should this become an amendment??

[BigMattTheHobo]

the guy Rev. Lou Sheldon, and his group www.traditionalvalues.org/ want to make an amendment to he U.S Constitution to make gay marriage illegal. what do you all feel about this?? my feelings are that the government should stay out of the sexual lives of Americans, and if two men or two women really want to be together, they should be allowed to marry and recieve benefits that a "normal" couple might reciece.

[anjroo11688]

They should all still have the same rights as everyone else. I mean they ARE citizens of the united states. people should not be discrimated because of tehir sexual preferance. So yes i feel gay couples should have the right to legally marry.

[Instigator]

I agree with both of you. I feel that as a straight american it's really none of my business. Whether or not gay marriage is legalized does not affect me personally in any way, so there is no reason we should not allow it.

[Delta]

I will be truthfull and say that I do not approve of gays or gay marriages. I beleive that it is immorral and blah blah blah youve all heard it before. BUT, I dont think it is the right of the Government to interfere. Now gays and adoption..... thats another thread there. What I really cant stand is when people of Christian "Religion" I say it that way cause I dont think they are true Christians,,, marry gays or lesbians when the Bible says that homosexuality is wrong. Wheww, that was a long breath.

[shade]

I personally disagree with gay marriage... but I personally disagree with a lot of things the government does or does not do. I dont think the government has any place regulating sexuality, just like I dont think they should regulate much of which they already regulate.

So no I dont think they should ammend the constitution. Its a moot question anyway because it would never get passed. However, I am firmly against gays and lesbians adopting. I actually know two people raised in a lesbian household (they arent related, two different people from two different lesbian households) and they both ended up with severe mental problems as a result. Of course, thats a small sample... but...

[minia]

And how many people do you know that are screwed up that came from straight marriages?? I know plenty....

[Unregistered]

Good point. So do I. In fact, I know about 5 people who were raised by gay parents, and none of them were abused...I can't say the same for all the people I know who came from "traditional" families.

[shade]

And how many people do you know that are screwed up that came from straight marriages??
Straight divorces? Plenty. Out of all my friends who came from functional parents, they are all fine. Of my friends that come from divorces, its random. Same for disfunctional families. It just seems to me that a homesexual 'marriage' is inherently more likely to be disfunctional. You can say what you want, but of my gay friends and acquaintences (you get a few in college), there is VERY little focus on the emotional relationship of love. They are primarily preoccupied with sex. A relationship based mainly on sex is not a good environment to raise a child, straight or gay. And gay relationships tend to be predisposed towards a base of sex. Have you heard of a gay virgin?

[BigMattTheHobo]

Originally posted by shade
Straight divorces? Plenty. Out of all my friends who came from functional parents, they are all fine. Of my friends that come from divorces, its random. Same for disfunctional families. It just seems to me that a homesexual 'marriage' is inherently more likely to be disfunctional. You can say what you want, but of my gay friends and acquaintences (you get a few in college), there is VERY little focus on the emotional relationship of love. They are primarily preoccupied with sex. A relationship based mainly on sex is not a good environment to raise a child, straight or gay. And gay relationships tend to be predisposed towards a base of sex. Have you heard of a gay virgin?

im am no expert on gays, and i dont think you are, so i think it would be hard to say that their relationship is based mostly on sex. i think depending on how you look at any relationship that involves sex you could come to the conclusion that is revolves around it. just because they might do some stuff straight people might not do in bed, does not mean that they care mainly about sex. i think a small group of gays has given the rest bad names by running through the streets half naked and flaunting their sexuality.

[droogsteve]

The issue of gay marriages is irrelevant to my answer to the question in this thread. The answer is no, there should not be an amendment. YOU DON'T FUCK WITH THE CONSTITUTION. It's what's kept our country great for almost 230 years. When people feel strongly about an issue like flag burning, womans rights or gay marriage they want to amend the constitution when it's completely unnessesary. Why not just pass a law? When something works as well as the US constitution, you don't fuck with it unless you absolutely have to.

[minia]

Good point Droog, changing the Constitution in any way should be a last resort.
Shade please don't be offended but you really don't have a good perspective on this subject. For one it is obvious you only know some people who have decided to try the same sex for an increase in opportunities. I have known quite a few gay people, and yes even a virgin, and they are concerned with sex just as much as anyone else my age. Preoccupied with sex, huh? Do you not have hormones?? What relationship do you know of that is not concerned with sex?? You have to realize that our society is such that EVERYONE is preocuppied with sex. Marketing is based on it, clothes are designed with it in mind. How many straight virgins do you know? Not too damn many I can guarantee that. And when half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce I don't think straight people should be judging anyone else.....Basically what you just said is that of all the offspring of straight marriages you know the ones that didn't come from a divorce or a disfunctional family are ok. So what is that? 25%??

[shade]

it would be hard to say that their relationship is based mostly on sex. i think depending on how you look at any relationship that involves sex you could come to the conclusion that is revolves around it.
Very true matt. This is why I advocate celebacy until married. My relationship with my girlfriend has lasted two years now without sex, and will last another two years without it (at which point well be graduating college, married, and you know..). This way the relationship has a very strong foundation without sex even being an issue. At which point upon marriage, sex will be an added recreational event that will both be fun and help strengthen our bond.

For one it is obvious you only know some people who have decided to try the same sex for an increase in opportunities.
Dont know what you are trying to say. My friends that are gay are genuinely homosexual... not bi or anything else. They only enjoy sex with men. Women do not turn them on.

Preoccupied with sex, huh? Do you not have hormones?? What relationship do you know of that is not concerned with sex??
I have hormones. My relationship is not preoccupied with sex. Its called discipline.

You have to realize that our society is such that EVERYONE is preocuppied with sex.
100% false. Couldnt be farther from the truth. Believe or not, there a lot more of us out there than you think.

How many straight virgins do you know? Not too damn many I can guarantee that.
Plenty. You probably arent looking in the right places. They tend to gather in places called "churches" etc.

And when half of all heterosexual marriages end in divorce I don't think straight people should be judging anyone else.....
The divorce rates for those who wait until marriage for sex are drastically lower than those who do not, and/or cohabitate before marriage. So dont group people like myself in to that.

So what is that? 25%??
I wouldnt know an exact number, but yes I would say 25% is fair. That simply proves that you should strive to have a functional family by waiting until marriage for sex and not preoccupying yourself with it.

[Instigator]

Originally posted by shade
Very true matt. This is why I advocate celebacy until married.

..for gays too? even though they can't get married?

Originally posted by shade

I have hormones. My relationship is not preoccupied with sex. Its called discipline.


I applaud you for having discipline, and I think that is a healthy way to have a relationship. However, it should come as no surprise to you that most young people do not have that level of self-control, whether they be gay or straight. 90% of the relationships I know of between young people have been "preoccupied" by sex, and that isn't innately bad. It's just nature and a lack of self-control.

Originally posted by shade

The divorce rates for those who wait until marriage for sex are drastically lower than those who do not, and/or cohabitate before marriage. So dont group people like myself in to that.


I'd like to believe that, and I know you would too, but I'm curious where you got those statistics. Sounds like religious propaganda... Jerry Falwell told you that?

[Instigator]

Originally posted by shade

Plenty. You probably arent looking in the right places. They tend to gather in places called "churches" etc.


hmm..a rather moot point, considering that child molesters and rapists are priests in many of these "churches"

the most promiscuous girl I've ever met was raised devout Baptist. she went to church every week...then went behind the church and got it on with altar boys, janitors, security guards, pastors, anyone she could get her hands on. one time she got pregnant, and they had to give the baby away for adoption. but right before she gave him away to social services, she named him clayton...lol jk.

[Bergs]

hmm..a rather moot point, considering that child molesters and rapists are priests in many of these "churches"

Dont be ignorant instigator. There are some priests that abuse their positions and do horrible things. Dont say "many" churches have child molesting preists, that is insulting. A few have them and it is a travesty. Most dont.

[Instigator]

Many priests have abused children...it's a fact, bergs. Sorry, but I won't whitewash it either. In just one area of New England, over 500 victims have come forward...what can this say for the rest of the country?

[Instigator]

http://www.boston.com/globe/spotlight/abuse/overview/timeline.shtml

[Bergs]

I am not whitewashing either. People are abused, it is very very very sad and it is a horrible crime. But the vast majority of priests are good people. 500 victims you say? What region are you talking about and how many people attend church there? Also, I guarantee that the people abused are abused by a small group of priests. These priests just abuse many people. One preist doesnt abuse one person you know. You make it sound like every person in the priesthood is a child molestor. That is ridiculous

[Instigator]

Check out the link, bergs. It answers most of your questions...

Originally posted by Bergs
You make it sound like every person in the priesthood is a child molestor.
You're grossly misinterpreting what I said...

The VAST majority of priests are not pedophiles. However, there are many churches that have been struck by terrible crimes like this. I will not retract that statement, because it is true.

[Bergs]

As long as you dont condemn the entire fucking priesthood because of the acts of a few.

I know about the scandels inst. You dont have to educate me on the topic but here is something from your own source. Cardinal Law in Boston was reassigning priests who did bad shit to other churches. This is really really fucked up obviously. This also spread sthe abuse to another church, maybe another, and another. More churches are then affected by ONE piece o shit priest. This gives you your "many" churches. It does not give you "many" priests.

[Dumbass]

Sorry, but I feel obligated to point out the Catholic Church's view on homosexuality. I know it was briefly brought up earlier, but that only brought out one aspect of the issue. The Church does not not say that being homosexual is wrong, but it does state that acting on those tendencies is morally wrong. One reason for this view is because of the controversial issue of WHY people are homosexual. Some argue that being homosexual is solely by choice, whereas others say that it's a genetic characteristic, where the person has no control over whether or not they are gay. There is simply not enough evidence yet to determine the actual "cause" of homosexuality, so the Church tries to take the view that appeals to most while still being morally "right." Because homosexual marriages are acting on homosexual tendencies, the Church would say that these marriages should be banned.
My personal view: sorry, but I still am undecided. One reason is (as stated above) the controversy over the "cause(s)" of homosexuality. Until something can concretely be determined, I will have a difficult time taking a side. As of now, I would say that I'm leaning to letting the marriages take place. Like the Constitution says, right to pursuit of happiness. As droogsteve says, we shouldn't change the Constitution, and I strongly agree with him. Also, it's their private lives. Will Smith made a powerful point in the Enemy of the State scene where he's sitting with his bosses, about to be fired or whatever. He makes a comment, his boss replies, "That's..." and Smith interrupts, "none of my damn business, I know!" I think most of you know what I'm talking about. Their private lives don't affect what kind of person they are, and they don't affect the way that I would view gay people as to whether or not they are cool or funny or whatever.

[Instigator]

yea i have no idea what causes it either. I heard an interesting theory the other day: it could be a means of population control.

[shade]

..for gays too? even though they can't get married?
There are plenty of ministers out there that will marry gay couples. They just arent recognized by the state, therefore dont get any marriage tax penalties or a certificate. So... they just dont get the piece of paper from the government. Plenty of gay people get married by ministers in the "eyes of god" (their words). There are also "life partners" etc. So frankly, youre wrong, unless you think paper is more important than meaning.

I applaud you for having discipline, and I think that is a healthy way to have a relationship.
Thanks.

hmm..a rather moot point, considering that child molesters and rapists are priests in many of these "churches"
No more so than any other place where children and youth are, like schools, daycare, school bus drivers, boy scouts, etc. Predators look for positions where people trust them with their children. Therefore they take advantage of systems. Child molestation has nothing to do with clergy, simply predators becoming clergy so they have access to trust and children.

the most promiscuous girl I've ever met was raised devout Baptist.
Well thats no surprise. Ill probably get flamed for this, but Ive met more hypocritical babtists than any other christian derived religion.

In just one area of New England, over 500 victims have come forward
Because the Catholic church is paying out. I gurantee you that many of those coming out are lying to get free money. It would be more expensive to try every claim than to just pay a settlement. However, there definately were some abused people, and that is very sad.

Homosexuality isnt population control. Its existed forever. The term "sodomy" was coined when a guy "sodom" had anal sex with a man. Bible stuff :p

[Instigator]

Originally posted by shade
youre wrong, unless you think paper is more important than meaning.


Actually, you're wrong here. There are several other advantages to having a legal marriage, one of which is the ability to share finances. There are many tax writeoffs that can only be obtained if the marriage is legal.

Originally posted by shade

No more so than any other place where children and youth are, like schools, daycare, school bus drivers, boy scouts, etc.

you sure about that? I'd venture to say that more priests abuse kids than daycare workers..

[shade]

Ok I went on google to find some stats on divorce rates. Here a few sources:
http://members.aol.com/cohabiting/rate.htm
http://www.drdaveanddee.com/cohabitation.html
http://www.familyfirst.org/necitizen/0302.pdf
http://www.family.org/cforum/topics/a0018800.cfm
http://www.virginia.edu/topnews/textonlyarchive/February_1999/Economists.txt
http://www.lifeinnovation.com/pdf/ccoverview.pdf
http://www.jeanlouie.com/Society/Mariage%20and%20Divorce/Of%20Cohabitation%20and%20Divorce.htm

[Instigator]

Originally posted by shade

Because the Catholic church is paying out.
but shade..that wouldnt be christian.

I also doubt that so many people would do that. Maybe a very small percentage are doing it for money, but definitely not a large number.
If that were true, we'd have seen a reputable news story on it.

Homosexuality isnt population control. Its existed forever.

That's true. I've heard that it's been increasing recently, just like the population though.

[Instigator]

shade, are cohabitation and celibacy the same thing?

[shade]

but shade..that wouldnt be christian.
Why the fuck not? That is the modern form of justice. The offenders go to jail and the victims receive retribution.

Actually, you're wrong here. There are several other advantages to having a legal marriage, one of which is the ability to share finances. There are many tax writeoffs that can only be obtained if the marriage is legal.
Yeah so thats all financial. A shared bank account is not significant. Marriage, in its familial and love orientation (which is all that really matters) does not have to be approved by the government, end of story. The only tax write offs are if you have children. Since when to gays and lesbians reproduce?

you sure about that? I'd venture to say that more priests abuse kids than daycare workers..
Then... you are ignorant.

If that were true, we'd have seen a reputable news story on it.
Its been on CNN and Fox.

That's true. I've heard that it's been increasing recently, just like the population though.
Just like people with brown hair. :p

shade, are cohabitation and celibacy the same thing?
Its inverted. Those who cohabitate "pretend they are married" which includes sex almost 100% of the time. So those who cohabitate, are almost never celebate.

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by shade
Homosexuality isnt population control. Its existed forever. The term "sodomy" was coined when a guy "sodom" had anal sex with a man. Bible stuff :p Not quite, Shade. The word "sodomy" was named after the biblical town of Sodom. According to the bible the cities of Sodom and Gamorrah were unspeakably wicked places where the citizens engaged in sinful behavior, including homosexuality. God told the last good man living there, Lot, to take his wife and leave. He commanded them not to look back while he destroyed the cities with a rain of fire and brimstone. Lot's wife disobeyed and looked back, so God turned her into a pillar of salt. I'm agnostic now but I went to eight years of Catholic school, so I still remember my bible lessons. I guess being Catholic is kind of like being in the Mafia. Even if you try to leave it behind you, you're never really out. :p

[Delta]

Your right Shade I will have to try to burn you on that terrible generalization. There are MILLIONS of Baptists out there, and thats Baptists with a P not a B.

You also need to take into account the many other factors, like upbringing, demographics, geologic location that refers to cultures. There are many other explanations. For example: I have heard many more stories about Catholics molesting little boys than any other religion. That does not mean that Catholic Preists are less moral than other religious leaders. Bear in mind that I am not insulting you cause I know you are Catholic. I was just trying to point the little flaws. I also know that you said that of the people you know, the BaPtists were the worst, well thats the few people you know out of millions. For all I know, maybe you just have really terrible friends. :D

[shade]

I have heard many more stories about Catholics molesting little boys than any other religion.
That is because the catholic church has an organised structure unlike almost every other denomination. Last year in austin texas there were at *least* 4 babtist ministers sent to jail for child abuse and molestation. It doesnt get air time because every babtist church is independant and therefore "doesnt cast a shadow" on others or some bs. When a catholic priest molests some, they are a part of a structure, and therefore it can be reported as a scandal, which gives high ratings on the news. When a babtist preacher molests children, its mentioned on the local news and the guy goes to jail.

[shade]

And when i said "guy sodom" that was a typo, meant to say guys in sodom. Hehe, kinda like when i left out *NOT* in my first post of another thread recently..

[Instigator]

Originally posted by shade

Its inverted. Those who cohabitate "pretend they are married" which includes sex almost 100% of the time. So those who cohabitate, are almost never celebate.

Those, shade, are faulty statistics. when your criteria does not coincide with your argument, your information is not reputable. Stop trying to bend the truth.

[shade]

Ok fountain, show me the facts.

[Instigator]

I don't have facts on celibate couples and divorce rates, and neither do you, assgoblin.

[BigMattTheHobo]

i dont think its a good thing to involve boy-molesting priests in any argument. im sure if you looked at every profession and some how got numbers of how many raped little boys they would prolly all be close to eachother (of course access to little boys would change numbers). the reason why we always hear about boys being molested is because its being done by people who are supposed to holy and such. i bet its happening a lot more then any of us could imagine.

[Delta]

My point was that he talked about the limited number of Baptists he knows. And Shade you are still not spelling BAPTIST right. :D

I wasnt trying to say that there are more molestations with Catholics, in fact, Shade you proved my point completely and thus negated your first one. Because there is more media coverage on Catholic problems than other religions, people will beleive that the Catholics are less moral. They are just hearing one side of the story, as you were when you tried to say that Baptists were less moral from your experience. Good point though (about the Structured system of Catholicism) I agree 100%.

[shade]

I don't have facts on celibate couples and divorce rates, and neither do you, assgoblin.
I simply have logic. Those who cohabitate are far, far more likely to have premarital sex than those who dont. Those who cohabitate are also far more likely to get a divorce. You dont always have to have a fucking gallup poll to prove something. Sometimes you should just use your brain... although I dont know how extensively logic was taught in the california school system.

[shade]

Ok found some statistics. BAM (http://www.unmarriedamerica.org/facts.html)

Mainly-
Premarital sex:
virgins at time of marriage:

Of those born between 1933 and 1942:
22% of men & 54% of women were virgins.

Of those born between 1963 and 1974:
16% of men & 20% of women were virgins.

unmarried cohabitation prior to marriage:

Of those born between 1933 and 1942:
84% of men & 94% of women did not cohabit.

Of those born between 1963 and 1974:
34% of men & 35% of women did not cohabit.


The virgin rate decreased massively as the cohabitation rate increased massively. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

Chalk up another thread for the conservatives.

[Brycelink]

Personally, I'm not a fan of alternative life styles in the first place, or if Cathlic, Baptist, or which ever religion molest children or not. If something like that happened at my church, I would do everything in my power to get rid of whoever was responsible. Seperation of church and state, right? But why on earth would it even matter if two fags got married? No, they shouldn't be allowed to adopt child, mainly because of the lifestyle they would be around. Of course its the adoption agency right to know if they put a child into the care of two people involved in homo-sexual acts. word.

[chris_78660]

has anyone considered the psychological problems of being raised in an orphanage as opposed to being adopted by a gay couple? basically it sounds like the people who are against gay adoptions, are just afraid of the child turning out gay.
am i wrong? and please consider the pro's and con's of an orphanage, even though (i assume:p) none of us have expirenced one...

[Delta]

You seem to think that there are orphanages all over the place with hundreds of thousands of parentless kids. Remember that there are always foster homes and there is a long list of couples who cant have kids that want to adopt. So I doubt that a child would actually stay in an orphanage long. The problem I have with gays parenting a child is this. In my long ago psych class, I learned that for a child to have a good mental balance, he/she needs to have both a mother and a father. Having that gives the child a good amount of feminine and masculine support. (And dont give me any BS about butch and bitch gays.) Its not that Im afaid of that kid being gay, its just that the kid needs balance.

[chris_78660]

balance comes from their personality, not gender...
by the way.....where are you getting the idea that children do not stay in an orphanage for long? and why would you possibly think that jumping from foster home to foster home, would be easier on a child than a gay couple? you sound like you are afraid of the child turning out like them...don't spin the subject.
besides, who are WE to say what is best for the children? who here has LIVED in an orphanage? been raised by gay parents? or even raised in foster care?...i know that i haven't

[shade]

My two friends raised by gay parents (lesbians) are heterosexual. They lack all of the traits that one would receive from "fatherly guidance" and have a big void in their life from the lack of a father. Its like handing a kid to a divorced family then also giving them the unique abuse of gay parents. Every day at school kids would pick on them about their gay parents then when they got home they had no father. Uniquely, one of them was severely mentally and physically abused by her butch mom.

There are plenty of normal straight parents that cant have children and want to adopt. Dont let the movies warp your impression of children being raised in orphanages. The standards for most adoption agencies are high for a reason, high demand. Let the stable households adopt.

[minia]

OK, sorry I am so late. Shade it seems you shifted the whole point to celibacy and marriage. My point was that you can't say gay parents are worse when half OF ALL marriages dissolve. That is not exscusively those of virgins, who incidentally are likely to be religious and therefore less likely to want to get divorced. Everyone has problems, kids get picked on for their big nose or how they run, their name, etc, etc. Why not ban biracial marriages? They get picked on, too. And kids that are raised by their mothers are likely to not have that "fatherly guidance" BS you hold so highly so I guess that is immoral as well. I know you are really conservative so I understand where you are coming from but please realize that the world is such that not everyone can have your idea of a childhood, but if two loving people want to live their lives together and have a family why stop them??

[chris_78660]

Originally posted by shade
My two friends raised by gay parents (lesbians) are heterosexual.
no one cares about your 2 friends. you cannot compare everyone to two misguided people that you've met in your life.....

Originally posted by shade
Its like handing a kid to a divorced family then also giving them the unique abuse of gay parents. Every day at school kids would pick on them about their gay parents then when they got home they had no father.
so instead of teaching acceptance in schools, we should just prevent conformity and not allow gay families in society?
times are a changing, and we need to keep up

Originally posted by shade
There are plenty of normal straight parents that cant have children and want to adopt. Dont let the movies warp your impression of children being raised in orphanages.
likewise...you have this mental image that every heterosexual family is perfect, and should be allowed to adopt with out gay people taking all the good kids [/sarcasm]. thats bullshit.
last month i saw a news special on how the orphanages would be impacted if they disallowed adoption to unmarried families. where are you getting the idea that the ophanages are empty?



Originally posted by shade
Let the stable households adopt.
that's the bigest pile of shit i've heard this morning. i assume that you mean at least 50% of the households will be stable.....that is the heterosexual divorce rate, you know.

[shade]

Hey minia, most adoption agencies dont allow single parents to adopt so your arguement about single parents adopting is completely void. And yes, I think it is immoral to rush in to a marriage or simply give up during a marriage, so single parents are simply a derivative of immorality, unless someone died. Most marriages that end in divorce end because of financial problems (richer or poorer anyone?) or infidelity, and last I checked, adultery was immoral. The thing is, you cant take kids from parents unless the kids are being abused. So no, you shouldnt take kids from single parents etc. But, that does not mean you cant let them adopt. You shouldnt encourage a likely to fail institution.

but if two loving people want to live their lives together and have a family why stop them??
The fact that the only way to have a child is by inserting a penis in to a vagina.

[shade]

times are a changing, and we need to keep up
Morals are decaying, so we should get rid of ours too.

likewise...you have this mental image that every heterosexual family is perfect, and should be allowed to adopt with out gay people taking all the good kids [/sarcasm]. thats bullshit.
No, its bullshit that you are changing my words. When I say normal straight parents, that means many things. 1: It is a married heterosexual couple, the way god (or nature if youre atheist) intended. 2: If this is a normal couple, who wants children but are infertile, it implies that they are not only emotionally prepared but also financially prepared for a child. These couples typically make better parents than ones with their own children.

last month i saw a news special on how the orphanages would be impacted if they disallowed adoption to unmarried families. where are you getting the idea that the ophanages are empty?
And from your own statement where are you getting the idea that orphanages are like they were in england in the 1700s?

[minia]

Shade please don't start acting like a jackass, I have a bit of respect for you.....Heard of artificial insemination?? That is actually how most lesbians would prefer it since it includes part of their own DNA. Gay guys can have a birth mother. And once again you turned it into somehting else.....I simply said women who raised children on their own were not wrong. You had implied they were somehow denying their hildren something because kids you knew that didn't have a father turned out badly....Half the kids I know are bring raised or were raised in a single parent home, predominantly by women. Yes some of them are not perfect but hey include 2 kids going to Rice, and all of them are well balanced individuals. I am just trying to get at the fact that you can't generalize based on 1 criterion. There are soooo many factors!!
And FYI all the guys I know who were rasied by their mothers are the most respectful, most caring, and more likely than not very well rounded individuals. No, they are not wimps, they include a couple of football players and a couple of Soccer players. They do, however, understand women better and will make ideal mates....

[chris_78660]

in a perfect world, shade would be right...
but like i said, times are changing, and we need to adapt our morals, not dismiss them. when did we stop accepting different lifestyles? isn't that what we were founded on?
and shade, if we ALL believed in your religion then you might have a point......but we don't

EDIT: just for clarification, i would PREFER that a child go to a hetero-home.

[shade]

There are soooo many factors!!
Exactly! Why keep compounding them?

and we need to adapt our morals, not dismiss them.
If there ever ends up being a "gay gene" discovered, or some other solid evidence that being homosexual is not a choice or is not the result of something bad happening during one's youth, then all of my thoughts on this matter are subject to change. Until then, there will be no adaptation of morals by me on this subject. In my opinion, people choose to be gay. There are many reason one would choose to be gay, not limited to but including: several bad heterosexual relationships, child abuse, sexual abuse, wanting to be "different," rebeling, trying to take control in ones life, and curiosity.

Sorry guys, but you are just going to have to consider me a religious republican hick on this area.

[BigMattTheHobo]

when there isnt enough homes out there for the poor kids waiting for families, i dont think it would be bad to let a some gays adopt, as long as they can meet whatever current adopting parents have to meet.

[Instigator]

but they corrupt american/christian/conforming family values! we cant allow that, matt!

lol i love it how everyone on this thread disagrees with shade.

u ever seen scarface, shade? remember the last scene?

[Instigator]

Originally posted by shade
When I say normal straight parents, that means many things. 1: It is a married heterosexual couple, the way god (or nature if youre atheist) intended.


Nature intended for us to marry? Judging by the amount of children a man is capable of having in his lifetime, I would not say mother nature intended for us to be monogamous.

Second of all, there is no evidence that shows that gay parents are less fit for the job than straight ones...I approve of it, as long as they make sure to have positive male and female role models. The only thing convincing you that "morals are decaying" are your own childish reacionary prejudices.

[chris_78660]

Originally posted by Instigator
The only thing convincing you that "morals are decaying" are your own childish reacionary prejudices.
i could not agree more. he has far too much disgust towards people different than him, that it forces his arguements to shoot off in a bias tangent.

[minia]

What does it matter if someone chooses to be gay or is gay by genetics?? Oh, I see... because if their genes coded for it THEN it would be discrimination:rolleyes:

[shade]

Nature intended for us to marry?
Nature intended the family to be male+female+children. Otherwise we would be asexual.

i could not agree more. he has far too much disgust towards people different than him, that it forces his arguements to shoot off in a bias tangent.
So incredibly wrong and I am amazed that you would say something like that chris. Did you not see where I said I have GAY FRIENDS? I also have three black friends. Had a hispanic girlfriend in high school. Dated an asian for a few days (before her racist dad said we couldnt). Had one jew friend before he moved to seattle. I would expect that to come from someone like instigator who preaches tolerance and diversity until he actually gets some in his face like me.

What ever happened to tolerating my political and moral views? Why do you have to persecute me for my beliefs? I thought you were supposed to be accepting. Ah ha! More liberal hypocrisy... tolerance and diversity is great, unless a liberal disagrees with you.

[shade]

Oh, I see... because if their genes coded for it THEN it would be discrimination
Why does it matter if someone is retarded as an excuse for them needing extra help? Why does it matter if someone has an extra Y chromosome which causes them to commit violent crimes? Why does it matter if someone has a chemical imbalance in their brain that causes them depression?

Because then it is not their fault. In my opinion (and that of *many* if not most people around the world) is that if homosexuality is a choice, it is a direct choice of sin. Just like a murderer choosing to kill someone. If however it turns out that homosexuality is in fact not a choice, then it is not their fault. That is why it matters.

[chris_78660]

Originally posted by shade
Ah ha! More liberal hypocrisy... tolerance and diversity is great, unless a liberal disagrees with you.
i'm not a liberal...
sorry if i offended you, but it seems obvious to me that if someone thinks different than you do, they are damned in your opinions. and just because you have black friends, doesn't mean that you aren't racist...i had to call on that one because it sounded ridiculous.

[Instigator]

HOLD THE PRESSES. SHADE HAS BLACK FRIENDS.

Good job shade. Here's your honorary badge, and your T-Shirt.
http://k4m1.com/tshirt.jpg

/sarcasm

shade, we know ur not in the KKK...ur little factoids about ur social life prove nothing.

as chris said, "no one cares about your 2 friends. you cannot compare everyone to two misguided people that you've met in your life....."

we really dont care about them. shut up and sit down.

[minia]

Originally posted by shade
Why does it matter if someone is retarded as an excuse for them needing extra help? Why does it matter if someone has an extra Y chromosome which causes them to commit violent crimes? Why does it matter if someone has a chemical imbalance in their brain that causes them depression?

Because then it is not their fault. In my opinion (and that of *many* if not most people around the world) is that if homosexuality is a choice, it is a direct choice of sin. Just like a murderer choosing to kill someone. If however it turns out that homosexuality is in fact not a choice, then it is not their fault. That is why it matters.

THIS is exactly my point. You act as if it is a crime for them to be gay. IT IS NOT, hey are harming no one. In the cases you just sited the people were deficient or impaired and it is rediculous that you compare them to people who are gay. A murderer takes life, hardly comparable to someone loving another person of the same sex!!
And when people start naming off all the minority friends they have it ususally just makes them sound even worse......You just basically said you've had major personal contact with about 10 people different than yourself.....not impressive.

[Instigator]

well said, minia. the microcosm does not prove the macrocosm. the fact that 3 members of bush's cabinet are black does not mean that most black people support bush, for example.

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by shade
If there ever ends up being a "gay gene" discovered, or some other solid evidence that being homosexual is not a choice or is not the result of something bad happening during one's youth, then all of my thoughts on this matter are subject to change. Until then, there will be no adaptation of morals by me on this subject. In my opinion, people choose to be gay. There are many reason one would choose to be gay, not limited to but including: several bad heterosexual relationships, child abuse, sexual abuse, wanting to be "different," rebeling, trying to take control in ones life, and curiosity. So you actually remember CHOOSING to be straight? I don't. I was just always attracted to girls only since I was a little boy. So I assume that since you say it's a choice YOU could choose to be gay if you wanted to. I couldn't. No matter what the circumstances, I find the thought of sex with another man disgusting. If you actually had to sit down and make a conscious choice between being gay or straight, maybe you're bi-sexual. If you didn't, what makes you think anyone else does?

[chris_78660]

well said steve...
i never looked at it that way before. i've been in agreeance with shade that homosexuality is a choice, but i think you just changed my mind....

[minia]

I think what really hinders everyone accepting Homosexuality is the fact that there are soem people that just want more ass so to increase their chances they switch hit. It demoralizes and discredits people who are actually gay. It makes them look like a bunch of sexual predators....I am not referring to experimentation in college either. Some people, girls esp, are curious and try it out, but for most it is just a little fun. However, there is one girl I know that basically is the transgender ho. You can only imagine std's thriving away....

[chris_78660]

Originally posted by minia
there is one girl I know that basically is the transgender ho. You can only imagine std's thriving away....
transgender like male and female sex organs?

[minia]

No like she jumps from one to the other like it's hopscotch, infecting people at will....

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by droogsteve
So you actually remember CHOOSING to be straight? I don't. I was just always attracted to girls only since I was a little boy. So I assume that since you say it's a choice YOU could choose to be gay if you wanted to. I couldn't. No matter what the circumstances, I find the thought of sex with another man disgusting. If you actually had to sit down and make a conscious choice between being gay or straight, maybe you're bi-sexual. If you didn't, what makes you think anyone else does?
Damn that's an awesome point. Your argument is awesome, and yea I agree with you all the way. But like you say, you didn't choose to be straight. So do you think that it's possible that the way you are raised has the effect of sexuality on you? Or is it solely genetic? I'm just wondering I don't disagree with what you've said. Sorry if this has already been answered I don't remember and am too lazy to read every thread again.

[shade]

the fact that 3 members of bush's cabinet are black does not mean that most black people support bush, for example.
Thats right, it just means Bush supports black people personally.

So you actually remember CHOOSING to be straight? I don't. I was just always attracted to girls only since I was a little boy. So I assume that since you say it's a choice YOU could choose to be gay if you wanted to.
Most gays are not attracted to the same sex until their late teens or even later in life.

[shade]

Some people, girls esp, are curious and try it out, but for most it is just a little fun.
Thanks for proving my point exactly.

You can only imagine std's thriving away....
And they hurt no one other than themself? How do these stds spread then?

[minia]

Thanks for taking what I said entirely out of context. I was specifically referring to those who only do it because they are experimenting, not those who strictly prefer the same sex. And the std's are spread by straight and gay alike, jackass.....that's the whole point. Being a ho, not characteristic of all gays, increases your chances exponentially. Seriously Shade, don't pull this assine shit.....

[minia]

Originally posted by shade
Thats right, it just means Bush supports black people personally.Most gays are not attracted to the same sex until their late teens or even later in life.

Do you have figures to back that up? And consider the factors, with people who are brought up in repressive homes are not likely to be able to express themselves until they are out on their own.....think a little before you say something so broad as that statement.

[shade]

Well... did you not hear me say that if in fact it is not their fault then no harm no foul? Those who do it just for experimentation are the ones that I am against. And for those who arent just experimenting, we need to try to find out of there is some gene that causes them to be that way, in which case its out of their control.

As far as stds go, the gay community (mainly men) spread stds more than any other group in the world (except for some areas in africa). Mainly because there is more promiscuity in the male gay community and male gay sex often involves a much greater chance to bleed...

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by shade
Most gays are not attracted to the same sex until their late teens or even later in life.
Really? A lot of cases of homosexuality that I've heard of include lack of interaction with girls all their life, usually from preschool/kindergarden on. That's when it seems to start. Teen years are when the signs first start to really show, not when they start to actually exist.
Second, "late teens or even later in life" is almost always when people start getting involved in dating and/or sex relationships. It's also right after puberty, which that has to do with the genetics of a person. It's like when your voice cracked during puberty. Did you intentionally crack your voice? No, it just happened. Puberty is something that you don't control, it's already part of you realistically from birth. The testes and ovaries of humans aren't active until teen years, when puberty starts. It's already with you, you don't have control over it, it's not your choice. Same thing for being homosexual, that's my opinion.

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by shade
Well... did you not hear me say that if in fact it is not their fault then no harm no foul? Those who do it just for experimentation are the ones that I am against. And for those who arent just experimenting, we need to try to find out of there is some gene that causes them to be that way, in which case its out of their control.

As far as stds go, the gay community (mainly men) spread stds more than any other group in the world (except for some areas in africa). Mainly because there is more promiscuity in the male gay community and male gay sex often involves a much greater chance to bleed...
Like minia said, got anything to back that up? How is there a greater chance to bleed? When a girl loses her virginity, she bleeds because a tissue, the labia, is broken. Seems like more blood there, unless gays get kicks out of masicism on their dicks...

[minia]

Originally posted by shade
Well... did you not hear me say that if in fact it is not their fault then no harm no foul? Those who do it just for experimentation are the ones that I am against. And for those who arent just experimenting, we need to try to find out of there is some gene that causes them to be that way, in which case its out of their control.

As far as stds go, the gay community (mainly men) spread stds more than any other group in the world (except for some areas in africa). Mainly because there is more promiscuity in the male gay community and male gay sex often involves a much greater chance to bleed...


1. There is no "fault" to it, it is a choice of who you love for God's sake.
2. Who are you to tell people they can't test other waters?? I guess white people should stay with whites if their parents were white just because, huh?
3. Once again, why does it matter if it is genetic?
4. Your stat regarding gay men is out of date, now condom use has increased immensely among all sexually active adults.
5. STRAIGHT PEOPLE SPREAD STDS TOO!! Half of all college kids will get an std, and the majority are straight so it seems to me they are the ones doing everyone an injustice.

[minia]

Dumbass it is actually the hymen (sp) that is broken but good point nontheless. Just because a man may bleed from sex with another man doesn't necessarily make him all the more suceptible. ANYONE who has unprotected sex, even oral, is subject to stds.

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by shade
Most gays are not attracted to the same sex until their late teens or even later in life. Another Shade manufactured fact. That's completely untrue and you know it. C'mon Shade, you never had a kid in your class that was picked on from kindergarten on because he was obviously gay? Several gay people that I know have told me that the most difficult part of growing up was when the were little kids and they realized that they were attracted to the same sex while their friends weren't. Many teens commit suicide because they can't deal with these feelings. Plus you chose to ignore my question like I knew you would, please answer it. Do you remember actually remember choosing to be straight? And if it's a choice could YOU choose to be gay if you wanted to. If you don't have that choice, what makes you believe others do? Or maybe you bi-sexual, since you can choose between being gay or straight at will.

[minia]

Shade recognize the fact that you are against irresponsibility, not gays....

[shade]

which that has to do with the genetics of a person.
And chemical imbalances. Like... a guy overproducing estrogen and underproducing testosterone.

How is there a greater chance to bleed?
I dont want to be graphic... have you ever taken a really big crap? Imagine doing that for 15 minutes?

1. There is no "fault" to it, it is a choice of who you love for God's sake.
Its a choice to go against christian, islamic, and jewish law. If you are against those, then so be it. Just like any other crime or sin is a choice, so is homosexuality (unless a natural cause is found).

2. Who are you to tell people they can't test other waters?? I guess white people should stay with whites if their parents were white just because, huh?
I dont recall any religions saying no interracial. They do say no gay sex. I am simply relaying the widely accepted law of God. If you choose not to hear or to disagree with it, that is your "choice."

3. Once again, why does it matter if it is genetic?
Then... its not their fault. Then they arent choosing to go against God. Its the difference between someone committing suicide and someone having a heart attack.

4. Your stat regarding gay men is out of date, now condom use has increased immensely among all sexually active adults.
Yet gay men still have the highest STD rate by a long shot. Straight vaginal sex does not cause bleeding for normal people. Gay anal sex does cause bleeding for normal men. There is a reason the FDA does not approve condoms. It is because actual condom failure rates are scarily high (like in the 20-40% range). The AIDS virus is like throwing a golf ball through a volley ball net. The bleeding caused by gay anal sex drastically increases the chance of such STDs getting through the condom or somewhere else on the body, like maybe a rough sore spot or rash that an std can get in to. Not all STDs are only transfered through sex. Its the unique rubbing of sex that is the most common way for them to be transfered. You could get AIDS from kissing someone who has aids if you both have chapped lips for shits sake.

Droog: totally not manufactured. It was covered in my college health and nutrition course.

[shade]

ANYONE who has unprotected sex, even oral, is subject to stds.
Not of its a monogomous couple that waited till marriage. Ill be enjoying unprotected sex for the next 50 years.

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by shade
Droog: totally not manufactured. It was covered in my college health and nutrition course. I'm not completely sure I believe that's what the course actually said. Even if it did that doesn't prove it's correct. You obviously read my post, yet you STILL choose to ignore my main question. Maybe I would take your opinions more seriously if you didn't ignore the questions that are difficult to answer. That only makes you look like you know that you're wrong.

[BigMattTheHobo]

maybe they are born gay, i mean, i didnt always find girls attractive. when i was small i couldnt imagine being with a girl. but not, after maturing it would be a great thing to be with a girl. so maybe its the same way for gays.

[shade]

In response to your question, yes droog, kids did pick on a kid that they thought was gay. That kid was me because I would cross my legs. Im not gay though... so... whats your point? In response to your other question, no, because heterosexuality is the natural way. I dont remember when I learned to talk, cry, or walk either.

[shade]

maturing it would be a great thing to be with a girl. so maybe its the same way for gays.
Exactly matt. Maybe its a gene that triggers them to like the same sex instead, or some "defect" or "problem" for lack of a better word, that causes their body to produce more of the opposite sex's hormone. If this is the case, once again, all of my previously stated opinions are subject to change.

Let it be known, I am no more against homosexuals than I am against any other people who have sex outside of marriage. However, I believe marriage has the prerequisite of heterosexuality. I have gay friends. Love the sinner and hate the sin.

[droogsteve]

Originally posted by shade
Maybe its a gene that triggers them to like the same sex instead, or some "defect" or "problem" for lack of a better word, that causes their body to produce more of the opposite sex's hormone. If this is the case, once again, all of my previously stated opinions are subject to change. That's the point that I was trying to make with my questions, Shade. I wasn't trying to badger you about your personal sexuality, I just wanted you to address the fact that YOU didn't have to choose to be straight. Just like gays don't choose to be gay.

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by shade
Yet gay men still have the highest STD rate by a long shot. Straight vaginal sex does not cause bleeding for normal people. Gay anal sex does cause bleeding for normal men. There is a reason the FDA does not approve condoms. It is because actual condom failure rates are scarily high (like in the 20-40% range). The AIDS virus is like throwing a golf ball through a volley ball net. The bleeding caused by gay anal sex drastically increases the chance of such STDs getting through the condom or somewhere else on the body, like maybe a rough sore spot or rash that an std can get in to. Not all STDs are only transfered through sex. Its the unique rubbing of sex that is the most common way for them to be transfered. You could get AIDS from kissing someone who has aids if you both have chapped lips for shits sake.

Droog: totally not manufactured. It was covered in my college health and nutrition course.
AGAIN, CAN YOU BACK THAT UP? I haven't seen one site, one reference to any document of any kind. Straight vaginal sex DOES cause bleeding for most, if not every, woman the first time she has sex.
Condom failure is only at 15% at the most.
http://www.canstats.org/articles.asp actually puts it at 10%, but the majority of studies I have viewed put it between 10 and 15.
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats/hasr1202/table7.htm and other charts on the site show that females have more STD's than males. I don't see support for your argument.

[BigMattTheHobo]

i would say that STD rates are higher among gay men, its been known since the 80s. that is why AIDs has become known as a "gay mans disease". butt sex is gonna cause dudes to be bleeding.

the thing i always say when a gay related issue comes up is, why would a person choose to be part of a group that is harrased, discriminated against and sometimes killed???

[Instigator]

Originally posted by droogsteve
Another Shade manufactured fact.

He just keeps em coming, doesnt he...

[Instigator]

Originally posted by shade

Its a choice to go against christian, islamic, and jewish law. If you are against those, then so be it.

shade's like a horse with blinders...Are you not aware, shade, that there are several levels of conservatism in religion?

for example, there are reform jews, who accept gays. there are progressive muslims, who also accept gays...the world is not as black and white as you wish it were, shade.

[shade]

wow instigator you have proven yet again that you can not read. I have stated that I accept gays, the people. I do not accept the gay sex. None of the above mentioned religions accept the act of homosexuality either. Although most accept the person themselves, just like every other sinner. Dont even try to talk about religion because it seems none has managed to get to you in California.

[shade]

Straight vaginal sex DOES cause bleeding for most, if not every, woman the first time she has sex.
Dude, were talking about spreading stds. I am not talking about the first time. Im talking about every time. I seriously doubt a virgin is gonna be giving someone an std from her blood, while it is possible she will receive on from her bleeding. I figured this was pretty obvious that i wasnt referring to just the first time.

and other charts on the site show that females have more STD's than males. I don't see support for your argument.
Great, that includes straight and gay. The gay community, out of all other communities, has the highest percentage of STDs. In other words, if you take 100 gay men, 100 straight men, 100 straight females, the 100 gay men will have more STDs than the rest. The male gay population in america is around 5%. So no duh the sheer # number skews towards heteros.

the thing i always say when a gay related issue comes up is, why would a person choose to be part of a group that is harrased, discriminated against and sometimes killed???
Yeah its totally uncalled for and done by complete hypocrits, not unlike muslim terrorists.

[chris_78660]

two pages back shade said somthing like "gay men spead the most STD's"
well actually, that was 5-10 years ago...now its strait black women that spread the most STD's. maybe it's because they think they are immune from oral sex...
does that mean that you will now discriminate against strait, black women?

[Instigator]

Originally posted by shade
I have stated that I accept gays, the people. I do not accept the gay sex. None of the above mentioned religions accept the act of homosexuality either.

wow did you read my fucking post.. allow me to quote myself (since you didnt respond to me proving your blanket statement wrong, maybe this second attempt will suffice)

for example, there are reform jews, who accept gays. there are progressive muslims, who also accept gays [and gay sex, you fucking idiot]...

[shade]

Wow instigator, you cant even read your own post. I guess i shouldnt be surprised. You said they "accept gays." A "gay" is a homosexual person. Yes, homosexual people are accepted. The act of homosexual sex however is not condoned or accepted. They are "loving the sinner and hating the sin." Remarkably retarded you are...

[shade]

does that mean that you will now discriminate against strait, black women?
After this im not going to continue responding on this subject. It is clear you all refuse to read what I say and are simply trying to demonize me.

Yes, I am against the act of extramarital sex. That means I am against the act of gay sex, the act of black women, white women, white men, black men, purple men, green women, brown men, brown women, anyone in the world who is having sex outside marriage, I am against their acts, and not them.

Stop trying to make me out to be a racist. You guys are pretty sick.

[Instigator]

Originally posted by shade

Stop trying to make me out to be a racist. You guys are pretty sick.

lol i love it. its shade against the world. keep fightin the good fight..even if no one outside of your reactionary circle agrees.

[Dumbass]

Originally posted by shade
Wow instigator, you cant even read your own post. I guess i shouldnt be surprised. You said they "accept gays." A "gay" is a homosexual person. Yes, homosexual people are accepted. The act of homosexual sex however is not condoned or accepted. They are "loving the sinner and hating the sin." Remarkably retarded you are...
Instigator, sorry to have to, but shade's right there. For example, Christianity states that it is morally acceptable to be gay, but not morally acceptable to act on homosexual tendencies.
On the other hand, Shade, you need to shut up. You are going too far. All you had to do was say something to prove your point, not be an ass about it.

[shade]

Yeah I know. I seem to be to weak when it comes to talking about instigator. He can be so frustrating sometimes. I cant tell if hes purposely misconstruing my words to piss me off or if he genuinely does not pay close attention while reading like hes watching tv at the same time or something (which i often do as well).