zach23 Posted January 13, 2004 Share Posted January 13, 2004 I know. These stupid leftist assholes want gay marriages and next they're going to want FORCED gay marriages and then they're going to force us to only have sex with the same gender and then the human race will end. I bet the first people they go after are those that are so obsessed with penis that they put crude pictures of them on message boards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 I'm pretty sure that post was facetious dude. I wanna explain something that cw said about homosexuality being normal but not normative. I don't think some people quite understood it. I think what cw was trying to say was that although not present in MOST humans, many people think that a certain percentage of people are born gay. It is normal, not normative. What makes you gay, isn't having sex. What makes you gay is the same thing that makes other people straight. The problem with marriage is that a lot of people see it as a religious thing. That's fine. It should be. However, if its a civil thing, it shouldn't be exclusive to one type of people. As we learn more about humanity, a growing body of evidence suggests that the vast majority of gay people are not gay by choice. It is just WHO THEY ARE. And being that, there is no reason or need to discriminate. As someone who supports the concept of gay marriage in a civil sense, I am not asking you to support my lifestyle just let me have the same rights as you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 As we learn more about humanity, a growing body of evidence suggests that the vast majority of gay people are not gay by choice. It is just WHO THEY ARE. And being that, there is no reason or need to discriminate. And there is no legal grounds to justify such discrimination either. Science is on the verge of discovering the "gay gene" or, more likely, multiple-gene suite, and that SHOULD put an end to the absurd debate over whether being gay is a choice. It won't but it should. There was some great research published a few months back that gave probably the strongest evidence to date that sexual orientation is hard-wired at birt and there is no choice in the matter. It involved looking at the startle response to an expected loud noise presented after an indicator signal was given. Women and gay men exhibited one type of startle response, while straight men exhibited a measurably different response. The key point is that the response is completely reflexive, ie, innate rather than learned. You are born with blonde hair, black hair, red hair etc., and there's no choice involved. Ditto here. As far as normal versus normative, the best analogies are normal people who fall toward the tails in the normal distribution (bell curve) in terms of any measurable, heritable attribute. There are far fewer people that grow to be 7 feet tall than grow to be 5'9", but these individuals still fall within the range of 'normal' human height. A growing number of learned peoplet believe it will soon be demonstrated that sexual orientation is similarly genetically coded for -- just a different flavor of normal sexual behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soxfan420 Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 I know. These stupid leftist assholes want gay marriages and next they're going to want FORCED gay marriages and then they're going to force us to only have sex with the same gender and then the human race will end. i've only meet 2-5 gay people in my life and they where all cool with me being straight lesbos are the best ppl to go to for girl advice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 In the past I would of said yes to this issue, but now I really am indifferent on the subject. If two males or two females want to spend the rest of their lives with each other then I have no problem with it. Now if it comes to the point that the majority of the population is doing it, then I think it would be a little different issue. But if some people are born different and they have different feelings, then I got no problem of them acting on those feelings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 14, 2004 Author Share Posted January 14, 2004 In the past I would of said yes to this issue, but now I really am indifferent on the subject. If two males or two females want to spend the rest of their lives with each other then I have no problem with it. Now if it comes to the point that the majority of the population is doing it, then I think it would be a little different issue. But if some people are born different and they have different feelings, then I got no problem of them acting on those feelings. I wouldn't mind being the last straight guy on earth. "Hey, what do you do for a living?" "I'm straight" "Ohh I guess you are too busy to work . . ." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doubleM23 Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 Don't like gay marriages? Don't have one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 Truer words were never spoken. Rumor is the President will call for a constitutional amendment this month in the State of the Union. I love this country, but if we seek to codify things like this - maybe it means my country doesn't want people like me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 Truer words were never spoken. Rumor is the President will call for a constitutional amendment this month in the State of the Union. I love this country, but if we seek to codify things like this - maybe it means my country doesn't want people like me. I think truer words were just spoken... The intrinsic value of a person and his/her relationships don't come from the outward presence of sexuality--but from the quality of the people involved and the nature of that commitment. And on that note, I would just like to quote a newscaster I remember from this summer in Montreal when the Mass ruling came out: Some of you Canadians might think this ruling and the implications sounds familiar--that's because in Canada we did a similar thing 30 years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 I agree with Yasny or I think it was YASNY that said this has nothing to do with the government and it should especially have nothing to do with the constitution. Let the states decide this at the very least, imo. And if they are going to ban gay marriages, they at least better offer same sex partners to have health care benefits and that type of stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 I agree with Yasny or I think it was YASNY that said this has nothing to do with the government and it should especially have nothing to do with the constitution. Let the states decide this at the very least, imo. And if they are going to ban gay marriages, they at least better offer same sex partners to have health care benefits and that type of stuff. FYI... they don't allow common law marriages the benefit of health care... so I don't think I agree with allowing same sex partners that benefit. I say let them get married and stay the hell out of what goes on in THEIR bedroom!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LowerCaseRepublican Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 What two [or more] consenting adults do in their bedroom is their business. The Christian Right™ is all for freedom of expression and love...as long as it's a heterosexual relationship and the expression is fundamentalist Christian in belief. And this is a question that mmmmbeer raised before. How is Bush going for smaller government with this? I thought that was one of the tenets of the Republican party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 The intrinsic value of a person and his/her relationships don't come from the outward presence of sexuality--but from the quality of the people involved and the nature of that commitment. To that. On another note, I hadn't checked this poll in a few days, and was surprised to see it currently sitting in favor a gay marriage ban. By a rather wide margin. I hope this is just because the is a large contingent of young posters on this site... I know when I was younger (read HS) I would have preached on about how it's not natural or rationalized my "YES" vote in some other way. In reality, I was just an ignorant homophobic young kid. I've grown up, some, only a little bit though , over the years. The government shouldn't be able to legislate your sexuallity. What you do in the confines of your own bedroom is your own business. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chisoxfn Posted January 14, 2004 Share Posted January 14, 2004 I actually think the opposite cheat. While your right in highschool I'd of definately voted the same way you said and now my feelings on the subject, just a few years later, are the way you feel in that I'd oppose the ban. Still, I think older generations are more prone to be less forgiving on the subject, just my two cents. Just like on the issue of race, I think our generation are less likely to be as racist as previous generations, just like the generation thats younger then us, will be less likely to be racist then our generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Honda Civic Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 I actually think the opposite cheat. While your right in highschool I'd of definately voted the same way you said and now my feelings on the subject, just a few years later, are the way you feel in that I'd oppose the ban. Still, I think older generations are more prone to be less forgiving on the subject, just my two cents. Just like on the issue of race, I think our generation are less likely to be as racist as previous generations, just like the generation thats younger then us, will be less likely to be racist then our generation. Yeah, you're probably right. The young and old extremes would probably be more likely to be in favor of a ban. I realize this is a generalization. The only group where I would expect a greater proportion against the ban is from about the 20-40 age group. And the younger part of that age group doesn't vote en mass. I guess I would like to see a simillar poll only from those who actually vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrandoFan Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 I know. These stupid leftist assholes want gay marriages and next they're going to want FORCED gay marriages and then they're going to force us to only have sex with the same gender and then the human race will end. ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrimsonWeltall Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 thats wildly inappropriate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 What goes on in the bedroom isn't anyones business. We all know that is wrong. Sex with minors is wrong. Some may argue that having multiple spouses is wrong. Sex between siblings is wrong, but if we eliminate potential sex in a marriage brotehrs could marry sisters. How are we going to define civil union? Is it based on physical sexual acts? That you must be having sex or it isn't a union? Most are going to say no. But then think about this. If we allow civil unions and sex is not an issue that someone could walk up to their employer and say "my sister and I are in a committed, long term, non sexual, civil union and you are required by law to extend health benefits. By the way she has multiple health problems, have a nice day. " If you have a buddy who isn't working and doesn't have health benefits, just form a union. Want tax relief? Form a union. Have a buddy who can't immigrate? Form a union. Divorce is cheap. Far better would be to eliminate any tax, employee, civil benefits that are tied into being married. Base everything by the individual. That way any civil unions or marriages do not come with a payoff, both straight and gay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sox4lifeinPA Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 What goes on in the bedroom isn't anyones business. We all know that is wrong. Sex with minors is wrong. Some may argue that having multiple spouses is wrong. Sex between siblings is wrong, but if we eliminate potential sex in a marriage brotehrs could marry sisters. How are we going to define civil union? Is it based on physical sexual acts? That you must be having sex or it isn't a union? Most are going to say no. But then think about this. If we allow civil unions and sex is not an issue that someone could walk up to their employer and say "my sister and I are in a committed, long term, non sexual, civil union and you are required by law to extend health benefits. By the way she has multiple health problems, have a nice day. " If you have a buddy who isn't working and doesn't have health benefits, just form a union. Want tax relief? Form a union. Have a buddy who can't immigrate? Form a union. Divorce is cheap. Far better would be to eliminate any tax, employee, civil benefits that are tied into being married. Base everything by the individual. That way any civil unions or marriages do not come with a payoff, both straight and gay. two things... I really agree with Tex. I think that's a valid arguement and something that is a major concern. Where does the line stop? secondly, As someone who supports the concept of gay marriage in a civil sense, I am not asking you to support my lifestyle just let me have the same rights as you. within the current system, although my personal beliefs are one thing, I have maintained that I recognize that the greater population does not think the same as I do. Therefore, I agree with Winodj's comments. Allow gay men and women to go to a court house or justice of the peace and get "married" there. My point is, it just doesn't belong in the church. ok, have a great week. I just wanted to make a comment or two and say HI! PA is rockin' my world. 4 inches of snow last night! Dammit it Tex, I want the warm weather back Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlaSoxxJim Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 I don't know if anyone caught the NPR story this morning (and not having followed this entire thread, it may have already been mentioned) about the Bush 'marriage program' and plans to increase spending for 'pro-marriage' counselling services - primarily for the poor. This year, $6 million was spent on such organizations, to try to get people to understand the importance of marriage, the importance of equality in the partnership, etc. All fine and well, and $6 million sounds reasonable. Now, Dubya wants to spend more than $1 billion on these programs over the next 5 years!!! Does this sound sane? Maybe Mmmmbeer was right about Bush throwing money at programs like this with the strength of 10 Democrats! The counselors that are doing this stuff now reported that only about 1 couple in 15 that goes through their programs actually does tie the knot. If those numbers stay the same, that's not gonna be very many marriages for a billion dollar price tag. The connection to the current thread is that gay rights groups are rightfully pointing out that it would be discriminatory if these counselling services were not made equally available to gay couples considering civil unions, and at the same time the religious conservatives are applying pressure to make sure gay marriages are not validated by the programs and, ultimately, banned through constitutional amendment. Let's all worry about our own relationships and let others take care of their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 no it doesnt sound insane at all....ive seen studies showing 70% of inner city kids come from broken homes...whatever we are doing now sure aint working Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 no it doesnt sound insane at all....ive seen studies showing 70% of inner city kids come from broken homes...whatever we are doing now sure aint working When "Homes" become "Broken Homes", it is due to a number of different circumstances, one of which is NOT the lack of marriage education courses. Try drug use, lack of employment, neglected-in-childhood-turns-into-bad-husband/wife/parent-later-in-life. This money, if allocated, would be one of the biggest wastes of tax dollars in the history of America. A f***ing band-aid solution to a problem he knows nothing about--what an arrogant prick. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baggio202 Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 When "Homes" become "Broken Homes", it is due to a number of different circumstances, one of which is NOT the lack of marriage education courses. Try drug use, lack of employment, neglected-in-childhood-turns-into-bad-husband/wife/parent-later-in-life. This money, if allocated, would be one of the biggest wastes of tax dollars in the history of America. A f***ing band-aid solution to a problem he knows nothing about--what an arrogant prick. so you have a crystal ball that can see into the future???...how do you know these programs wont work???...nothing else has..it wouldnt hurt to give it a shot... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wong & Owens Posted January 15, 2004 Share Posted January 15, 2004 so you have a crystal ball that can see into the future???...how do you know these programs wont work???...nothing else has..it wouldnt hurt to give it a shot... It doesn't take a crystal ball to see that the problems of inner city families and the inner city in general have nothing to do with people not understanding how to make a marriage work. If you're a minority, coming from a split home where the dad was a drunk and the mom lived off welfare, went to a crappy school, with no role models, no guidance, no hope, there is no marriage or family seminar in existence that is going to do anything more than temporarily mask a much deeper problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted January 15, 2004 Author Share Posted January 15, 2004 When "Homes" become "Broken Homes", it is due to a number of different circumstances, one of which is NOT the lack of marriage education courses. Try drug use, lack of employment, neglected-in-childhood-turns-into-bad-husband/wife/parent-later-in-life. This money, if allocated, would be one of the biggest wastes of tax dollars in the history of America. A f***ing band-aid solution to a problem he knows nothing about--what an arrogant prick. Who is most in need of marriage skills. The executive in Lake Forest or the struggling family in an inner city? Who is most likely to get that service or be able to afford it if it isn't available? If all it took to save a relationship is a BMW, some nice parks, good schools, and low crime no one on the north shore would ever get divorced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.