,we have more irrational thought injected in every segment of our lives,,,,we have no right or wrong,,, only,, hey if it works for you. Basically we have caos where there is no order. Do you think the universe can exist without order,,,Look at the stars they are the perfect time piece.
And those that require order in their life are being shunned and made to look like they are the intolerant ones. In all actuallity it is the people who lack morals and believe anything goes that are the intolerant one.

It can be explained beatifull using scripture. But thats not accepted here.In order to see it from a biblical point of view you have to believe that the book has integrety,,,which it does with a presion of any true science.And most don't. so the point is mute

The ink is not dry. Keeping this topic in the mental,physical realm is safe.
But you can't find the answere until you understand the spiritual which of coarse is taboo.

So we will have to agree to disagree and just talk around the root of the problem.


Pete

road kill
05-13-2009, 08:52 AM
There is a segment of society that refuses to acknowledge that there is a right and there is a wrong.
Therefore there is no responsibilty, an incredible burdon for some.

How can you be responsible for something if it is excused as not being a choice but something inherited?

Hoosier
05-13-2009, 08:54 AM
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

I think this is the research Jeff is talking about. I actually do believe people are born gay or straight. I remember a kid that went to my grandfathers church; you could tell that kid was going to turn out to be gay when he was 6 years old, and he did. I don't know how else you would explain that.

I don't think the study in the link is conclusive, but I do believe it has merit.

Franco
05-13-2009, 09:03 AM
Jeff,

You and I see things from two distinct world views. You have dismissed the documentation I gave from previous homesexuals...individuals who adamantly claim that the sins of homosexual activity were indeed a choice they made, and that they subsequently altered that choice when the decision was made to do so. Innate behavior cannot be arbitrarily altered in such fashion...you know that but must be too stubborn to admit it.

KF

Keith, you are watching entirely to much Southpark on the Comedy Channel. No one had even heard of MANBLA prior to the Southpark episode where a member of MANBLA was stalking the playground. I suspect this organization is just as radical, just as small, just as sick and just as dangerous as most religious sects.

Keith Farmer
05-13-2009, 09:17 AM
I don't know how else you would explain that.



God explained it Hoosier. This is as straight as it gets (pun intended):

26 For this reason (exchanging the truth of God for the lie and worshipping creation and not the Creator) God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

In terms of the child's age it is a very important factor...which is why I have been busting Jeff's chops about child development and parental responsibility. Medical studies show that: by the time a child is 3 years old, a baby's brain has formed about 1,000 trillion connections — about twice as many as adults have. A baby's brain is superdense and will stay that way throughout the first decade of life. Beginning at about age 11, a child's brain gets rid of extra connections in a process calling "pruning," gradually making order out of a thick tangle of "wires." (http://www.ag.ndsu.edu/pubs/yf/famsci/fs609w.htm)

It has been said that a child forms its world view by age three and that world view is solidly founded by age six. The evidence suggests then that if an age six child demonstrates homosexual tendancies they are there due to the world view he/she has formed based on the educational experiences they were exposed to as an infant and even before being born!...not due to an innate trait planted there by God who has stated otherwise as noted above(of course one has to believe that God exists and has created in order to embrace this logical truth).

Finally, if we are to believe that deviant behavior is innate just because the perpetrator declares it so then what of Hitler's claims? Does liberalism embrace Hitler's claims under the heading of relativism since he believed it was truth? Or does history dictate otherwise?


<B>

I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.



- Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2

</B>

Keith Farmer
05-13-2009, 09:19 AM
No one had even heard of MANBLA


It is NAMbLA Booty...and I have never watched southpark.

However, I do agree that most religious sects are equally as dangerous. Just predators seeking prey my friend.

KF

Franco
05-13-2009, 09:44 AM
They did an episode where a MANBLA (man boy love association) member was stalking Cartman at a playground and it was so controversial that it made many of the talk shows from Rush Limbaugh to The Daily View. Even Bill Oreilly talked about it. It was more controversial than their Wheel Of Fortune episode in which the N word was used.

Hoosier
05-13-2009, 10:01 AM
Thanks for the link Keith.

K.Bullock
05-13-2009, 10:36 AM
It was actually attributed to some fairly specifically identified research that appeared to indicate that sexual preferences were accompanied by measurable physiological differences in brains, by research indicating that the emergence of different sexual preferences could not be traced to any other psychological or sociological traits, and research suggesting a strong hereditary component to homosexuality. Specific studies were cited as the basis for the change when it was made, but I do not have those at my fingertips right now.

This is the latest(I think) from Simon Levay

http://discovermagazine.com/1994/mar/sexandthebrain346/?searchterm=levay

Levay's own words:


"It's important to stress what I didn't find," he points out with the courtly patience of someone who long ago got used to waiting for the rest of the world to catch up. "I did not prove that homosexuality is genetic, or find a genetic cause for being gay. I didn't show that gay men are 'born that way,' the most common mistake people make in interpreting my work. Nor did I locate a gay center in the brain--INAH3 is less likely to be the sole gay nucleus of the brain than part of a chain of nuclei engaged in men and women's sexual behavior. My work is just a hint in that direction--a spur, I hope, to future work."

I think it is noteworthy that Levay is an openly gay researcher who now considers himself not a scientist but and educator.

He used an extremely small sampling of 19 subjects as did the other study referenced in the article from the 80's. There has been no conclusive evidence that homo-sexuality is a precondition.

This is important in my view because if it was a genetically predisposed condition it should deserve recognition and treatment just like the color of someones skin. So far the opposite seems to be the case, and the extreme negatives of the gay lifestyle to me are far too great just to shrug it off and recommend it as an option to teenagers or any other vulnerable group looking for an identity.

JDogger
05-13-2009, 10:40 AM
Did you read my post?
Again, did you read my post??

One more time, DID YOU READ MY POST???

Rhetorical question, obviously you did not.

I addressed it accurately & succinctly.

Here, reread this;


"BTW---most of those you reference eventually realize the error in their ways as well, and did not turn to said vice at maturity. They were there from early on and used the position to their advantage.

As I said, once they mature they seek another direction."


They did not turn to that behaviour at a later age.
The repent and change at a later age.

Please tell me you can read and comprehend this.
If not, I guess you win.

You asked;
"I have never seen a Christian, on the other hand, turn to prostitution, crime, abortion or homo-sexuality.

Can anyone explain this to me??"

I answered;
"What about pedaphile priests?"

This behavior does not usually start right out of seminary, but occurs later as they mature.
I understand your point and your observation. I just don't agree with it. OK?

JD

K.Bullock
05-13-2009, 10:57 AM
http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

I think this is the research Jeff is talking about. I actually do believe people are born gay or straight. I remember a kid that went to my grandfathers church; you could tell that kid was going to turn out to be gay when he was 6 years old, and he did. I don't know how else you would explain that.

I don't think the study in the link is conclusive, but I do believe it has merit.

I think it is telling that the sheer amount of study given to the subject plus the desire by liberal academia to point to a "gay gene" has come up inconclusive.


I know at least one man that is gay, a Columbus police officer, that makes John Wayne look like the tooth fairy . Not too long ago Pastor Ted Haggard the leader of religious conservative movement against the influence of homosexuals was caught with a male prostitute. All that to say there seems to be a lot of surprises in the gay community.

K.Bullock
05-13-2009, 11:04 AM
You asked;
?"

This behavior does not usually start right out of seminary, but occurs later as they mature.
I understand your point and your observation. I just don't agree with it. OK?

JD

I It occurs later as they mature ?!? Where do you get this from?

JDogger
05-13-2009, 11:25 AM
I It occurs later as they mature ?!? Where do you get this from?

Perhaps because frequently it is covered up and they are moved from parish to parish as they gradually get older (mature). As I stated, I doubt it occurs freshly out of seminary.

zeus3925
05-13-2009, 11:40 AM
Here's my thing... Traditionally, marriage is between a man and a woman. There are Civil Unions that afford the same "rights" to partners legally as far as the common arguement as the "hospital" thing...

We had a bus load of gay couples from MN drive to Iowa to get married... here's why I don't support Gay Marriage: When a couple get's married in a state that supports gay marriage, and move back to a state where they aren't supported, does that obligate the State to then recognize the couple as married even though it's not legally recognized in that State?

If couples want to be recognized in marriage as gays, and there are states that have legalized gay marriage, then move there. Don't force your state to recognize your marriage...

That's the "force" issue I have. I don't believe in gay marriage, and my state doesn't either (yet). So don't shove it down my throat.

And what about taxes???

Rich,
I listened to the arguement about legalities of marriages in other states when same sex marriages came into prominence. Apparently, according to the legal experts, marriages performed in any state are required to be given full faith and credit in the other states regardless of local regulation.

Example of this is the age requirement in some states were or are lower than some others. Even though the residents of one state go to a state with a lower age requirement, the home state and the other stats must recognize that marriage.

road kill
05-14-2009, 06:02 AM
Perhaps because frequently it is covered up and they are moved from parish to parish as they gradually get older (mature). As I stated, I doubt it occurs freshly out of seminary.

My posts speak directly to my personal experiences.
I hope yours don't.

I know what I have seen over my years involvement with my church (not Catholic).

I did not say my experiences were absolutes, but I have seen what I have seen.

I don't think I can get you to understand what I am saying, primarily because you don't want to.
It's OK, I know what I know.

road kill
05-14-2009, 06:05 AM
I It occurs later as they mature ?!? Where do you get this from?

He made it up.
My observations are based on my experiences.
What are yours based on Jdogger?

Keith Farmer
05-14-2009, 08:22 AM
This is an interesting note from Wikipedia concerning homosexuality and the Catholic church:




The Catholic Church teaches that "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder".[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_Roman_Catholic_priesthood#cit e_note-3)
Although a 1961 document stated that homosexual men should not be ordained, this was left to bishops to enforce, and most did not, holding homosexuals to the same standards of celibate chastity as heterosexual seminarians. However, in November 2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2005), the Vatican completed an "Instruction" on the admission of homosexually inclined men to the seminary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instruction_Concerning_the_Criteria_for_the_Discer nment_of_Vocations_with_regard_to_Persons_with_Hom osexual_Tendencies_in_view_of_their_Admission_to_t he_Seminary_and_to_Holy_Orders). According to the new policy, men with "transitory" homosexual leanings may be ordained deacons following three years of prayer and chastity. However, men with "deeply rooted homosexual tendencies", who are sexually active cannot be ordained.
In practice, several bishops have indicated that the directive will be interpreted in a variety of ways, much as its 1960s predecessor was.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]

K.Bullock
05-14-2009, 09:26 AM
This is an interesting note from Wikipedia concerning homosexuality and the Catholic church:
I am not sure what you are trying to show, but nobody uses Wikipedia for a citation since anyone who chooses can add info to the site.

If you follow the external links from the wiki article you cited you will see they lead you to progressive and pro-gay sources.

This is the heading from one of your sources:



Cross purposes
The Vatican is about to issue a new directive condemning homosexuality and keeping gay priests out of the Catholic Church. In San Francisco, that would threaten one of the most vibrant Catholic parishes.


I also thought this was interesting from your own post:

In practice, several bishops have indicated that the directive will be interpreted in a variety of ways, much as its 1960s predecessor was.[citation needed]


The Catholic church is pretty clear on it's qualifications for priesthood, and has several mechanisms in place to deal with controversial topics that us Protestants could learn from rather than stick our heads in the sand.

Keith Farmer
05-17-2009, 06:32 PM
For clarification here is a quote from (full text available here http://wf-f.org/CCE_DiscernmentVocations.html):


Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders
Congregation for Catholic Education
November 4, 2005




One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem -- for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.



This quotation seems to be from a position that there is some sort of unawareness period with folks whereby homosexual tendancies battling heterosexual tendancies are "normal" and therefore not a real issue like the deep seated tendancies.


My point is that the bible dictates qualifications for Deacons, Bishops, Elders, etc. Never does the bible mention a three year departure period from the transitory homosexual tendancies of a candidate. The biblical qualifications are distinct, exact, and comprehensive. Therefore, I do not think we need to look at the Catholic church's qualifications if they differ from biblical qualifications...but that's just me.


Further, here is revealing news that should bash the transitory theory anyway (full story here: http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=528376):




... the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:

<B>

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."

</B>

Gerry Clinchy
05-18-2009, 08:45 AM
Yardley wrote:


It was actually attributed to some fairly specifically identified research that appeared to indicate that sexual preferences were accompanied by measurable physiological differences in brains, by research indicating that the emergence of different sexual preferences could not be traced to any other psychological or sociological traits, and research suggesting a strong hereditary component to homosexuality. Specific studies were cited as the basis for the change when it was made, but I do not have those at my fingertips right now.

Was listening to an interesting discussion the other day: a study was being cited of findings that during the first 3 years of life, humans acquire incredible quantities of "data", but the data is not in an orderly configuration. About age 3, we begin to "organize" the data.

This was part of a discussion on how gender identity is "fluid", but not genetically inherited in the way that the color of our eyes or skin is inherited. The hypothesis was that beginning at age 3, organization of data will begin to define gender identity. So, yes, hetero or homo orientation would begin before puberty. However, it would not be a result of inheritance, but rather of the environment that surrounds us as we begin to organize our "data".

Interestingly, there was some discussion about how the fluidity of gender identity might be more pronounced in women v. men. There is an oft-cited discrepancy between men v. women, about women's need for cuddling and snuggling that does not require a sexual connection. It was suggested that this characteristic accounted for the greater fluidity of gender identity for women.

The gist of the discussion got to: if gender identity IS, indeed, "fluid" ... as Jeff mentions; and also as gay rights proponents suggest in defense of the gay lifestyle ... then, by creating an environment in which non-heterosexual pairing is more socially acceptable, it could, logically, promote more expression of the non-heterosexual orientation.

So, if gender is fluid, and if a non-heterosexual lifestyle has no long-term benefit to society, why would we want to make it more prevalent? I don't think that we can necessarily make a case for the fact that gay individuals who have contributed to our society in many noteworthy aspects did so solely, or primarily, because of their gay orientation v. what contributions they might have made if not gay.

This does not have to mean that heterosexuals can not be compassionate for good human beings whose gender fluidity was influenced through their life experience to result in their homosexual orientation.

From a religious standpoint, as Pete points out, Christianity, in its unembellished form, is probably one of the most "liberal" religions in always supporting the unlimited forgiveness of a compassionate Creator. (I'm not sure any of today's organized religions can be called "unembellished", however.)

As for changing behavior after many years of it being ingrained by habit and pleasure ... ask a smoker who is trying to quit; or who has quit; or has tried and failed to quit. I wouldn't doubt that if smokers could convince themselves and the rest of society that their habit was not self-destructive, there would be no reason to even think about quitting.

Since a gay person can make a case for his/her behavior not being destructive to themselves or anyone else, it is far easier to not change a habit (remember starting from around 3 yrs of age, according to the study). And I have no argument with this approach ... our country is based on individual freedom of choice, so long as it does not interfere with someone else's freedom of choice.

However, I might have some argument with the approach of compelling me to believe that this lifestyle should be embraced and promoted in our school system. Compassionate acceptance of an anatomical or psychological anomaly and granting euqal Constitutional rights, is not the same thing as "endorsement" of behaviors.

While I have heard before the argument that homosexual behaviors are apparent in nature; and, therefore, should be considered "natural" ... our humanity raises us beyond the level of animalistic behaviors that do not promote a functional and compassionate society. OTOH, there are some animal behaviors from which humans could benefit ... the boundless forgiveness, for example, that our dogs often exhibit to us humans :-)

K.Bullock
05-18-2009, 09:31 AM
Yardley wrote:



Was listening to an interesting discussion the other day: a study was being cited of findings that during the first 3 years of life, humans acquire incredible quantities of "data", but the data is not in an orderly configuration. About age 3, we begin to "organize" the data.

This was part of a discussion on how gender identity is "fluid", but not genetically inherited in the way that the color of our eyes or skin is inherited. The hypothesis was that beginning at age 3, organization of data will begin to define gender identity. So, yes, hetero or homo orientation would begin before puberty. However, it would not be a result of inheritance, but rather of the environment that surrounds us as we begin to organize our "data".

Interestingly, there was some discussion about how the fluidity of gender identity might be more pronounced in women v. men. There is an oft-cited discrepancy between men v. women, about women's need for cuddling and snuggling that does not require a sexual connection. It was suggested that this characteristic accounted for the greater fluidity of gender identity for women.

The gist of the discussion got to: if gender identity IS, indeed, "fluid" ... as Jeff mentions; and also as gay rights proponents suggest in defense of the gay lifestyle ... then, by creating an environment in which non-heterosexual pairing is more socially acceptable, it could, logically, promote more expression of the non-heterosexual orientation.

So, if gender is fluid, and if a non-heterosexual lifestyle has no long-term benefit to society, why would we want to make it more prevalent? I don't think that we can necessarily make a case for the fact that gay individuals who have contributed to our society in many noteworthy aspects did so solely, or primarily, because of their gay orientation v. what contributions they might have made if not gay.

This does not have to mean that heterosexuals can not be compassionate for good human beings whose gender fluidity was influenced through their life experience to result in their homosexual orientation.

From a religious standpoint, as Pete points out, Christianity, in its unembellished form, is probably one of the most "liberal" religions in always supporting the unlimited forgiveness of a compassionate Creator. (I'm not sure any of today's organized religions can be called "unembellished", however.)

As for changing behavior after many years of it being ingrained by habit and pleasure ... ask a smoker who is trying to quit; or who has quit; or has tried and failed to quit. I wouldn't doubt that if smokers could convince themselves and the rest of society that their habit was not self-destructive, there would be no reason to even think about quitting.

Since a gay person can make a case for his/her behavior not being destructive to themselves or anyone else, it is far easier to not change a habit (remember starting from around 3 yrs of age, according to the study). And I have no argument with this approach ... our country is based on individual freedom of choice, so long as it does not interfere with someone else's freedom of choice.

However, I might have some argument with the approach of compelling me to believe that this lifestyle should be embraced and promoted in our school system. Compassionate acceptance of an anatomical or psychological anomaly and granting euqal Constitutional rights, is not the same thing as "endorsement" of behaviors.

While I have heard before the argument that homosexual behaviors are apparent in nature; and, therefore, should be considered "natural" ... our humanity raises us beyond the level of animalistic behaviors that do not promote a functional and compassionate society. OTOH, there are some animal behaviors from which humans could benefit ... the boundless forgiveness, for example, that our dogs often exhibit to us humans :-)

Good stuff Gerry.

YardleyLabs
05-18-2009, 09:40 AM
Yardley wrote:

...

So, if gender is fluid, and if a non-heterosexual lifestyle has no long-term benefit to society, why would we want to make it more prevalent? I don't think that we can necessarily make a case for the fact that gay individuals who have contributed to our society in many noteworthy aspects did so solely, or primarily, because of their gay orientation v. what contributions they might have made if not gay. ...

The fundamental basis for arguing that homosexuality "has no long term benefit to society" is that it does not result in procreation. Needless to say, most sexual activity does not result, and is not expected to result in procreation. Do we therefore condemn it as having "no benefit?" There is an extreme presumptuousness and arrogance involved in assuming that any form of behavior has "no long term benefit to society", particularly when that behavior is important to a large portion of our society and does not injure others. There is no question that the number of homosexuals exceeds the number of hunters. Are we willing to see our own activities outlawed simply because the majority of the population finds them objectionable and unnecessary? If the objections are biblical, I say fine. Follow the rules of your religion as you wish but do not expect the law to mirror your interpretation of those rules.

K.Bullock
05-18-2009, 09:45 AM
The fundamental basis for arguing that homosexuality "has no long term benefit to society" is that it does not result in procreation. Needless to say, most sexual activity does not result, and is not expected to result in procreation. Do we therefore condemn it as having "no benefit?" There is an extreme presumptuousness and arrogance involved in assuming that any form of behavior has "no long term benefit to society", particularly when that behavior is important to a large portion of our society and does not injure others. There is no question that the number of homosexuals exceeds the number of hunters. Are we willing to see our own activities outlawed simply because the majority of the population finds them objectionable and unnecessary? If the objections are biblical, I say fine. Follow the rules of your religion as you wish but do not expect the law to mirror your interpretation of those rules.
Speaking for myself that couldn't be further from the real concerns I would have for someone choosing that lifestyle. You said homosexuals outnumber hunters. It would be interesting to see the numbers in differences in suicide rates, mental illness, depression, aids and other sexually transmitted diseases not to mention drug use.

Procreation would be the least of my concerns if someone in my family chose this lifestyle.

Steve Amrein
05-18-2009, 09:54 AM
Jeff the hunting and other sporting outdoor activities are under constant attack by a even smaller majority that says they have the backing of the majority. Just like in Cali when a majority votes against recognizing gay marriage it is said by the minority that they are still in the right. I would like to see stats to back up the hunter v gay population.

Keith Farmer
05-18-2009, 10:19 AM
Follow the rules of your religion as you wish but do not expect the law to mirror your interpretation of those rules.

Jeff,

On what grounds do our laws rest. Are they by consensus?

I assert that our organic laws are biblical in foundation and should mirror that truth.


There is an extreme presumptuousness and arrogance involved in assuming that any form of behavior has "no long term benefit to society", particularly when that behavior is important to a large portion of our society and does not injure others.

This ties in with my genetics post. What we deem as an undesirable trait in our retrievers is being bred around...is that arrogance? What if the EIC gene has usefulness in an environment other than a competitive environment...what if it has positive benefits...has that been ruled out as a possibility?

KF

Evan
05-18-2009, 10:20 AM
I'm not saying that we should all support gay marriage. What I want to know is why should I want it to be illegal?I haven't taken time to read the entire thread...yet. But I don't think your question is framed correctly.

In my view, marriage is a union between one man and one woman. That's legal. Always has been. Always should be. That's what it is.

A union between two men or two women is whatever you care to call it, exept marriage. It isn't that, and I don't want to see our language distorted that way, nor do I want to see our culture decline any further through such a distortion.

It's not a "gay intollerance" issue. It's just a factual one.

Evan

YardleyLabs
05-18-2009, 10:27 AM
Jeff the hunting and other sporting outdoor activities are under constant attack by a even smaller majority that says they have the backing of the majority. Just like in Cali when a majority votes against recognizing gay marriage it is said by the minority that they are still in the right. I would like to see stats to back up the hunter v gay population.

The estimates I have seen for the percentage of the population that is gay is around 6-10%; Wikipedia reports a range of 2-13% among different studies. In all cases, this is the estimate of people that are practicing homosexuals and identify themselves as homosexuals. Undoubtedly, there are many others that are gay by inclination but that live either heterosexual or asexual lifestyles because of the stigma associated with being gay. The incidence of homosexuality is higher among males than females. If you include all that have reported homosexual experiences, the incidence (according to Kinsey and others) increases to about 20-30%. The estimates I have seen for hunters in the US is around 5%, with lower number elsewhere in the world.

With respect to social acceptability, there has clearly been a dramatic change in attitudes towards homosexuality. In the 1970's, the majority if the US public did not favor legalization of homosexual relations. Today, about 60% believe homosexuality should be legal. Among the under 35 crowd, this increases to 75%. Overall, a small majority of Americans now support gay marriage or civil unions with a much higher majority among younger respondents.

Raymond Little
05-18-2009, 10:39 AM
Jeff your socialism is showing;"Overall, a small majority" how do you get a small majority????:rolleyes:
I never will believe that this fad will ever be a majority, no different than certain races beating the drums of racism, only 5-10% of the population.;-)

Slick Marketing Regards

YardleyLabs
05-18-2009, 11:01 AM
Jeff your socialism is showing;"Overall, a small majority" how do you get a small majority????:rolleyes:
I never will believe that this fad will ever be a majority, no different than certain races beating the drums of racism, only 5-10% of the population.;-)

Slick Marketing Regards

Small majority meaning that, according to polls by ABC, CBS, NBC, Gallup,etc., over 40% of respondents now favor legalizing same sex marriage. When the choice includes civil unions, supports goes over 50%. By "small majority" I am distinguishing that level of acceptance from something supported by 70% or more.

What has any of this to do with "socialism?" What are you calling a "fad?" What does it have to do with racism? And what do you mean by "5-10% of the population"?

Steve Amrein
05-18-2009, 11:02 AM
With respect to social acceptability, there has clearly been a dramatic change in attitudes towards homosexuality. In the 1970's, the majority if the US public did not favor legalization of homosexual relations. Today, about 60% believe homosexuality should be legal. Among the under 35 crowd, this increases to 75%. Overall, a small majority of Americans now support gay marriage or civil unions with a much higher majority among younger respondents.



So I see,..... a small majority of the vote who do not favor gay marriage in the minority should overturn the vote of the large majority. I am afraid phone or internet polling is not how laws are made.

BTW I am pretty sure I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body. Does that make me gay?:)

YardleyLabs
05-18-2009, 11:11 AM
So I see,..... a small majority of the vote who do not favor gay marriage in the minority should overturn the vote of the large majority. I am afraid phone or internet polling is not how laws are made.

BTW I am pretty sure I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body. Does that make me gay?:)

Actually, more people now favor legalizing gay unions than oppose legalizing such unions. The distinction comes down to the issue of whether or not those unions are called "marriages." The age discussion was only a way of showing the trends in the evolution of opinions on this issue. Among those my kids' ages, the level of support for equal protection under the law for both homosexual and heterosexual relations is very high -- that is, over 70%. For me, the fact that my conservative, 89 year old mother in law now supports gay marriage is even more telling. In her view, good relationships should be cherished, regardless of the sexes of those involved, and the government should not be doing anything to make those relationships harder to preserve.

Keith Farmer
05-18-2009, 11:46 AM
...the level of support for equal protection under the law for both homosexual and heterosexual relations is very high...



From where/whom do we get the idea that we should have equal protection for relations? People are now equally protected under the law.

The gay community has sold liberals such as Jeff on the idea that their "relations" should be protected as a civil right. However, new revelations from within the gay community are surfacing that tell the real story behind the movement...see below (emphasis mine) (spin this one Jeff):




"...activist...Andrew Sullivan, one of the movers and shakers in the international homosexual movement. "The real reason for hate crime laws is not the defense of human beings from crime. There are already laws against that," Sullivan writes on his blog, "and Matthew Shepard's murderers were successfully prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in a state with no hate crimes law at the time."

Sullivan continues: "The real reason for the invention of hate crimes was a hard-left critique of conventional liberal justice and the emergence of special interest groups which need boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings. Just imagine how many direct mail pieces have gone out explaining that without more money for [Human Rights Campaign], more gay human beings will be crucified on fences. It's very, very powerful as a money-making tool -- which may explain why the largely symbolic federal bill still hasn't passed."




KF

Evan
05-18-2009, 11:57 AM
same sex marriage...civil unions...Two different things. I have no difficulty with legal civil unions. But two men, or two women do not constitute a marriage - legal or otherwise.

Evan

YardleyLabs
05-18-2009, 12:36 PM
From where/whom do we get the idea that we should have equal protection for relations? People are now equally protected under the law.

The gay community has sold liberals such as Jeff on the idea that their "relations" should be protected as a civil right. However, new revelations from within the gay community are surfacing that tell the real story behind the movement...see below (emphasis mine) (spin this one Jeff):

KF

Sullivan, who describes himself as a libertarian conservative, tends to object to all laws that interfere in personal behavior. However, he also opposes civil unions, calling them "marriage lite", and legally married his own (male) partner. In concert with his libertarian views, he opposes the imposition of anti-discrimination laws on private entities while believing that government actions must provide equal treatment for all.

Personally, I have very mixed feelings about hate crime laws just as I have mixed feelings about conspiracy laws. Both are ways of increasing the punishment associated with a crime based on the nature of the victim, rather than the act itself, or based on judgmental presumptions about the motive for the crime. Obviously, the most prevalent hate crime laws are those that provide penalties for killing police officers that are more severe than those for killing others regardless of whether or not the individual's status as a police officer was part of the motive for the crime.

Saying that such laws are introduced solely as a way to raise money is a little too conspiratorial for me, but I do believe that the NRA uses (and hopes for) meaningless legislation primarily as a fund raising vehicle and believe that other special interest groups do the same.

True believers share a disregard for objective analysis. Many years ago, one of New York's top medical examiners was married to a leader in the development of addiction treatment programs. All of a sudden there was a shift in the reporting of deaths as being related to drug use. When his wife shifted her focus from addiction treatment to child abuse, autopsy reporting went through another change: every death of child was being linked to abuse and every death was leaked almost immediately to the press.

This pattern was never officially investigated and no charges were ever brought. However, when it came time to appoint a new CME and this individual was the obvious selection, his appointment was quietly killed and he ended up in a much lower profile job in a suburban community. In my mind, that was government operating at its best, and allowing hate crime bills to die quietly may be the same.

I think the history of hate crime legislation originated in the civil rights movement where actions against individuals were literally used in an attempt to terrorize a much broader community. A mild example might have been the police officer who followed my mother for two hours as she drove around town, pulled up behind her in front of our house, and handed her a ticket for driving 26 mph in a 25 mph zone. My parents were civil rights leaders, and the message was clear -- don't mess with the system.

While I believe that the terror aspect of crimes increases the severity of the offense, I fear the subjectivity involved in classifying the crime based on motive. I am willing to live instead with the inherent flexibility allowed in sentencing. However, the other purpose of Federal hate crime laws has been to provide a Federal venue for prosecuting what would otherwise be local crimes when the local authorities may actually be part of the problem. That was clearly the case in the civil rights movement, but I am not convinced that a similar situation exists today.

Gerry Clinchy
05-18-2009, 02:10 PM
YardleyLabs;446574


The fundamental basis for arguing that homosexuality "has no long term benefit to society" is that it does not result in procreation. Needless to say, most sexual activity does not result, and is not expected to result in procreation.


Long-term benefit to a society encompasses added value to culture, arts, enlightenment ... by benefit did not limit the influence of a behavioral variation (the one we are discussing just happens to be sexual in nature) to procreation.


and if a non-heterosexual lifestyle has no long-term benefit to society

I draw attention to the word "if".

I ask the question "if" ... "if" there is no added value, then is there any reason to create an environment that would tend to make the behavior more prevalent rather than less prevalent?

Have there been any studies to investigate whether this behavior is beneficial or not beneficial for a society?


Do we therefore condemn it as having "no benefit?" There is an extreme presumptuousness and arrogance involved in assuming that any form of behavior has "no long term benefit to society", particularly when that behavior is important to a large portion of our society and does not injure others.

Also presumptuous to determine that "questioning" the value of a particular behavior is automatically a "condemnation" of same.

We are discussing, rather, whether it is of benefit to society to encourage more of this behavior, rather than less. We are also discussing whether those who may have a religious conviction as to the unacceptability of such behavior have to accept public schools countering those religious convictions.

Yardley

There is no question that the number of homosexuals exceeds the number of hunters. Are we willing to see our own activities outlawed simply because the majority of the population finds them objectionable and unnecessary?

Did I suggest "outlawing" homosexual behavior? ... or am I totally losing my mind?

I think my position was:

Compassionate acceptance of an anatomical or psychological anomaly and granting euqal Constitutional rights, is not the same thing as "endorsement" of behaviors.


I don't think you can say that "compassionate acceptance", without "endorsement" is equivalent to suggesting this behavior be "outlawed".


If the objections are biblical, I say fine. Follow the rules of your religion as you wish but do not expect the law to mirror your interpretation of those rules.

If gender identity IS, indeed, fluid. If there is "treatment" for the behavior, then are we not remiss not to invesitgate the issue further? Surely whatever we can learn about the fluidity of gender identity can help alleviate the situations of trauma that result from homosexual orientation going unacknowledged until after heterosexual marriage and children have resulted.

By understanding the behavior better, those who may wish to opt out, will have a better chance to do so. Those who chose not to opt out, can also make a choice.

The homosexuals I have known are genuinely caring individuals. I believe that people like that would have chosen to avoid causing pain to a spouse or children if given that choice. That choice would have been available to them with better understanding of the fluidty of gender identity. They might be able to choose to acknowledge their sexual orientation before marriage & children result; or they could choose to select treatment to redirect the fluidity of their gender identity. It would be their choice ... not mine. If we fail to investigate the issue with scientific integrity, we limit the choices.

Gerry Clinchy
05-18-2009, 02:21 PM
BTW I am pretty sure I am a lesbian trapped in a mans body. Does that make me gay?:)

Maybe not ... but maybe a confused cross-dresser? :-P

Gerry Clinchy
05-18-2009, 02:41 PM
Originally Posted by YardleyLabs http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.retrievertraining.net/forums/showthread.php?p=446625#post446625)
same sex marriage...civil unions...

Discussing the issue of "marriage" v. "civil union" with two gay friends. They didn't care what it was called, as long as it brought the legal benefits of inheritance, health care, etc.

We were both in agreement that the use of the word "marriage" was simply fueling the fire for religious opposition to the concept of these unions of commitment.

Originally, marriage described a union of man and woman, with the intent of procreation to secure the long-term transfer of lands and wealth. We've come a long way from that in the modern world ... but the word "marriage" has acquired a traditional connotation.

So, when we have a new situation, we come up with new words ... we do it all the time, Internet, for example :-) That word would have had no meaning at all not so long ago.

So, what's wrong with coming up with a new word to describe "marriage" between partners of the same sex. Obviously, procreation is not part of the goal here. However, ownership and transfer of assets is similar to the original "model" for this newly defined relationship. Civil union is one option. Even today, a man and woman can have a "marriage" done in a "sectarian" fashion (justice of the peace); captain of a ship at sea. So, what is the big deal about a civil union from a legal standpoint?

From a religious standpoint? That's up to the parties in the union & their social/spiritual circle. The religious aspect should be a non-issue WRT the legal aspect.

YardleyLabs
05-18-2009, 03:03 PM
YardleyLabs;446574


Long-term benefit to a society encompasses added value to culture, arts, enlightenment ... by benefit did not limit the influence of a behavioral variation (the one we are discussing just happens to be sexual in nature) to procreation.



I draw attention to the word "if".

I ask the question "if" ... "if" there is no added value, then is there any reason to create an environment that would tend to make the behavior more prevalent rather than less prevalent?

Have there been any studies to investigate whether this behavior is beneficial or not beneficial for a society?



Also presumptuous to determine that "questioning" the value of a particular behavior is automatically a "condemnation" of same.

We are discussing, rather, whether it is of benefit to society to encourage more of this behavior, rather than less. We are also discussing whether those who may have a religious conviction as to the unacceptability of such behavior have to accept public schools countering those religious convictions.


You are correct that you said "if". Fundamentally, I am objecting to the entire notion of measuring the social benefit associated with a form of behavior as a basis for deciding how to treat it legally. I believe that our understanding of what makes societies succeed or fail is limited at best. As a general rule, however, I believe that diverse organizations -- like diverse crops -- are more resilient in adapting to changing circumstances than homogeneous ones. Obviously one must have limits when it comes to forms of behavior that are destructive to others. However, I believe that as a general rule that freedom should trump order and efficiency. If the yardstick of provable social efficacy is our standard, then many if not most social behaviors would be unjustifiable individually even if we could agree that the world that would be left behind in their absence would be poorer.


YardleyLabs;446574
Yardley


Did I suggest "outlawing" homosexual behavior? ... or am I totally losing my mind?

I think my position was:


I don't think you can say that "compassionate acceptance", without "endorsement" is equivalent to suggesting this behavior be "outlawed".



If gender identity IS, indeed, fluid. If there is "treatment" for the behavior, then are we not remiss not to invesitgate the issue further? Surely whatever we can learn about the fluidity of gender identity can help alleviate the situations of trauma that result from homosexual orientation going unacknowledged until after heterosexual marriage and children have resulted.

By understanding the behavior better, those who may wish to opt out, will have a better chance to do so. Those who chose not to opt out, can also make a choice.

The homosexuals I have known are genuinely caring individuals. I believe that people like that would have chosen to avoid causing pain to a spouse or children if given that choice. That choice would have been available to them with better understanding of the fluidty of gender identity. They might be able to choose to acknowledge their sexual orientation before marriage & children result; or they could choose to select treatment to redirect the fluidity of their gender identity. It would be their choice ... not mine. If we fail to investigate the issue with scientific integrity, we limit the choices.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting a disease model for "treating" homosexuality or not. Obviously, there are many conditions that may be "treated" but that do not actually constitute a disease. Examples might include the freckles that I always hated when I was young (they have now simply faded into age), or Miss Prejean's smaller than desired breasts.

In both examples, there is no "disease", but there may be a "treatment" that could change the condition but may also cause real problems as a consequence. For such "problems" there is a legitimate question about whether or not it is ethical to offer the "treatment" without first offering the individual help in learning to accept and live with the condition itself.

If homosexuality is a non-disease condition that is not threatening to the freedoms of others, as the American Psychological Association concluded in 1975, there is no reason for society to enact any rules governing it. As was noted in other comments on "hate crimes", our existing laws on sexual behavior are comprehensive enough. There is no reason to have laws addressing whether the sexual behavior is heterosexual or homosexual. As you noted, the damages caused by homosexuality are related more to the repression of preferences in an effort to conform than to the expression of those same preferences. Do we "compassionately accept" heterosexuality without endorsing it? No, we simply accept it. I believe the same should be true of homosexuality although I will not pretend that I am there yet myself.

That does not prevent people who wish to change from seeking "treatment" for their conditions. After all, nothing would prevent you from attempting to bleach out freckles, or from obtaining breast implants to move from a size B to a C.

Personally, I suspect that changing society to improve social acceptance of homosexuality will increase the expression of homosexual behavior. I do not think it will have any effect on the incidence of homosexuality at all. Hopefully it will have the effect of reducing abuse, the types of repression problems that you mentioned, and ease the transition of children through puberty and adolescence.

Pete
05-18-2009, 03:05 PM
Sullivan, who describes himself as a libertarian conservative, tends to object to all laws that interfere in personal behavior. However, he also opposes civil unions, calling them "marriage lite", and legally married his own (male) partner. In concert with his libertarian views, he opposes the imposition of anti-discrimination laws on private entities while believing that government actions must provide equal treatment for all.



I'm guessing if a hetero sexual can call himself a hetero sexual then a homosexual can call himself a hetero sexual also because after all thats equal treatment. lets not call things as they are. lets just make everybody and everything that is done under the sun equal and identical. So if I marry a horse and we adopt a mule we should get the same rights ,privilages and government handouts as anyone or anything else.
because hey we are all the same.

marraige =s unions =s donkey lust =s donkey sex =s donkey children ==s donkey college funding =s donky ceo's,doctors and presidents and south of the border porn stars.

Insert whatever plant or animal matter you wish to marry or have lustful relationships with. And we'll give you a tax break. And indoctrinate your children at no extra charge.

everything is equal


Pete

Uncle Bill
05-18-2009, 05:38 PM
I'm guessing if a hetero sexual can call himself a hetero sexual then a homosexual can call himself a hetero sexual also because after all thats equal treatment. lets not call things as they are. lets just make everybody and everything that is done under the sun equal and identical. So if I marry a horse and we adopt a mule we should get the same rights ,privilages and government handouts as anyone or anything else.
because hey we are all the same.

marraige =s unions =s donkey lust =s donkey sex =s donkey children ==s donkey college funding =s donky ceo's,doctors and presidents and south of the border porn stars.

Insert whatever plant or animal matter you wish to marry or have lustful relationships with. And we'll give you a tax break. And indoctrinate your children at no extra charge.

everything is equal

Pete




ROFFL...EXCELLANT MENTAL PICTURES, PETE. I SEE SEVERAL OF OUR LEFTIST RTFERS IN THOSE PICS.


UB:D

Keith Farmer
05-18-2009, 05:59 PM
Do we "compassionately accept" heterosexuality without endorsing it? No, we simply accept it. I believe the same should be true of homosexuality although I will not pretend that I am there yet myself.



With a few exceptions I believe that is the case with most Americans who simply accept that homosexuality exists. What keeps this issue heated is people like Perez Hilton (or whatever his real name is) pushing the envelope to the extreme in an effort obviously to gain attention to his lifestyle and sell that lifestyle as the preferred way of engaging one another.

Also, the propagandizing of the minority issue with regards to homosexual relations keeps people who otherwise would not give a rip all worked up...this thread is a prime example.

Slick Willie actually did something right when he promoted "don't ask-don't tell".

KF