Political Crossfire Forums

[Thrilla]

callous wrote: Thrilla wrote: Quote: problem with homosexuality is its proven to be a genetic trait no.. i dont think it has been proven
got a link to that proof?

Its information that is as old as air....... its amazing how solid a job religious organizations have done about burying it.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/10_22_97b.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm
i wouldnt call either of those proof... alot of "maybes" "might be" and "could bes" in there..along with a lil speculation

[GrowHydro]

Thrilla wrote: callous wrote: Thrilla wrote: Quote: problem with homosexuality is its proven to be a genetic trait no.. i dont think it has been proven
got a link to that proof?

Its information that is as old as air....... its amazing how solid a job religious organizations have done about burying it.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/10_22_97b.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm
i wouldnt call either of those proof... alot of "maybes" "might be" and "could bes" in there..along with a lil speculation

Whether its a genetic trait or not shouldn't matter. No law should deny a good person, the pursuit of happiness based on a religious interpretation.

[Thrilla]

GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: callous wrote: Thrilla wrote: Quote: problem with homosexuality is its proven to be a genetic trait no.. i dont think it has been proven
got a link to that proof?

Its information that is as old as air....... its amazing how solid a job religious organizations have done about burying it.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/10_22_97b.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm
i wouldnt call either of those proof... alot of "maybes" "might be" and "could bes" in there..along with a lil speculation

Whether its a genetic trait or not shouldn't matter. No law should deny a good person, the pursuit of happiness based on a religious interpretation.
whats up with all the religion references?

[rxb fan]

GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: some people believe homosexuality is a sexual abomination...and nothing should be done to legitimize it

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

As for homosexuality not being natural, monkeys do it to. Its not a human invention.

Quote: But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
not sure why the religion angle was brought up....but its a nice quote anyway :-D

im not sure you are going to sway many people who think its an abomination with the " monkeys do it too" argument :lol:
monkeys also eat their own feces... i dont consider that normal either

Jefferson was saying that religion is between man and his god, and the public(government) shouldn't have anything to do with it. Making a law that forbids perfectly good citizens from marrying is showing favor to one religion, as people'a interpretation of god's will and laws differ.

Normal and natural are different. Normal refers to society, which can change. Natural means it occurs in nature, so in a way it is normal. Same with eating feces. If god created nature, and homosexuality occurs in nature, then he must have created homosexuality too. Thats what I'm trying to say.

then he also created the situation for nazis, murderers and power-hungry dictators. but he seems to be fine with us making our own decisions regarding these things for the most part. and my decision is: let homosexuals be treated by the law just as if they were heterosexuals.

[GrowHydro]

Thrilla wrote: GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: callous wrote: Thrilla wrote: Quote: problem with homosexuality is its proven to be a genetic trait no.. i dont think it has been proven
got a link to that proof?

Its information that is as old as air....... its amazing how solid a job religious organizations have done about burying it.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/10_22_97b.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm
i wouldnt call either of those proof... alot of "maybes" "might be" and "could bes" in there..along with a lil speculation

Whether its a genetic trait or not shouldn't matter. No law should deny a good person, the pursuit of happiness based on a religious interpretation.
whats up with all the religion references?

Why else would there be an attempt to ban gay marriage? People are talking about whats natural and what body parts are intended for. Where does a person base their reasoning for such questions, but in religion?

[FLea]

Hephaestus wrote: If anyone claims homosexuality is artifical and unnatural, not only are they attacking the fact that two men can fall in love, but they are clearly ignorant of non-traditional sex.

I would expect as much, for someone to condemn homosexuality would not bother to look into it...

Would you say sex has to a lot to do with ones' idea of how life started, religiously/darwinism?

Once I break down our conversation, we can begin to make progress.

[Gdawg007]

Quote: Let me break this down for you.

Organisims (most) all the way up the chain usually reproduce with the intent to produce offspring.

The hole you have bowel movements from was not intended for semen. Semen and sh!t do not make offspring.

Orgasm through means other than vaginal intercourse is clearly something that nature has encouraged in human beings. People can have orgasms from anal sex, or rather the act can excite them enough to make other mechanisms for orgasm possible. The notion that sex in humans is solely for reproduction has been proven wrong by anthropologists for a long time now.

Quote: This is what I am getting at, nothing more nothing less.
A line is drawn, between what the public views as socially acceptable and not socially acceptable. Because in the end WE have to pay for the decisions we make.


Funny. When you make this same argument against smoking people tell you that it doesn't impact anyone else just themselves. But smokers get sick and die from expensive diseases, and that costs all of us. Just like someone who sleeps with 100 people and contracts HIV. We all pay for that too. So howcome we can use this against homosexuals but not against smokers? Most things we do impact all of society. Are we only going to accept lifestyles that impact only individuals? I don't think many of those exist.

Quote: What I am stopping is the recognition of it. See you people try to use the "moral" shot at gay marriage, saying Guy (A) loves guy (B). That will not work on morally religious folk. Remember marriage is a privilege not a right. It is NOT my right to have equal benefits for my little brother, its what it is, a benefit/privilege, Not a right.

What people have to understand is this.

Sex is a dangerous activity no matter who you are or how few people you have it with. YOu can have sex with one person in your lifetime and it can kill you. You don't even have to have sex to contract the deadly STD's. So you can talk up being a one girl man as "safe," but you're fooling yourself. Are you safer than the guy who has two girls or three at a time? Maybe, maybe not. That depends on how much you know about that one girl versus how much he knows about those three.

I heard that something like 65 to 70% of all college aged people in this country have an STD. That doesn't mean they all have HIV or Herpes, but an STD of some kind. That's pretty high, isn't it? Is homosexual sex more risky that heterosexual? Not really. The transmission mechanism is the same regardless of what orifice is used. I don't see how we can argue that it's more dangerous to be gay or have multiple partners. It's as safe as you make it really. I don't see how we can argue that EVERY homosexual or person with multiple partners is more dangerous and thus ban all of it.

[RickyBear]

JustMe wrote: RickyBear wrote:
You get your "it's not natural" answer for one reason, in reality it is not. 2 men can not have children, nor 2 women, thus in actuality it is not a natural act,

That again is a religious explaination. Perhaps YOU think the purpose of marriage is to procreate, but not everyone does. Why do you think YOUR religious belief should take preceence over mine?

RickyBear wrote: now emotional it is a different story, I guess any 2 people of the same sex can love one another, I don't happen to agree with it and I would vote it down if it came to a vote, how ever you have to understand that by definition it is not natural, it is emotional, we are driven by our emotions more these days than in the past, way past that is, when natural instinct was the norm,

Emotions aren't "natural"? Love isn't "natural"?

I actually thank you for your post because you illustrated the point the the OP tried to make ...

That you can't give a GENUINE reason as to why Gay people shouldn't be married. You gave no good reason why YOUR views should prevent me from living my life as I wish.

If it is so natural than why do you have a pee-pee and a woman does not.
You guys are funny and I mean that in the literal sense, 2 males bodies don't match do they, seems a female is more apt to receive the pee-pee than the male bung hole, does it not. Last time I read my science, and it's been a while, and you can correct me if I am wrong that genitals were sex organs, right, when was the bung hoe classified as a "gentile", don't throw that that’s an religion crap on me when you know damn well that being gay is much more mental than physical, it is NOT NATURAL, get over your self already

[Thrilla]

GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: callous wrote: Thrilla wrote: Quote: problem with homosexuality is its proven to be a genetic trait no.. i dont think it has been proven
got a link to that proof?

Its information that is as old as air....... its amazing how solid a job religious organizations have done about burying it.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/10_22_97b.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm
i wouldnt call either of those proof... alot of "maybes" "might be" and "could bes" in there..along with a lil speculation

Whether its a genetic trait or not shouldn't matter. No law should deny a good person, the pursuit of happiness based on a religious interpretation.
whats up with all the religion references?

Why else would there be an attempt to ban gay marriage? People are talking about whats natural and what body parts are intended for. Where does a person base their reasoning for such questions, but in religion? well dont point that religion at me... it might be loaded :lol:
here is my take on the issue
1st... i dont care if gays marry... i wont stand in the way of that happening
2nd.. i wont support gay marriages either
3rd... i think homosexuality is a sexual abomination
4th .. i think f***ing goats is a sexual abomination
5th... i dont care if its hereditary, or by choice, or if you turn gay by eating turnips
6th....did i mention i dont care if gays marry?
7th...my religion doesnt care either.... i belong to the church of the NFL

[GrowHydro]

rxb fan wrote: GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: some people believe homosexuality is a sexual abomination...and nothing should be done to legitimize it

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

As for homosexuality not being natural, monkeys do it to. Its not a human invention.

Quote: But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
not sure why the religion angle was brought up....but its a nice quote anyway :-D

im not sure you are going to sway many people who think its an abomination with the " monkeys do it too" argument :lol:
monkeys also eat their own feces... i dont consider that normal either

Jefferson was saying that religion is between man and his god, and the public(government) shouldn't have anything to do with it. Making a law that forbids perfectly good citizens from marrying is showing favor to one religion, as people'a interpretation of god's will and laws differ.

Normal and natural are different. Normal refers to society, which can change. Natural means it occurs in nature, so in a way it is normal. Same with eating feces. If god created nature, and homosexuality occurs in nature, then he must have created homosexuality too. Thats what I'm trying to say.

then he also created the situation for nazis, murderers and power-hungry dictators. but he seems to be fine with us making our own decisions regarding these things for the most part. and my decision is: let homosexuals be treated by the law just as if they were heterosexuals.

Murder is a human interpretation of the act of killing, and killing is a fundamental part of nature.

Anyway, you got the right idea.

[rxb fan]

GrowHydro wrote: rxb fan wrote: GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: some people believe homosexuality is a sexual abomination...and nothing should be done to legitimize it

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

As for homosexuality not being natural, monkeys do it to. Its not a human invention.

Quote: But, actually, some same-sex birds do do it. So do beetles, sheep, fruit bats, dolphins, and orangutans. Zoologists are discovering that homosexual and bisexual activity is not unknown within the animal kingdom. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
not sure why the religion angle was brought up....but its a nice quote anyway :-D

im not sure you are going to sway many people who think its an abomination with the " monkeys do it too" argument :lol:
monkeys also eat their own feces... i dont consider that normal either

Jefferson was saying that religion is between man and his god, and the public(government) shouldn't have anything to do with it. Making a law that forbids perfectly good citizens from marrying is showing favor to one religion, as people'a interpretation of god's will and laws differ.

Normal and natural are different. Normal refers to society, which can change. Natural means it occurs in nature, so in a way it is normal. Same with eating feces. If god created nature, and homosexuality occurs in nature, then he must have created homosexuality too. Thats what I'm trying to say.

then he also created the situation for nazis, murderers and power-hungry dictators. but he seems to be fine with us making our own decisions regarding these things for the most part. and my decision is: let homosexuals be treated by the law just as if they were heterosexuals.

Murder is a human interpretation of the act of killing, and killing is a fundamental part of nature.

Anyway, you got the right idea.

even so, with your argument god would have then made killing a fundamental part of nature.

...or did he have no choice?

i'm a bit more aligned with the 'diast' side of religion.

[FLea]

Gdawg007 wrote:

Orgasm through means other than vaginal intercourse is clearly something that nature has encouraged in human beings. People can have orgasms from anal sex, or rather the act can excite them enough to make other mechanisms for orgasm possible. The notion that sex in humans is solely for reproduction has been proven wrong by anthropologists for a long time now.


You could probably google as much as I could regarding the intent of our genitals. Lets not go there, the conversation would be merely pointless.

Gdawg007 wrote:

Funny. When you make this same argument against smoking people tell you that it doesn't impact anyone else just themselves. But smokers get sick and die from expensive diseases, and that costs all of us. Just like someone who sleeps with 100 people and contracts HIV. We all pay for that too. So howcome we can use this against homosexuals but not against smokers? Most things we do impact all of society. Are we only going to accept lifestyles that impact only individuals? I don't think many of those exist.

Your right, this is definately far from a perfect world. My perfect world would be different from yours. This is my exact point. You draw the line here ______ I draw it here _____. So lets vote on it.

Acceptance comes at the state level. We all have our lines that need to be drawn. For example:

When in your mind, do you think a child is old enough to decide when to have sex, and when not to have sex? 8, 10, 12, 14? Where is the line you draw?

Gdawg007 wrote:

Sex is a dangerous activity no matter who you are or how few people you have it with. YOu can have sex with one person in your lifetime and it can kill you. You don't even have to have sex to contract the deadly STD's. So you can talk up being a one girl man as "safe," but you're fooling yourself. Are you safer than the guy who has two girls or three at a time? Maybe, maybe not. That depends on how much you know about that one girl versus how much he knows about those three.

I heard that something like 65 to 70% of all college aged people in this country have an STD. That doesn't mean they all have HIV or Herpes, but an STD of some kind. That's pretty high, isn't it? Is homosexual sex more risky that heterosexual? Not really. The transmission mechanism is the same regardless of what orifice is used. I don't see how we can argue that it's more dangerous to be gay or have multiple partners. It's as safe as you make it really. I don't see how we can argue that EVERY homosexual or person with multiple partners is more dangerous and thus ban all of it.

I never said a homosexual is unsafer than a nonhomosexual. What I am saying is leading a life of sex with sluts, barskanks can be unhealthy.


Try to answer this question, since I have tried at yours.

When is enough enough? I guarantee your enough is different than my enough. Only one fair way to do it, go to the polls, vote and see whom's interest is best being represented. The majority or minority.

In 2004 it was surely the majorities.

Remember, marriage is not a right. It is a privilege.

[Gdawg007]

RickyBear wrote: JustMe wrote: RickyBear wrote:
You get your "it's not natural" answer for one reason, in reality it is not. 2 men can not have children, nor 2 women, thus in actuality it is not a natural act,

That again is a religious explaination. Perhaps YOU think the purpose of marriage is to procreate, but not everyone does. Why do you think YOUR religious belief should take preceence over mine?

RickyBear wrote: now emotional it is a different story, I guess any 2 people of the same sex can love one another, I don't happen to agree with it and I would vote it down if it came to a vote, how ever you have to understand that by definition it is not natural, it is emotional, we are driven by our emotions more these days than in the past, way past that is, when natural instinct was the norm,

Emotions aren't "natural"? Love isn't "natural"?

I actually thank you for your post because you illustrated the point the the OP tried to make ...

That you can't give a GENUINE reason as to why Gay people shouldn't be married. You gave no good reason why YOUR views should prevent me from living my life as I wish.

If it is so natural than why do you have a pee-pee and a woman does not.
You guys are funny and I mean that in the literal sense, 2 males bodies don't match do they, seems a female is more apt to receive the pee-pee than the male bung hole, does it not. Last time I read my science, and it's been a while, and you can correct me if I am wrong that genitals were sex organs, right, when was the bung hoe classified as a "gentile", don't throw that that’s an religion crap on me when you know damn well that being gay is much more mental than physical, it is NOT NATURAL, get over your self already

All sexuality is more mental than physical. Your brain drives your actions, not your penis or vagina. Being heterosexual is mental. If it's a choice to be gay, then it's a choice to be straight, is it not? A choice requires a decision between at least two different things, does it not?

Feel free to use the word penis, by the way, or at least refrain from bunghole as it just conjurs up images of Beavis and Butthead... :-)

[GrowHydro]

Thrilla wrote: GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: GrowHydro wrote: Thrilla wrote: callous wrote: Thrilla wrote: Quote: problem with homosexuality is its proven to be a genetic trait no.. i dont think it has been proven
got a link to that proof?

Its information that is as old as air....... its amazing how solid a job religious organizations have done about burying it.

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/97legacy/10_22_97b.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3735668.stm
i wouldnt call either of those proof... alot of "maybes" "might be" and "could bes" in there..along with a lil speculation

Whether its a genetic trait or not shouldn't matter. No law should deny a good person, the pursuit of happiness based on a religious interpretation.
whats up with all the religion references?

Why else would there be an attempt to ban gay marriage? People are talking about whats natural and what body parts are intended for. Where does a person base their reasoning for such questions, but in religion? well dont point that religion at me... it might be loaded :lol:
here is my take on the issue
1st... i dont care if gays marry... i wont stand in the way of that happening
2nd.. i wont support gay marriages either
3rd... i think homosexuality is a sexual abomination
4th .. i think f***ing goats is a sexual abomination
5th... i dont care if its hereditary, or by choice, or if you turn gay by eating turnips
6th....did i mention i dont care if gays marry?
7th...my religion doesnt care either.... i belong to the church of the NFL

:lol: Thats the point it might be loaded. I'm not really arguing at you I'm arguing against a position.

I pretty much agree with all that, except homosexuality being an abomination. I see god created nature and it occurs in nature so I'm geussin he can't hate it that bad. I don't f***ing understand it, but it don't matter, as its none of my business.

Hey man is injecting steroids like taking communion in the church of the NFL? It's gota be.

[FLea]

Gdawg007 wrote: RickyBear wrote: JustMe wrote: RickyBear wrote:
You get your "it's not natural" answer for one reason, in reality it is not. 2 men can not have children, nor 2 women, thus in actuality it is not a natural act,

That again is a religious explaination. Perhaps YOU think the purpose of marriage is to procreate, but not everyone does. Why do you think YOUR religious belief should take preceence over mine?

RickyBear wrote: now emotional it is a different story, I guess any 2 people of the same sex can love one another, I don't happen to agree with it and I would vote it down if it came to a vote, how ever you have to understand that by definition it is not natural, it is emotional, we are driven by our emotions more these days than in the past, way past that is, when natural instinct was the norm,

Emotions aren't "natural"? Love isn't "natural"?

I actually thank you for your post because you illustrated the point the the OP tried to make ...

That you can't give a GENUINE reason as to why Gay people shouldn't be married. You gave no good reason why YOUR views should prevent me from living my life as I wish.

If it is so natural than why do you have a pee-pee and a woman does not.
You guys are funny and I mean that in the literal sense, 2 males bodies don't match do they, seems a female is more apt to receive the pee-pee than the male bung hole, does it not. Last time I read my science, and it's been a while, and you can correct me if I am wrong that genitals were sex organs, right, when was the bung hoe classified as a "gentile", don't throw that that’s an religion crap on me when you know damn well that being gay is much more mental than physical, it is NOT NATURAL, get over your self already

All sexuality is more mental than physical. Your brain drives your actions, not your penis or vagina. Being heterosexual is mental. If it's a choice to be gay, then it's a choice to be straight, is it not? A choice requires a decision between at least two different things, does it not?

Feel free to use the word penis, by the way, or at least refrain from bunghole as it just conjurs up images of Beavis and Butthead... :-)


Great point, but this arguement is stale.

I think personally, homosexuality and pedophilic tendencies are environmental. I dont think there is a sexual gene. Yet to be proven either way.

Like you have stated if its mental then its not genetic. Diseases are genetic, but how someone acts, or feels is not. Therefor we could assume someone becomes gay through environment, and not genetics.

To explain into more detail so there are not 103209321 follow up questions.

Environmental while using it in this context means, a situation, an experience, happening, perversion, an overloving uncle etc...

Edit ---> Dont get me wrong, I dont think its a choice to be a pedophile or a homosexual. I think Gods intent was heterosexual. But through environment, a very small % of people become the way they are.

[Gdawg007]

Quote: Your right, this is definately far from a perfect world. My perfect world would be different from yours. This is my exact point. You draw the line here ______ I draw it here _____. So lets vote on it.

Acceptance comes at the state level. We all have our lines that need to be drawn. For example:

When in your mind, do you think a child is old enough to decide when to have sex, and when not to have sex? 8, 10, 12, 14? Where is the line you draw?

I draw my lines based on how I evaluate the situation. In your child example, I would draw based on the child. Some 14 year olds may be quite capable for the emotional and mental consequences of sex. It's not likely, but I'd doubt it's an impossible notion. At 8, well that's hard to imagine, but do I draw the line on something just because I can't imagine it? Because in my view, it can only be wrong? What is the fear that drives you to draw the line somewhere? Let's also note that comparing children to homosexuals isn't fair. A child rarely has the emotional experience to handle a sexual relationship. Age of consent largely exists to protect children from adults, not other children. That's not the same scenario with homosexuality. Age of consent laws protect children, but how does banning homosexual marriage protect homosexuals? It doesn't. It protects you and your line in the sand. Is that right at the expense of others? You say you aren't pushing your way of life on people, but with your vote, you are.





Quote: I never said a homosexual is unsafer than a nonhomosexual. What I am saying is leading a life of sex with sluts, barskanks can be unhealthy.

It can be, but so can a life of sex without sluts and barskanks. So what's the point you're making here then?

Quote: When is enough enough? I guarantee your enough is different than my enough. Only one fair way to do it, go to the polls, vote and see whom's interest is best being represented. The majority or minority.

The answer is you put your faith in the majority only because you think that majority agrees with you. It's easy when you agree with the majority to say, "let's take a vote." Because you know the result will be something you can live with. When is enough enough? I don't know, but I know it feels wrong to deny two loving couples the ability to pass on property to the other in event of their death, or to keep families from taking children away who have been raised by a gay couple simply because they aren't protected under the law as straight couples are. That feels wrong. Letting a 40 year old marry an 8 year old feels wrong too, so you have no worries of a domino effect here. If after gays are allowed to have the same protections that marriage provides straight couples, I will not say that people should be able to do the same with pets or animals or those who cannot give consent. That's where I draw the line I guess.

The majority may be more, but that doesn't by default mean they are doing the right thing. Life maybe unfair, but the majority doesn't need to remind those of the minority of this fact. The minority usually knows this fact much better than the majority.

[Gdawg007]

FLea wrote: Gdawg007 wrote: RickyBear wrote: JustMe wrote: RickyBear wrote:
You get your "it's not natural" answer for one reason, in reality it is not. 2 men can not have children, nor 2 women, thus in actuality it is not a natural act,

That again is a religious explaination. Perhaps YOU think the purpose of marriage is to procreate, but not everyone does. Why do you think YOUR religious belief should take preceence over mine?

RickyBear wrote: now emotional it is a different story, I guess any 2 people of the same sex can love one another, I don't happen to agree with it and I would vote it down if it came to a vote, how ever you have to understand that by definition it is not natural, it is emotional, we are driven by our emotions more these days than in the past, way past that is, when natural instinct was the norm,

Emotions aren't "natural"? Love isn't "natural"?

I actually thank you for your post because you illustrated the point the the OP tried to make ...

That you can't give a GENUINE reason as to why Gay people shouldn't be married. You gave no good reason why YOUR views should prevent me from living my life as I wish.

If it is so natural than why do you have a pee-pee and a woman does not.
You guys are funny and I mean that in the literal sense, 2 males bodies don't match do they, seems a female is more apt to receive the pee-pee than the male bung hole, does it not. Last time I read my science, and it's been a while, and you can correct me if I am wrong that genitals were sex organs, right, when was the bung hoe classified as a "gentile", don't throw that that’s an religion crap on me when you know damn well that being gay is much more mental than physical, it is NOT NATURAL, get over your self already

All sexuality is more mental than physical. Your brain drives your actions, not your penis or vagina. Being heterosexual is mental. If it's a choice to be gay, then it's a choice to be straight, is it not? A choice requires a decision between at least two different things, does it not?

Feel free to use the word penis, by the way, or at least refrain from bunghole as it just conjurs up images of Beavis and Butthead... :-)


Great point, but this arguement is stale.

I think personally, homosexuality and pedophilic tendencies are environmental. I dont think there is a sexual gene. Yet to be proven either way.

Like you have stated if its mental then its not genetic. Diseases are genetic, but how someone acts, or feels is not. Therefor we could assume someone becomes gay through environment, and not genetics.

To explain into more detail so there are not 103209321 follow up questions.

Environmental while using it in this context means, a situation, an experience, happening, perversion, an overloving uncle etc...

Edit ---> Dont get me wrong, I dont think its a choice to be a pedophile or a homosexual. I think Gods intent was heterosexual. But through environment, a very small % of people become the way they are.

I don't think there's a gay gene either. I think it's a choice. But like I said, if it's a choice to be gay, what's the other half of that choice?

What envrionment makes people gay then? Because I don't know a single gay person who was raised by someone else who was gay.

There is little correlation between pedophiles and homosexuality despite what some "family" oriented groups may claim. A man who abuses a boy does not do so for sexual gratification the way he has normal sex with a women. He does it for power and control, NOT usually because he's turned on. Most males who molest boys have been molested themselves at some point, usually by another male, so the reaction is since they have now power over it happening to them, they get a sense of power by doing it to another boy. It's like the boss at work whom you know at home does everything his wife says. You know the type, they are always the ones in charge because that's where they can be. It's similar, not identical, but close. Few men who molest boys are truly "in love" with boys the way two adult gay males would be.

Diseases are emotional as well, in fact envrionmental stress is in the definition of a disease.

[FLea]

Gdawg007 wrote:


I draw my lines based on how I evaluate the situation. In your child example, I would draw based on the child. Some 14 year olds may be quite capable for the emotional and mental consequences of sex. It's not likely, but I'd doubt it's an impossible notion. At 8, well that's hard to imagine, but do I draw the line on something just because I can't imagine it? Because in my view, it can only be wrong? What is the fear that drives you to draw the line somewhere? Let's also note that comparing children to homosexuals isn't fair. A child rarely has the emotional experience to handle a sexual relationship. Age of consent largely exists to protect children from adults, not other children. That's not the same scenario with homosexuality. Age of consent laws protect children, but how does banning homosexual marriage protect homosexuals? It doesn't. It protects you and your line in the sand. Is that right at the expense of others? You say you aren't pushing your way of life on people, but with your vote, you are.

Great we evaluate situations the same. I hope you understand by answering that question, you also draw the line somewhere, based on the situation. My father let me drink wine with every meal when i was 10 years old. Because he is full blooded french and it wasnt a big deal. Well its technically illegal.

I am not pushing my way of life on others, because when you have to decide an "AGE" that a child is able to have sex. What decision would you make? In washington its 18 years of age. If I had to vote on it, it sounds like a good age. Maybe WE do push our "views" on others every time WE go to the polls. Its our system, and its the best we have.


Gdawg007 wrote: The answer is you put your faith in the majority only because you think that majority agrees with you. It's easy when you agree with the majority to say, "let's take a vote." Because you know the result will be something you can live with. When is enough enough? I don't know, but I know it feels wrong to deny two loving couples the ability to pass on property to the other in event of their death, or to keep families from taking children away who have been raised by a gay couple simply because they aren't protected under the law as straight couples are. That feels wrong. Letting a 40 year old marry an 8 year old feels wrong too, so you have no worries of a domino effect here. If after gays are allowed to have the same protections that marriage provides straight couples, I will not say that people should be able to do the same with pets or animals or those who cannot give consent. That's where I draw the line I guess.

The majority may be more, but that doesn't by default mean they are doing the right thing. Life maybe unfair, but the majority doesn't need to remind those of the minority of this fact. The minority usually knows this fact much better than the majority.

I am not worried about a domino affect, or someone making a wrong decision man. I simply draw the line here, and yes you draw the line there. I wont bend, I dont think marriage is a right, its a privilege. Just like driving and medical benefits.

Civil Unions... we are talking about drawing the line, and gays. Civil unions I am for, when it comes to civil unions shouldnt I have the right to put my brother on my insurance, and as beneficiary to my land or money? Or do I have to put my penis in his colon to call it "love"? I am for civil unions, but not limited to gays.

Being the majority does not mean your right, but its the best way to run a government and a "happier" society. In my opinion.

[FLea]

Gdawg007 wrote:

I don't think there's a gay gene either. I think it's a choice. But like I said, if it's a choice to be gay, what's the other half of that choice?

What envrionment makes people gay then? Because I don't know a single gay person who was raised by someone else who was gay.

There is little correlation between pedophiles and homosexuality despite what some "family" oriented groups may claim. A man who abuses a boy does not do so for sexual gratification the way he has normal sex with a women. He does it for power and control, NOT usually because he's turned on. Most males who molest boys have been molested themselves at some point, usually by another male, so the reaction is since they have now power over it happening to them, they get a sense of power by doing it to another boy. It's like the boss at work whom you know at home does everything his wife says. You know the type, they are always the ones in charge because that's where they can be. It's similar, not identical, but close. Few men who molest boys are truly "in love" with boys the way two adult gay males would be.

Diseases are emotional as well, in fact envrionmental stress is in the definition of a disease.

We can agree to disagree. I am not going to argue about what "i have seen" or what "You have seen" because its moot.

Let me give you a lesson on disease. You know obesity is now a disease, and acid reflux is a disease? You know why? Not necessarily because they are diseases, but because the are deemed diseases by the Food and Drug administration to peddle drugs.

Acid reflux is merely a condition where you actually dont have enough acid in your stomach to digest the food. A spoon full of apple vinegar will solve that problem. Its not a "disease" because its a disease, its labeled a disease so the food and drug administration can peddle drugs on the market.

Drug companies pay the FDA to label disorders as diseases ultimately to peddle drugs on TV, and market them.

Cost approximately 11 million to deem a disorder a disease.

K i got a racquet ball game tonight...
be back later

-flea

[Gdawg007]

Quote: Great we evaluate situations the same. I hope you understand by answering that question, you also draw the line somewhere, based on the situation. My father let me drink wine with every meal when i was 10 years old. Because he is full blooded french and it wasnt a big deal. Well its technically illegal.

I am not pushing my way of life on others, because when you have to decide an "AGE" that a child is able to have sex. What decision would you make? In washington its 18 years of age. If I had to vote on it, it sounds like a good age. Maybe WE do push our "views" on others every time WE go to the polls. Its our system, and its the best we have.

Doesn't mean that it's right, though. It doesn't mean that it's right in all situations, at least. Besides, why does 18 sound good? I mean, most 18 year olds are the ones making bad sexual decisions. Why not crank it up to 30? Or just 21? Why 18? What happens at that age where we suddenly say, OK, you're an adult. The data shows that most 18 year olds are irresponsible due to immaturity and lack of experience. And yet, we accept 18. The majority does. It's always struck me as odd.



Quote: I am not worried about a domino affect, or someone making a wrong decision man. I simply draw the line here, and yes you draw the line there. I wont bend, I dont think marriage is a right, its a privilege. Just like driving and medical benefits.

Civil Unions... we are talking about drawing the line, and gays. Civil unions I am for, when it comes to civil unions shouldnt I have the right to put my brother on my insurance, and as beneficiary to my land or money? Or do I have to put my penis in his colon to call it "love"? I am for civil unions, but not limited to gays.

Being the majority does not mean your right, but its the best way to run a government and a "happier" society. In my opinion.

I have never said that it's a right. I said, it's about what FEELS right or wrong. It doesn't feel right that your employer should pay for your brother's medical insurance. It does feel right that they should pay for someone living under your roof with whom you are a legal entity. I don't feel you should be able to do that with your brother. Why? I don't know exactly, but clearly it could get out of hand, which is to me like the domino effect I mentioned earlier. First your brother, then your cat, then Lord knows what sort of thing.

Whether you put your penis somewhere or not does not define live. Rape involves placing a penis sometimes in a vagina and it's not an act of love. So clearly, it's not the determining factor. Nor should it be to include or exclude people from certain legalities. It should be based on what employer paid benefits were meant to do, in this example, and that is to attract the best employees. It should not promote either social agenda, and it doesn't have to.

I agree with the civil unions, the gov't has no place in marriage, it's a religious establishment and should remain as such. I think if we did away with marriage and replaced them with civil unions, then the majority would not be against gays having all the same legal protections they have. If we left marriage up to the church, then they could decide who gets married and who doesn't. And the great thing is, you could start your own church if you want to marry another man or woman. Could you start one to marry a goat? I suppose, but you wouldn't be able to get a civil union for it, that's for damn sure.

A happier society for the majority. And if the majority is happy, I suppose then the nation is happier. But happiness is an inalienable human right, according the Declaration. That would to me say that unless by due process we take away the rights of the minority, we cannot simply impose our will and our happiness on them. Otherwise the majority could overrule all other rights that aren't inalienable, and clearly that doesn't happen. Rights aside, to me it's more a matter of providing legal protections, not redefining anything.