Homo Marriage in Massachusetts ?!

[ProBuck]

Why would gays getting married make anyone who really believed in the sanctity of marraige think any less of it? Throughout our history someone has always had to be on their knees to make someone else feel tall. I figured out why though. We can't all be equal. If we were,how would we know?

 

[PC1]

I don't think there is anything more I can add. But I will say again, that tone of this discussion has remained calm, cool and collected; and is a testament to the quality of brothers here on this board. 300 Posts on my "homo marriage" thread..... not bad.

Good job brothers, I salute you

 

[pigfarmer]

oh weave why can't you just admit that the dykes and pillow biters are sinning against god, and see them for the social blemish they are? if only more people would go to church and pray for the constitutional amendment, our holy ceremony of marriage and its lofty status in this good country would not be threatened.




LOL
Aren't we all going against God's will by enhancing what he gave us with aas? So, what do you think - Did God make a mistake when he made homosexuals? What...God make a mistake - I can see it now...The day he first realizes that Adam likes to play with his too much. OOPS! Sh--! Now I have to invent basket weaving...

 

[PC1]

oh weave why can't you just admit that the dykes and pillow biters are sinning against god, and see them for the social blemish they are? if only more people would go to church and pray for the constitutional amendment, our holy ceremony of marriage and its lofty status in this good country would not be threatened.




LOL
Aren't we all going against God's will by enhancing what he gave us with aas? So, what do you think - Did God make a mistake when he made homosexuals? What...God make a mistake - I can see it now...The day he first realizes that Adam likes to play with his too much. OOPS! Sh--! Now I have to invent basket weaving...

How is AS going against God's will? Are our efforts to improve ourselves via weight lifting also a sin in God's eyes, because it's building on what He gave us? Are any efforts at self improvement a sin in God's eyes? I don't think so.

Did God make a mistake when he made homosexuals? Did God make a mistake when he "wired" we men to want to have sex & procreate with most any female with two legs and a pulse? I don't think so. But because we have the urge and the drive to do so, so what? The point is we're supposed to exercise control over that kind of behavior because God indicated it is sin.

If you can see this point, you should be able to see the paralell with homosexuality. Just because one has urges and drives doesn't give one license to commit sin.

 

[pigfarmer]

Yes. If you believe there is a God, then you must believe the bible was devinely inspired by God. Persuit of physical perfection w/o seeking spiritual perfection is Vanity. I'm not saying it is a sin - just that it is wrong. It is also wrong to have the belief that it is ok to use his God's name to persicute a minority. I see the parrallels. You've drawn them as eloquently as so many who sought to opress the gays in our society have for generations. I don't see homosexuality as some sort of lustful indulgence in one's dark sexual fantacies. I'm attatching a link for a very good read about the subject of homosexuality in our society. Jesus said "Love thy neighbor as yourself" What harm is it to you that people born Gay are allowed to do what is natural to them? you and I get to do the heterosexual thing all we want. We can kiss our wives,hold thier hand in church, and make the bell ring anytime she'll let us. What concern is of ours that two people of the same sex choose to do the same?
One other point - Homosexuals are not criminals, pedifiles, or rapists, any more than any other demographic group of our society.
Don't you think that this may be time for us to "Live, and let live"


Invalid Link Removed

 

[pigfarmer]

Damn. I was under the impression the people at AM debated topics with class and manners. I guess that only applies to training, nutrition and "supplements".

See you all feel I am being arrogant I will leave you to your continued pseudo discussion of gays and marriage.

Thanks?

A

Hey Bro - Don't leave a conversation when the going gets tough. This is a subject that has been debated since people became civilized enough to debate vs slaying one's oponent. Just because homophobes are louder, and are using more test doesen't make them right

 

[PC1]

............ It is also wrong to have the belief that it is ok to use his God's name to persicute a minority. I see the parrallels........................ [/B] [/I] Jesus said "Love thy neighbor as yourself" What harm is it to you that people born Gay are allowed to do what is natural to them? .........

I smell what you're cooking.

No one here is persecuting a minority. At 300+ posts, a lot has been written here and it's asking a lot to follow all that we've all written, who has the time?

I have followed it closely though. I think everyone here who has written to voice opposition to homosexual marriage has also voiced a "live and let live" attitude of tolerance, in that we don't have a problem with what 2 consenting adults choose to do in their own privacy, even if God does.

From a Judeo-Christian biblical perspective, there are multiple biblical texts that clearly define acts of homosexuality as being sinful, both in the old testament and new testament. In the old testament, homosexual acts (not the homosexual) are viewed by God as an abomination. It is condemned in the harshest and most absolute terms.

Yes, Jesus said to love our neighbor as ourself. That's as much for us, as it is for our neighbor, to try to keep our typically escalating sense of self importance in check. And Jesus forgave sin and extended mercy to mmany sinners, but in ALL CASES? No. To those who repented.

Repentence means a turning away from sin. It's about regret, but it also entails action on our part. A willingness to seek forgiveness but to also work at not making the same mistake again. Not that we're successful in all our attempts, but that's our calling. God indicates that even the best of our good acts are but filthy rags in his eyes. Not one of us is worthy of a life in heaven with God based on our own good works. But through our faith in Jesus are our sins forgiven.

Any Christian minister who elects to marry a homosexual couple can only do so by ignoring what the bible has to say on that matter. That seems to be a popular idea in many circles today. One group or another professes to hold biblical principles, but ignores those they find inconvenient or painful to them.

The bible either is God's word or it isn't. To pick and choose the verses and books in it that one "feels" is right is a crock. And this is not intended as an offense to you pigfarmer. I'm leveling the charge at any "religious" group who engages in selective practice.

And while it begs the question, "gee, there are so many denominations these days, which if any, is the right one"? The question is moot. Most hold all the same core beliefs. The differences are differences in organization of men and women. They may worship slightly differently, place a greater emphasis on one area or another, etc., but if you examine the core beliefs, they are constant among the major denominations.

Check out an Exhaustive Biblical Concordance. It lists each word in the bible, and tells you in what book and verse the words can be found. Look up the word "homosexual" or "homosexuality" and read where it occurs, and what God has to say about it. I assure you there is no gray area on the subject.

This also begs the question "Well if homosexuals are born that way, is it fair that they should be penalized for what comes natural to them?" It's a very relevant questiion.

But remember that we were ALL born sinners. We all have propensiity to sin. We as men, have very natural urges to screw any woman we feel is desireable in our eye. But we're called to repent of that. Even the most devout Christian is not always successful. We all sin. Thankfully we have a savior to turn to.

Here in the U.S., we used to treat homosexuality psychologically as a behavioral disorder until about 1972 or 1973, I forget when exactly. But things change. Separation of church and state, don'tcha know. Rrrrrrrrrrrright. Someone please tell me where the words "separation of church and state" occur in the constitution and amendments? I've read it. They're not there.

Be well guys.

 

[jweave23]

How does all of this apply to people who have no belief in religion? In America we have the freedom to believe in any religion or none at all, neither sanctioned by the State. So again I ask: just because in one's own religion this may be defined as "abomination" or "sin" or whatever else you will call it, how can we than apply that in law (which was the basis of this discussion) to everyone, especially if they do not believe in that religion?

I do also realize that the words "Separation of Church and State" do not appear in the Constitution, but you can find references of the like throughout. Jefferson's book "The Wall of Separation Between Church and State" is what gives us this origin, and this is what gave us the First Amendment. (Invalid Link Removed).

 

[PC1]

Weave................

My post above was to address Pigfarmer's appeal to not persecute a particular minority from a religious perspective. It's not a matter of persecution, but to point out what the bible says about homosexuality specifically, and relate that to how we are all sinners generally. In fact, this is more a matter of homosexuals "persecuting" Judeo-Christian beliefs in their own battle for legitimacy.

You are right in pointing out that part of the 2nd amendment is "referred to" as separation of church and state clause. But it's important to remember what that really MEANS. Any time a religous or moral reference is made in the codification of proposed or existing law today, people are quick to jump on that and say "NOPE, separation of church and state" as if a law cannot be crafted the enforce a moral concept. We all still hear people utter "You can't legislate morality".

The second amendment then, rather than precluding congress from passing legislation "....respecting an establishment of a religion....." has become to be known as "you can't legislate morality", nor can any religious principle be legislated. That's the problem. "Separation of church and State" doesn't mean what that phrase connotes.

We can't legislate morality? What does one call anti-theft law? Or laws against adultery? Or any criminal law? Or any tort law?

Our US law is a direct decendent of English law. English law was codified around, among other things, biblical principles of moral behaviour.

As you know, the 2nd amendment came about because of the desire by our founding fathers to not have a situation similar to that of England, whereby the Church of England and the government were inextriccably interwoven. All other Christian religions took a deep back seat to the Church of England.

But you also know that our founding fathers were largely a group of believers, either as Christians or as deists. The U.S. is afterall, one nation "Under God". To this day, congress begins session with an opening prayer. Our courts do, and when we're called to testify, you take an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you God. And as you know, our currency is stamped with the words "In God We Trust".

So clearly the original intent of our founding fathers was not to strip any and all religious principles from our system of law.

But that is what secularists would like us to believe, and are working hard to mis-use the 2nd amendment to make that reality.

Insofar as homosexual marriage is concerned, it clearly wasn't contemplated by our founding fathers, there can be no argument there. And as a country, we have many traditions and values that have been passed down through generations. Most Americans value those and would like to see them continue. Homosexual marriage flies in the face of those traditions.

But we're also a country that enjoys it's freedom and doesn't want our government meddling in our lives very much.

If we were to decide this issue today by a public referendum, and homosexual marriage passed by a significant majority, people like me would have to shut up and take our lumps. In the history of our nation though, the public has been against it. The issue is being pushed by a small number of people who, rather than let it be decided as it should be, are trying to make an end run around the legislative branch by pursuing it through the judicial. REGARDLESS of what law is in question, this is just an outrage and cannot be tolerated. Althoug it is true that our legislators haven't had the spine to take it on, here in Massachusetts 2 years ago when they had the chance.

Homosexual marriage is just the beginning of the end of religous tradition and practice in this country. If it is allowed to pass, the day will also come when any church will be legally challenged to marry homosexuals against their beliefs. If it sounds farfetched, all one has to do is consider the plight of the United Way. (I think it's the United way, but correct me if I'm wrong). They specifically exclude contraception from their medical benefits package from employees, because the Roman Catholic church is against the practice of contraception. Whether one agrees with this or not is irrelevant. The United Way just lost a case in, I believe a state case, although I'm not sure about that either. In any event, they are being compelled against their will to provide this benefit. Look at the 2nd half of the "separation of church and state clause".........or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,... and tell me that the judiciary has ANY business compelling a religious organization to provide anything that flies in the face of it's religious beliefs?!

Legal precedent is everything. And if homosexual marriage is indeed construed to be a constitutional right, you can bet your bottom dollar that in time, homosexuals will be challenging churches in court on the issue of homosexual marriage. Churches will lose, and those who resist will lose their tax exempt status, be subject to criminal penalties, blah blah blah.

That clearly is not what most people here in the US want. And this is why this is such an important issue today. We're talking about laws that shape and define who we are and what we hold to be important.

This issue then is MUCH larger, than just let homosexuals live and let live...... and if two people really love each other, why shouldn't they be allowed to marry? That's just the beginning here.

Most people don't want the homosexual minority changing the values of the majority in their pursuit of legitimacy. We live and let live, but we don't hold their homosexual acts and behavior to be "legitimate". We don't want our children being taught in school that homosexuality is an equally legitimate "life choice". We don't want their values being crammed down our throats.

There are many good reasons for being against homosexual marriage because that's just the tip of the iceberg. It's only one battle of the ongoing war by secular aethiests to strip religion and religious practice from our society.

If that sounds preposterous, so did the idea of homosexual marriage only 2 years ago. Make no mistake, that's where this is headed.

 

[GIJoe]

Well put, PC; it seems anymore on the issue of homosexuality too many people get caught up in using modern psychology, emotion, and hype to come up with their "grounded" ideals, while totally skipping history within its own context coupled with appropriate human psychology/natural tendencies. While I see evolution as only an interesting though completely baseless and unproveable theory, homosexuality if based on evolution is totally the opposite of survival of the fittest, and unnatural as well. To justify this lifestyle, one has to then say we have evolved past the point of self-preservation, and tear down the legitimacy of traditional marriage by pointing out inconsistancies primarily put into effect by people trying to compromise or tear it down altogether.

Anyway, it seems anymore people tend to base their thoughts on entertainment and pleasure, coupled with a conflagration of their own self-serving philosophies -- anything that gets in the way of this is lampooned, castigated, and discriminated against, regardless of its relevance or logic (one marvelous example is religious-leaning viewpoints -- they are automatically disqualified by people hostile towards religion). I see no positive societal value to justify an alternative lifestyle, and although I will not stand in the way of two people who "love" each other to spend their dying days with each other, I cannot see compromising marriage (which was instituted and created by the Church, yet suddenly having an opinion coinciding with a religious opinion automatically disqualifies a person from having any say, because "separation of church and state" is taken so horribly out of context) and all its benefits and traditions just to yield to the emotional hype of those who base decisions on desire instead of necessity.

There are just too many points that can be touched upon, yet most have already been addressed in this and another thread. I have men I love, but I have no desire to crawl into bed with them and dick around.

....I think if two consenting adults choose to commit the rest of their lives to each other, then it is none of your business, or mine. After 24 years of married bliss to the same woman, I have this definition of marriage: A union of two souls, with the commitment of one's entire self to the other till death do us part. The trouble with some of you, and a lot of others in our society is that: 1. you can't tolerate what you don't understand, and 2. you can't keep your nose in your own business. I'm apologise in advance to those of you who are offended.

PF, I don't mind the union (well, actually I do), but call it something else -- marriage already has its own definition, and has for thousands of years. This arguement has nothing to do with ignorance, and everything to do with one's philosophy base. If you think you made some valid points, you did... but they have already been discussed and addressed in the first 200 threads. I see how religion can make this discussion so confusing to you, but as one who studies both sides, your argument applies to religious hypocrites only; while you may think this is the majority of religious people, I know otherwise. You are right, it does come down to "love your neighbor as yourself", but let me help you with this statement. This is addressing people and their natural tendency to look out for themselves, their own well-being, and pleasure at the expense of other less fortunate individuals, NOT compromising what is morally wrong just because another person feels they ought to have the right to do what they want. Homosexuality, while seemingly acceptable by a number of Americans, is still considered unnatural by evolution, and considered abhorrent behavior in the Scriptures. Call it something else if you want to enact it, but contrary to what you say, it is not the State's business to go changing what is considered by most as the oldest recognized institution, and that by religion nonetheless. I think this old post kind of sums it up...

I don't know, but just a guess...

If you want to use this argument [separation of church and state], you use it to your detriment; Marriage was "created" and instituted by the "church"; The state has no right to take this institution from the church and make it their own issue. The fact that marriage is a recognized legal status is the state's way of respect for the church in my opinion. But as far as re-writing a definition that has been clearly defined as a man and a woman for thousands of years, oh my.... the state ought to stay the heck out of that one (separation of church and state, you know).

So therefore I am assuming as well, you are for state control of the church; the church according to you can have no say in what happens in this country (after all, you are for altering their creation, the institution of marriage), and if you disagree with me, all you have to do to discredit me is say "separation of church and state" instead of addressing issues. Seems like yet another form of discrimination for someone using discrimination to bolster their argument. If one can eliminate one's viewpoints as to their validity by just stereotyping a person's viewpoint as religious, I fear we will step into the dark ages of years past where a person was eventually put to death for what he believed, often just by the witness of someone else's word against theirs.

I hope I'm not reading too much into what you were saying

The point is, we have a major disagreement on what is really being discriminated against.

 

[Cogar]

There seems to be some confusion regarding the amendments to the US Constitution. The second amendment is:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

What we are discussing lately is more related to the first amendment, which is:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

[GIJoe]

Yes. If you believe there is a God, then you must believe the bible was devinely inspired by God.

So not true. First off only christianity believes in the Bible; other religions have their own Scriptures. Secondly there is a big divide in the Church as to the relevance of the Bible and how inspired it really is. There are quite a few divisions within Christianity that believe there are contradictions in the Bible, and while they may believe in God, they certainly do not believe in the divine inspiration of the Scriptures.

Persuit of physical perfection w/o seeking spiritual perfection is Vanity. I'm not saying it is a sin - just that it is wrong.

How wrong is it, really? While we are taught the golden rule, about the emphasis on others above ourselves, we are also taught that our body is the "temple of God", and as such we are to treat it as such. If gluttany is a sin, then it would be a contradiction to imply that physical conditioning is at all sinful, or wrong. The very analogy of physical exercise is used to demonstrate how our relationship with our God should be -- to realize short-term "discipline" will yield long-term benefits, reap what you sow, etc. While what you assert is in some ways true (physical w/o spiritual emphasis is hypocritical), the Scriptures are replete with examples of physical rewards for following Old and New Testament laws (on finances, health, cleanliness, prosperity, etc.). If I remember correctly, the bubonic plague, which nearly wiped out an entire continent, had an entire race of people who survived it -- they were Jews, who followed the Old Testament (or Torah, to be more specific) laws of cleanliness, by washing their hands and feet when they entered and left a city. It is ironic that the Jews were then perceived as evil in the sight of the people who didn't die, who then proceeded to systematically slaughter the Jews because they didn't understand the plague could be prevented by cleanliness practices.

It is also wrong to have the belief that it is ok to use his God's name to persicute a minority. I see the parrallels. You've drawn them as eloquently as so many who sought to opress the gays in our society have for generations. I don't see homosexuality as some sort of lustful indulgence in one's dark sexual fantacies.

I'm confused... who's persecuting whom? you use you r argument to emphasixe that one ought to be able to discriminate against those damned christians, because we are all a bunch of short-sighted, simple-minded, discriminating homophobes who have it out for those gay people. All you can do is spout the typical liberal arguing techniques, that is "tear down your enemy to discredit him, and them throw in some emotionally-charged drivel with no real basis". Where are the benefits for a homosexual marriage? Give us some substance, some reason that benefits society, not just rhetoric and hype. And don't spew on about how marriage is so watered down and compromised anyway, what's one more exception going to hurt?

I'm attatching a link for a very good read about the subject of homosexuality in our society. Jesus said "Love thy neighbor as yourself" What harm is it to you that people born Gay are allowed to do what is natural to them?

I already addressed the appropriate meaning for loving your neighbor in my previous thread, but I could write a book about letting someone do what they are naturally inclined to do. But I understand your context, so I will not address the obvious moral implications in letting someone pursue an underhanded agenda.

What is wrong with 2 minors expressing their love in the form of marriage? What about a 30 year old female teacher with a 10 year old student? What's wrong with it if both groups love each other? I have a natural tendency to go up and ask your wife and other beautiful, talented sexy women, to make love to me, and if they don't to do it forcefully, because I'm a horny bastard, but I learn, unlike some, to keep in check what does not benefit society in a positive way, as that action will not. BTW, I love my woman, and as such will leave yours alone, but the natural tendency is still there (AS IT IS FOR 95+% OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD); JUST BECAUSE IT IS A NATURAL TENDENCY DOES NOT MAKE IT A JUSTIFIABLE ACTION.

There is also a significant part of the gay community where this is a learnde lifestyle. Let me explain how this happens. While some studies show undisputedly that the gay lifestyle is not a choice, other studies are not so definitive on this subject. The psychological composition of the brain is such that it is generally agreed that we have two hemispheres operating independently, yet in congunction with one another. While the actual number is in dispute it is generally accepted that most men are left-brained (I.E. "logic" and generality), but a few are right-brained (I.E. creativity and detail). For the most part, individuals with a right-brained tendency also are more emotional, influenced, and have a greater number of left-hand dominant people. Right-brained people are also targeted as being different from early childhood, and are singled out in schools as being different. They are taught through persecution that they are not normal; they do not desire the masculine arts (seen as trivial and barbaric), but instead prefer more artistic and creative actions and vocations, as they have a gift in this area.

These right-brained individuals have a much greater tendancy to develop gay tendencies IMO (as I am right-brained), because they are conditioned from near-birth that they are different anyway and like the girlie stuff.

you and I get to do the heterosexual thing all we want. We can kiss our wives,hold thier hand in church, and make the bell ring anytime she'll let us. What concern is of ours that two people of the same sex choose to do the same?
One other point - Homosexuals are not criminals, pedifiles, or rapists, any more than any other demographic group of our society.
Don't you think that this may be time for us to "Live, and let live"

This statement has no facts to back it up; in fact, homosexual are grouped within the most high-risk demographic lifestyles, because the behavior that often goes with it is utterly grotesque and harmful to society. This includes nearly everything you just stated -- criminality, pedophilia, rape, sodomy, beastiality, STD's, etc., and this by the admission of more free-living gay people. Now while not the norm as far as lifestyle goes, it does remain much higher than society's norm. They are definitely a more expensive group to insure, and I do not want another group to raise the already high premiums I pay. This is beside the point, however.

 

[Godlike]

I know I'll Probably regret adding my opinion to this debate, but I can't help myself. I just think having any kind of debate over gay marriage is indicative of how meddlesome we really are as a society. We are people who like to legislate our views and morality upon others. If you don't believe me, look around. American citizens have even been killed because they are different (i.e.Matthew Sheapard) I think if two consenting adults choose to commit the rest of their lives to each other, then it is none of your business, or mine. After 24 years of married bliss to the same woman, I have this definition of marriage: A union of two souls, with the commitment of one's entire self to the other till death do us part. The trouble with some of you, and a lot of others in our society is that: 1. you can't tolerate what you don't understand, and 2. you can't keep your nose in your own business. I'm apologise in advance to those of you who are offended.

Invalid Link Removed

 

[woodsman]

Invalid Link Removed

Godlike...
RU implying that all Homosexuals are really pedeophiles?

 

[pigfarmer]

Invalid Link Removed

Reading that article made me want to heave. First, that the good Lord could have allowed such a terrible crime to take place (and a child get harmed), and Second, that you could use that horrible event to scare the rest of us into thinking that all queers are capable of that. You should be ashamed to stoop so low. I checked out some hate info, and found that gays are not alone in the hate frenzy going on. In fact, last year they only accounted for a mere 1,663 victims (14%) of the 12016 total hate crimes in the US. The number one hated group was Blacks (31%) then ethnic, then jews (religious were 18%), etc. There were even 35 hate crimes against disabled people! So, you're not, it seems alone in your hatred of gays. How many other groups do you want to limit civil rights? :shoot:
Invalid Link Removed

 

[pigfarmer]

.

I'm confused... who's persecuting whom? you use you r argument to emphasixe that one ought to be able to discriminate against those damned christians, because we are all a bunch of short-sighted, simple-minded, discriminating homophobes who have it out for those gay people. All you can do is spout the typical liberal arguing techniques, that is "tear down your enemy to discredit him, and them throw in some emotionally-charged drivel with no real basis". Where are the benefits for a homosexual marriage? Give us some substance, some reason that benefits society, not just rhetoric and hype. And don't spew on about how marriage is so watered down and compromised anyway, what's one more exception going to hurt?



I already addressed the appropriate meaning for loving your neighbor in my previous thread, but I could write a book about letting someone do what they are naturally inclined to do. But I understand your context, so I will not address the obvious moral implications in letting someone pursue an underhanded agenda.

What is wrong with 2 minors expressing their love in the form of marriage? What about a 30 year old female teacher with a 10 year old student? What's wrong with it if both groups love each other? I have a natural tendency to go up and ask your wife and other beautiful, talented sexy women, to make love to me, and if they don't to do it forcefully, because I'm a horny bastard, but I learn, unlike some, to keep in check what does not benefit society in a positive way, as that action will not. BTW, I love my woman, and as such will leave yours alone, but the natural tendency is still there (AS IT IS FOR 95+% OF THE MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD); JUST BECAUSE IT IS A NATURAL TENDENCY DOES NOT MAKE IT A JUSTIFIABLE ACTION.

There is also a significant part of the gay community where this is a learnde lifestyle. Let me explain how this happens. While some studies show undisputedly that the gay lifestyle is not a choice, other studies are not so definitive on this subject. The psychological composition of the brain is such that it is generally agreed that we have two hemispheres operating independently, yet in congunction with one another. While the actual number is in dispute it is generally accepted that most men are left-brained (I.E. "logic" and generality), but a few are right-brained (I.E. creativity and detail). For the most part, individuals with a right-brained tendency also are more emotional, influenced, and have a greater number of left-hand dominant people. Right-brained people are also targeted as being different from early childhood, and are singled out in schools as being different. They are taught through persecution that they are not normal; they do not desire the masculine arts (seen as trivial and barbaric), but instead prefer more artistic and creative actions and vocations, as they have a gift in this area.

These right-brained individuals have a much greater tendancy to develop gay tendencies IMO (as I am right-brained), because they are conditioned from near-birth that they are different anyway and like the girlie stuff.

This statement has no facts to back it up; in fact, homosexual are grouped within the most high-risk demographic lifestyles, because the behavior that often goes with it is utterly grotesque and harmful to society. This includes nearly everything you just stated -- criminality, pedophilia, rape, sodomy, beastiality, STD's, etc., and this by the admission of more free-living gay people. Now while not the norm as far as lifestyle goes, it does remain much higher than society's norm. They are definitely a more expensive group to insure, and I do not want another group to raise the already high premiums I pay. This is beside the point, however.

Does that mean that left-handed people are more likely gay? LOL
I also think you are wrong about most men feeling the inclination to ask attractive women for sex - married or not. I'm glad we're not acquaintences, or even friends. Those thoughts suggest a need for therapy. Also, are you suggesting that most homos are child molesters? C'MON! You gotta be kidding!
By the way - did you read my earlier link? It has a homophobia quiz...

 

[db682]

I have a pretty high tolerance for horrible **** but that article takes the cake. Before I read it I thought that when pig farmer said it made him want to heave he was saying that just to add the how bad it sounded but after reading the actual description of the events that took place I too almost lost my dinner. I couldnt imagine being a cop and showing up on a scene like that. I would lose it and blast those two rapist to high hell.

 

[GIJoe]

Does that mean that left-handed people are more likely gay? LOL

Well, I do appreciate that you ask questions, so let's go:

No, if you want to take it to its most extreme implication, left-hand-dominant males are more likely to be perceived as gay by society at large, at least at a far greater percentage than any other group you can stereotype.

I also think you are wrong about most men feeling the inclination to ask attractive women for sex - married or not. I'm glad we're not acquaintences, or even friends. Those thoughts suggest a need for therapy.

Although I was exaggerating somewhat to make a point, the mere fact that Playboy is one of the top-selling men's mags more than emphasizes my point, and either you have been married so long that you forget the natural urge, or you are gay, or a eunich. There is plenty of substantive research to prove men are pigs (pun unintended) when it comes to women; the last sex study released within the past few days even emphasizes that men by and large are almost completely motivated by the physical appearance of a woman. But if you need an exact reference, I always like to help a brother in need of more education, and would be happy to point you in the right direction (I used to raise pigs, too).

The point is, just because fu**ing is natural, it doesn't necessarily mean it is healthy or productive, and therefore justifiable.

Also, are you suggesting that most homos are child molesters? C'MON! You gotta be kidding!
By the way - did you read my earlier link? It has a homophobia quiz...

You like to read between the lines, don't you? So I will try to double-space this next explanation. I never even implied that homosexuals

are by and large child-molesters (I'm sure you are not, and find it repulsive, as does nearly every decent individual on God's green earth). I
did suggest that homosexuals are in a higher-risk group, because of the nature of their activity, but only because you incorrectly said that
"Homosexuals are not criminals, pedifiles, or rapists, any more than any other demographic group of our society." You are WAY off base

there, and I am not even going to try and guess why.

And I hate to stereotype you, but you are the typical "if you don't agree with me and my points, you are a homophobe"; you, my dear bro, appear to be a Jesuphobe, and that does concern me. I'm interested if you were open-minded enough to go see "The Passion of the Christ", soon to be the most watched movie EVER... or if you were one of the 17-20 pissed off people who hate those types of movies because it has religious overtones (say it ain't so!!!). You have a completely different philosophy base than I do, and we will either continue to battle over little nuances and "hidden" meanings, or we will try to learn from each other. I vote for the latter.

 

[GIJoe]

Invalid Link Removed

Godlike...
RU implying that all Homosexuals are really pedeophiles?

Woodsman, Godlike was responding to Pigfarmer's statement that "Homosexuals are not criminals, pedifiles, or rapists, any more than any other demographic group of our society." He was simply rebutting with an article which shows homosexuals are not exempt from pedophilia. It doesn't necessarily mean they are more susceptible to it either.

 

[size]

There were even 35 hate crimes against disabled people!

The concept of a "hate crime" is a horrible idea. What makes one crime a hate crime and the next one not? Crime is based in hate in some form or another. So in reality, every crime is a hate crime.

 

[pigfarmer]

JOE: Me Too. I'd rather learn from someone then decide I can't, and never have the benefit of understanding them. I agree with you and PC1 on allot here. I think fu---ing is natural too. But that is just it. Intercourse with a woman may be natural to most of us, but it isn't to gays. Immagine if things were different...that the tables were turned, and we lived in a society where being gay is the moral norm. Think how hard it would be to hide the fact that you are straight, or to live a heterosexual lifestyle if it were taboo. I kno it is an extreme example, but you get the point. But I have read so many good posts here on the subject.

Yes, I did see the movie. I felt tramatised from the graphic depiction of Christ's crucifiction. How any one could have dont that to one human being (Son of God became man) just made me sick. Stripped of his clothes, tied to a post, and beaten within an inch of his life - then hung to die on a cross! Isn't that similar what has happenned to Matthew sheapard? Tied to a fence, stripped of his clothes, beaten to within an inch of his life, and then left to die because he was gay.
Being allowed here to take part in any of the discussions on various subjects has been a priviledge for me. Thank you all. I came to AM to learn all I can about aas. If it is ok with Y'all, I'll go back to my studies now

 

[GIJoe]

JOE: Me Too. I'd rather learn from someone then decide I can't, and never have the benefit of understanding them. I agree with you and PC1 on allot here. I think fu---ing is natural too. But that is just it. Intercourse with a woman may be natural to most of us, but it isn't to gays. Immagine if things were different...that the tables were turned, and we lived in a society where being gay is the moral norm. Think how hard it would be to hide the fact that you are straight, or to live a heterosexual lifestyle if it were taboo. I kno it is an extreme example, but you get the point. But I have read so many good posts here on the subject.

Yes, I did see the movie. I felt tramatised from the graphic depiction of Christ's crucifiction. How any one could have dont that to one human being (Son of God became man) just made me sick. Stripped of his clothes, tied to a post, and beaten within an inch of his life - then hung to die on a cross! Isn't that similar what has happenned to Matthew sheapard? Tied to a fence, stripped of his clothes, beaten to within an inch of his life, and then left to die because he was gay.
Being allowed here to take part in any of the discussions on various subjects has been a priviledge for me. Thank you all. I came to AM to learn all I can about aas. If it is ok with Y'all, I'll go back to my studies now

Well, I agree with you that hate crimes are beyond despicable, and pretty much everything you say in the reply post... except maybe one thing: If the gay lifestyle was the norm, we wouldn't be here to wonder what it was like to be hetero -- and eventually, neither would they.

 

[Godlike]

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Godlike]

Invalid Link Removed

 

[GIJoe]

Invalid Link Removed

Great points...

"...the late distinguished University of Chicago professor Allan Bloom wrote his best-selling "The Closing of the American Mind," not about religious or conservative America but about secular liberal America as embodied in its temple, the university." That book was required reading back when I was in high school; interesting read...

 

[GIJoe]

JOE: Me Too. I'd rather learn from someone then decide I can't, and never have the benefit of understanding them. I agree with you and PC1 on allot here. I think fu---ing is natural too. But that is just it. Intercourse with a woman may be natural to most of us, but it isn't to gays. Immagine if things were different...that the tables were turned, and we lived in a society where being gay is the moral norm. Think how hard it would be to hide the fact that you are straight, or to live a heterosexual lifestyle if it were taboo. I kno it is an extreme example, but you get the point. But I have read so many good posts here on the subject.

Yes, I did see the movie. I felt tramatised from the graphic depiction of Christ's crucifiction. How any one could have dont that to one human being (Son of God became man) just made me sick. Stripped of his clothes, tied to a post, and beaten within an inch of his life - then hung to die on a cross! Isn't that similar what has happenned to Matthew sheapard? Tied to a fence, stripped of his clothes, beaten to within an inch of his life, and then left to die because he was gay.
Being allowed here to take part in any of the discussions on various subjects has been a priviledge for me. Thank you all. I came to AM to learn all I can about aas. If it is ok with Y'all, I'll go back to my studies now

PF, I also apologize for my somewhat sharp criticisms; I accused you of passionate judgemental statements, then proceeded to do the same thing. May God bless us both, as you took the high road before I did. Thanks bro.

 

[pigfarmer]

PF, I also apologize for my somewhat sharp criticisms; I accused you of passionate judgemental statements, then proceeded to do the same thing. May God bless us both, as you took the high road before I did. Thanks bro.

Joe:
Thank you for seeing what I was trying to do. At this point, I think I understand that you are not preaching hatred, but rather concern about the possible erosion of something we both consider to be sacred -Marriage. Perhaps an acceptable compromise in MA would be to let it stand as "Civil Unions" ? Peace.
And, to those of you who Think I'm a "Secular Liberal"...????
*God gave us all a free will. I choose to live-and-let-live. What do you choose?

 

[pigfarmer]

Invalid Link Removed

Thanks. This is similar to the info I found, but for a different year. Isn't it still a sad commentary on the way things are though?
Peace

 

[Godlike]

Invalid Link Removed

I have become weary of writing the same arguments over and over and ov..

 

[Brodus]

One thing I never understood was, after all of the effort put into learning to respect homosexuals as different, as people who choose a different path, and are inherently anti-establishment, why now is there a need for the most ritualistic institutional approval available? This is my prima facie reaction.

But I think the slippery slope argument is strongest for non-religious people. This issue has potential to open a floodgate of lawsuits for NAMBLA and other groups. Ultimately marriage will become and abstract word with no concrete meaning (if it hasn't already).

Does the fact that so few gay people post on here seem worth mentioning?

I don't think people are bron with a sexual orientation, but born with a unique makeup, and many . There may be ways of finding correaltions between certain genotypes and gayness, but there's absolutely no way to prove causality. Certain genetic predispositions may make a person entertain the idea of same sex relationships more than others, such as abnormal hormone levels, environment, etc. I think everyone can go either way, and even though I think heterosexuality is clearly "natural," and what "nature/God" intended, I think most people choose to orient towards the opposite sex for a multitude of reasons. Regardless of how it happens, at some point in your evolution you decide where you're going to stick your thing...and this IS a decision. It might not be a concrete decision, but it is a decision. It's not like being born black or a woman.

There have ALWAYS been deviant sexual proclivities since the beginning of time. Societies, apart from religion, have found through thousands of years of experience, that the union from which children can naturally arise is something special, in some cultures something to be worshipped (fertility gods, etc), and hence sanctified the act in all manner of ritual.

What disappoints me so much about the current "issue" is how easily the gay activists have equated themselves with a RACE of people who were hung, oppressed, employed as SLAVES, and truly victimized for nothing but greed. There was even an organization created to brutalize them, the KKK. To do this is more racist and bigoted than anything that has been said here on this board. If you don't see this, you are either willing blind to truth, or you've been conditioned not to think for yourself. This "movement" should be an affront to every person of color, precisely becasue it minimizes and trivializes the experience of black America. There is no comparison for Jim Crow and the KKK.

I think the current "movement" weakens the gay platform in America, and this is going to cause a cultural backlash. It's also important to note that not all gay people want this, and not all gays are part of the political lobby. The represented body who are pushing for this is VERY SMALL, and then all of the other chatter comes from people who wish to appear progressive (even though the state of progressive politics in America is just horrible and gayness is a diversion), and young people who NEED A CAUSE (which I feel is innate to the human condition), have gay friends, and hastily think it's a logical evolutionary step.

To me, a non-religious philosopher who's probably a deist, I see the homosexual lobby as a bunch of selfish, whiny people who can't be satisfied. If you want someone to be your friend and understand you you don't act the way the homosexual lobby acts. Am I "calling names?" Do any of you read the New York Times? Read one editorial that's as nice as this post. The day you can't call things like you see them, the day people acting like spoiled brats are defined "needs challenged," is the day language, thought, and reason have been fully debased.

More than anything, I am horribly let down by the left. I entered college so sure of our intentions, so sure I was a knew what was right, so sure of our positions of total freedom for everyone. Now I am actually swimming in a sea of doubt, and I feel sold out by most of the leaders I looked up to. I am horribly let down by my country, that this debate even has to occur, and that it demands so much prime time. I am achingly sad, because I see my country becoming the new Babylon and eating itself from the inside out. Call me cynical, but how many people here know the history of the Roman Empire? Not just the perverse sexual history, but also how it ate itself? History repeats itself, and I'm afraid we are on a path that has only one end. I strongly feel like we are watching the destruction of Western civilization, and this is another part of it. The saddest part is we have done it to ourselves. This debate has no winners.

 

[GIJoe]

Brodus the Philosopher

Brodus, VERY impressive read, quite a few eye-opening thoughts. Alot of things clicked for me when I read it. I'd really like to read this, at the very least, in the New York Times on the opinion page (Thoughts by Brodus the Philosopher...)

 

[PC1]

Brodus........

Well done. I enjoyed reading your well thought out post. I feel you've scored some points that haven't been made yet.

I have only point to disagree with you about, and it's probably a minor one in the scheme of things: That I ever made a decision about "where to stick my thing", or more appropriately, a decision to be heterosexual v homosexual.

As a young boy I wasn't attracted to girls really. I remember in 4th grade a girl I knew who was in 5th grade said she was going to kiss me. She actually chased me twice around a small building, me running as if my life depended on it She actually grew up to become quite a sexy, voloptuous creature, clearly a huge mistake on my part.

At some point in my life, my aversion to girls changed, as it does for most all of us.

I have no idea why homosexuals are homosexuals, whether or not it's genetic or behavioral.

But I do know that in my case, it wasn't an option I even considered. I never made a conscious "choice" to pursue women over men. I've never been attracted to any man in any kind of a sexual sense.

Not that it matters one way or another. I, as most men, am attracted to good looking shapely women even though I'm married. So I have to exercise restraint and will power and say no to what comes naturally to me, pursuing that other woman.

It's a matter then of morality, both personally and societally. If as a society we hold that homosexuality is immoral, that we don't want to give it a stamp of legitimacy by allowing homosexual marriage, then so be it. I can still take the live and let live attitude of not condeming what 2 consenting adults do in private.

That's worked pretty well for us so far, I see no compelling reason to change it.

 

[Brodus]

Yeah, I don't really care to argue the "lifestyle choice" thing, because it is clearly different for everyone, and I was just sharing one of my theories, but no matter, b/c regardless it is quite different from skin color or gender, and those are the fallacious comparisons the gay lobby tries to make.

I wish more "liberals" or even PC republicans (or anyone for that matter!) would call them to the carpet on this. No other group could get away with this kind of reasoning. I have seen a few black clergy raising hell, but that's about it.

And GI Joe, I appreciate your remarks! I would love to be published in the NYTimes someday, but will probably settle for the Chicago Trib. for now (it's where I live).

Did anyone here read about the recent poll/study on American's attitudes to gay marriage? Better than 66% strongly oppose it. It was reported this morning.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

that the tables were turned, and we lived in a society where being gay is the moral norm. Think how hard it would be to hide the fact that you are straight, or to live a heterosexual lifestyle if it were taboo. I kno it is an extreme example, but you get the point.

The problem is with that argument is that we would have a drastic reduction in the population if that were the case. If you look at statistics on homosexuals you come away from them thinking that there is something wrong there. The number of partners, much higher rate of stds, suicide rates, they talk allot about "hate crimes" ( I really don't care for that term at all) but look at the statistics for partner on partner violence in homosexuals. Jay Serverin made a good point on the radio the other day that he thinks that most homosexuals have a sense that something is wrong with them.Some of them accept it and others get mad and are saying they are just like everyone else. The slippery slope argument does hold water. All you have to do is look at some of the crap NABLA is putting out. They are using the same rhetoric the homosexual activist use. Another thing that many people don't know about is the gay lobby is always trying to lower the age of consent. When the activist are asked if they can have all the rights but not the title of marriage they still say that is discrimination. The truth is they can get married just not to a person of the same sex. I am all for you being able to do in the privacy of your own bedroom. What they want is to force every one to accept them. I am all for letting homosexuals leave money to who ever they want and things like that but marriage is a different matter.
You made some damn good points Brodus.
I am pretty much finished with the article I wrote. I need to do some corrections and it's pretty damn long. I might just post a rough draft in a few days if anyone is interested.

 

[PC1]

Yo, Vanilla Gorilla.......

I'd be very interested in reading your article. I hope you'll post it here but if not, I'd enjoy reading it in a PM.

Thanks bro!

 

[bigmark1972]

Homosexuality is most deffinitly a mental, not physical thing. You cannot convince me in any shape or form that people are born that way. Are child molesters born that way? I know it's a harsh comparison, but it's the same damned thing. I guess we can all thank the ancient Greeks for this. (jk)

I have to disagree here. I am straight but I have several gay friends who wish to hell they were straight.....but they are not. They are still people and many of them are great people at that. Thousands of gay people kill themselves every year just because they cant stand the fact that they are GAY and the immense social/life factors it involves, does not sound like a choice to me. Many of them would rather be DEAD than gay due to the social stigma, life problems it commands, I find it sad, I say if gay couples want to be married so be it.

 

[VanillaGorilla]

They are still people and many of them are great people at that

No one is saying that the aren't good people. That isn't the issue that's being debated.

Thousands of gay people kill themselves every year just because they cant stand the fact that they are GAY and the immense social/life factors it involves

Homosexual activists use the higher rate of suicide to argue that the cause of it is that society doesn't except them and because of discrimination. Another view point could be the have a much higher rate of suicide because they have a mental disorder and they have some problems.Why do you suppose they often cite the suicide rate but never mention the high rate of partner on partner violence in the homosexual community?

does not sound like a choice to me. Many of them would rather be DEAD than gay due to the social stigma

I think the choice issue is often distorted. Nobody is saying someone wakes up and says I think I'll try being gay today. What they are saying is that there are factors that come into play that might push someone in that direction such as having an abusive relationship with a parent. Does someone who is psychotic or OCD choose to be that way? No
There are some people who were leading a homosexual life style who are now heterosexual. These cases are often ignored and dismissed. If that's the case, than why is the person who was functioning as a heterosexual who had a family and kids then turned gay considered to be living a lie their whole life and the person who was a homosexual turned straight swept under the carpet and considered still to be a homosexual?

I say if gay couples want to be married so be it

There are many good points of view why it isn't a good idea to allow homsexuals to marry on this thread.

 

[Brodus]

Uhh...problem with the syntax at the end there...I think you meant "...allow homosexuals to marry..."

The way it came out sounds pretty bad, and I know you didn't mean it like that!

 

[VanillaGorilla]

lmao Thanks Brodus. I missed that one.