Support for gay rights at ‘high-water mark.’
By on May 30th, 2007 at 11:00 am
Support for gay rights at ‘high-water mark.’
“Gallup’s annual Values and Beliefs survey, conducted each May, finds current public tolerance for gay rights at the high-water mark of attitudes recorded over the past three decades.” Today, 59 percent of Americans believe that “homosexual relations between consenting adults” should be legal, and 89 percent believe “gays should have equal rights in terms of job opportunities.”
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Sports
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Then the Democrat nominee for President should run on this issue very loudly.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:01 amOh my, we are making progress!
May 30th, 2007 at 11:03 amYes, Daryll……?
May 30th, 2007 at 11:03 amGood news for the in-the-closet Right….come out, come out, wherever you are…
May 30th, 2007 at 11:04 amYes, Patrick1, they should. Next issue.
And preemptively to Daryll: just because the government acknowledges homosexual rights does not mean an individual cannot deny him or herself those rights. So, a homosexual who agrees with your fundamentalist religious views can deny him or herself through eternity if so desired.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:09 am…and God said, man shall not cleave unto another man’s buttocks ….seps if no one is around…. and they talk about football
May 30th, 2007 at 11:10 am59% think that gay relations (sex?) should be legal (gee, thanks), but 89% believe gays shouldn’t be discriminated against in the workplace. Meaning what, that 30% believe people having illegal, (and most likely in their view) immoral sex should be protected from work discrimination?
Huh?
May 30th, 2007 at 11:11 am#5 The point of course is that they won’t.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:12 amGeez, Patrick1, we thought you’d be happy. This means you might finally get some sort of “job” other than a hand one.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:13 amHow can we support homosexuals? I suppose that the good part is that one day they will be extinct.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:14 amHow can we support homosexuals? I suppose that the good part is that one day they will be extinct.
Comment by Saywho
They are human beings.
Why do you care anyway? You think we’ll extinct by next week.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:17 amas long as there are coservative republican parents there will be a fresh supply of homosexuals.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:19 amEven if homosexuals become extinct, they’ve already outlived your last remaining, functioning brain cell, Saywho.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:22 amWith the exception of the military higher-ups.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:24 amThey are human beings.
Why do you care anyway? You think we’ll extinct by next week.
Comment by Zooey — May 30, 2007 @ 11:17 am
I asked how we can support them Zooey. Organisms that don’t reproduce go extinct. I don’t think we are going extinct Zooey, I know we are going extinct. Extinction is part of are DNA and the reality of Darwinism. When will all of this happen and exactly how is another matter.
The energy issue is currently the most pressing threat. Our next threat is the food chain and climate. So, out of the pan and into the fire. Zooey you are correct, I don’t care about you at all!
May 30th, 2007 at 11:28 am“How can we support homosexuals?”
Easily, actually. All you have to do is make sure that they have the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities that everyone else has.
“I suppose that the good part is that one day they will be extinct.”
LOL… My goodness, but you are uninformed, aren’t you?
May 30th, 2007 at 11:29 amLOL the GOPer trolls always come on threads about homosexuals to bash them, but most of their party leaders in DC are closeted Gays.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:31 amSaywho
Say what?
May 30th, 2007 at 11:37 amIt’s called “self-loathing” and “projection”, Jay. Repubs have mastered both processes completely. The bigger the gay-basher, the more intense the self-loathing and projection.
We don’t ridicule all the Repub gay-bashers because they’re gay, we ridicule them because they think we can’t tell that they’re gay-gay-gay-gay-GAY!!!, when it’s so obvious they are. If they’d just come out of the closet and be what they are, they’d find out alot of us don’t hate them nearly as much as they hate themselves. What we really dislike about them is their… their… blatant, over-the-top REPUBLICANISM.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:40 amI asked how we can support them Zooey. Organisms that don’t reproduce go extinct. I don’t think we are going extinct Zooey, I know we are going extinct. Extinction is part of are DNA and the reality of Darwinism. When will all of this happen and exactly how is another matter.
The energy issue is currently the most pressing threat. Our next threat is the food chain and climate. So, out of the pan and into the fire. Zooey you are correct, I don’t care about you at all!
Comment by Saywho
That’s a lot of blah blah blah covering up your homophobia and bedwetting tendencies.
Oh good, please don’t give me another thought.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:42 amSaywho, if you’re arguing homosexuals will go extinct because they don’t reproduce then how did they come to pass in the first place? They have been around for millenia, so how is this possible if they don’t reproduce? If the only way they can exist is by reproducing, and homosexuals can’t reproduce, then how did they last past a single generation, much less hundreds, if not thousands.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:42 amIt’s sad that homosexuals are still considered different, however the trend lines are wonderful to see.
While I feel sorry for my gay friends, I definitely see the end of their discrimination in my lifetime. Actually it seems clear that we are rapidly approaching a tipping point.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:43 amSaywho, when will you learn to love your own latent homosexuality and stop projecting your self-loathing on those that have the courage to be honest about who they are?
May 30th, 2007 at 11:43 amCongrats to Mary Cheney and her non-existant (in the eyes of the law) partner on their bouncing baby boy!
Looks like they have found a WAY to avoid extinction saywho…maybe you should just excuse yourself from this thread and go DL some Jeff Gannon videos.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:46 am59%, hmmm. They are sinners. The 59%ers mostly cover San Francisco, Boston, Philadelphia and Atlanta.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:56 amHypocrisy about homosexuality is one of the biggest problems for GOPers, since many of them do the nasty with male hookers like Jeff Gannon and Matt Sanchez.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:57 amComment by Mike — May 30, 2007 @ 11:19 am
So gays and/or liberals don’t produce gay offspring?
I guess Paul missed your comment, so I’ll help him out:
“as long as there are coservative republican parents there will be a fresh supply of homosexuals.”
Comment by Mike — May 30, 2007 @ 11:19 am
LOL… My goodness, but you are uninformed, aren’t you?
May 30th, 2007 at 11:57 amComment by PaulB — May 30, 2007 @ 11:29 am
#25,
It takes a sinner to know a sinner.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:00 pm“as long as there are coservative republican parents there will be a fresh supply of ‘Closeted’ homosexuals.â€
my bad, zxz
May 30th, 2007 at 12:09 pmDaryll > the day you get drunk at one of your church functions, and wake-up the next morning in bed with the male pastor, then do not commit suicide over it dude.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:10 pmDaryll
If you think homosexuality should be criminalized and condemned through law, why stop there? How about a law that demands that you follow the ten commandments? You want a law to prevent people from loving each other because it fits your interpretation of God’s will. How about a law that orders you to love God and love your neighbor? How about a law that orders you to honor the Sabbath (the old “blue laws” were misguided as they didn’t have anything to do with the Sabbath)? Or a law that orders you to honor your mother and father, even if they were guilty of physically and sexually abusing you? If political laws are so great at bringing people to God, why didn’t Jesus become a political ruler?
May 30th, 2007 at 12:11 pmI was thinking the same thing. That makes no sense! That aside, 59% is a SAD figure for a nation as “developed” as we are. That’s very sad. However, I bet in the 60s, if you substituted “black” for “gay” in all those questions, you’d get similar figures, so maybe that means we are on the cusp of more stupid old fashioned values dying out?
May 30th, 2007 at 12:29 pmIt looks like TP does not want me to talk about homosexuality or illegal aliens! I would love to address questions but am at a loss as to how to do that since TP constantly deletes my posts. TP seems to have taken sides on the issues?
May 30th, 2007 at 12:36 pmLoL looks like ThinkProgress just nuked it, but there was a hillarious, although very inappropriate, post by SayWho. I won’t repeat the content other than to say that it shows that he’s a total fake. Although I really think most TP trolls (who seem to be multiplying) are getting more and more cartoonish and do a better job of parodying themselves than any professional comedian could hope. What the heck is going on with the trolls? Am I suffering from some twisted nostalgia, or did they used to be more intelligent and more fun to debate here? Now they just sound like Bill O’Reilly on a tape loop.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:37 pmalthough very inappropriate, post by SayWho
Comment by Parrotlover77 — May 30, 2007 @ 12:37 pm
Many would say the same thing about public displays of affection between homosexuals. I could post that a million times through a million proxies but there was nothing in that post that was dishonest, wrong, out of context or profane. I don’t curse here since there is a word filter and because I don’t curse much in real life.
Talking about sexuality and the like while using clinical and medical terms is not easy to do but I managed it. Here we are to honestly talk about conduct that is promoted by many here and then censored since that very conduct is considered vile.
You pretend to know me but you don’t.
May 30th, 2007 at 12:50 pmIt looks like TP does not want me to talk about homosexuality or illegal aliens! I would love to address questions but am at a loss as to how to do that since TP constantly deletes my posts. TP seems to have taken sides on the issues?
Comment by Saywho — May 30, 2007 @ 12:36 pm
Wow, TP taking a side on in issue? Isn’t that a breach of blog ethics or something??? Certainly no right-leaning blogs ever take sides on any issue…
By the way, Saywho, perhaps your answer was in the post that was deleted, but I’m curious how you explain the existence of homosexuals through millenia of human history if your premise that “since they can’t reproduce, they will soon become extinct” is true?
May 30th, 2007 at 12:54 pmHere we are to honestly talk about conduct that is promoted by many here and then censored since that very conduct is considered vile.
Comment by Saywho — May 30, 2007 @ 12:50 pm
Slight correction: the fact that many TPers support the rights of gays to love whomever they choose is not the same thing as “promoting” that “conduct”. We see no harm to individuals or society if adults conduct their private lives in responsible ways, and we see no reason to condemn fellow citizens for behavior that affects no one but themselves and their consenting loved ones.
Speaking for myself, a heterosexual male, I have no interest in “promoting” homosexual behavior (as I read the term “promote”) but neither do I have any interest in restricting it or condemning it.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:02 pmLearned behavior like smoking or drinking gasoline or a genetic mutation or complete BS. I know that when animals do it, it is related to dominance but their minds are not as complex.
Homosexuals claim that they are born this way so that it is genetic. They go further and claim that since they exist and that many animals have this behavior then we are all in fact homosexuals. If you observe two male chinchillas they will demonstrate this behavior in order to establish dominance. If the same two males were mated with females provided fertile then they would reproduce.
If the Chinchillas were born homosexuals then they would go extinct since they would not be able to reproduce. At best you could claim they are bisexual. Observation indicates that when male Chinchillas do this behavior it is an act of dominance (pecking order). Homosexuals have no method of natural reproduction so enter science or adoption.
If X were male and Y were female they could create several Zs who could be Xes or Ys. Barring science, if two Ys or two Xes meet they can create no Ys and are rendered unable to sustain their genetic codes. Hence that particular DNA is lost for all time and this is extinction at work. Natural selection at work.
Homosexuals own natural selection terminates both blood lines! It is fun to talk about this but like I said you would need science or to step outside the homosexual pair bond to have a genetic chance. So to the point homosexuality relies on heterosexuals in the end or expensive science (a woman can do this not a man).
May 30th, 2007 at 1:27 pmSaywho, you seem to have only a rudimentary understanding of biology and an even dodgier notion of Darwinism. Homosexuality exists in all creatures with gender. Indeed, it’s difficult to say where the line between male and female falls.
I take it you’ve heard of the Gay Factor in economics, Saywho? Perhaps it explains why gays and lesbians spontaneously appear in each generation. They may not be procreative, but they have a higher potential for creativity. And communities that welcome them have a higher standard of living.
Daryll, do you know the story of David & Jonathan? A beautiful same-sex romance in the Bible. And told without all the fire and brimstone crap. And sinners? Daryll, we are ALL sinners. Even you. And you can’t foretell who will be saved or who will be damned. Not unless you’re the Lord Almighty Herself.
What distresses me about you, Daryll, is that you want to go out of your way to punish people. Judge not. Unless you’re following all the laws and commandments of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, I don’t see how you can claim to be without sin in the eyes of God. Nor can I understand how you can ignore tradition when you quote scripture; the Bible is not one book, but many books and each book is a story in itself, struggling to find meaning.
If you’re hung up on sex, you’ll never find release from the cross of the flesh.
May 30th, 2007 at 1:31 pmSaywho,
Hello!? Wake up!
HETEROSEXUAL parents are producing HOMOSEXUAL offspring!
Get it?
May 30th, 2007 at 1:33 pmSaywho
A few points in response to your biology lesson:
May 30th, 2007 at 1:41 pmThe end of a particular individual’s bloodline is not the same as extinction. Being attracted sexually to the same gender is not equivalent to being unable to reproduce.
Heterosexuals create homosexuals, somehow.
Homosexuality is simply a variation of gender that nature/God has, rather than the either/or manner in which humans tend to view gender and other phenomenon.
I’ve read the stories of King David in the Old Testament. I don’t believe there’s anything in scripture to suggest that David and Jonathon had sexual relations. The Bible does record that they loved each other, but I see no reason to think this is anything but the closeness of two really good friends.
Do you have some collaborating scripture to support your assertion? Something other than your desire to conform scripture to your agenda?
It is recorded that King David’s sexual behavior caused him, and others, many problems. He even ordered that the husband of the woman with whom he committed adultery be placed in the most dangerous posts in a battle. IOW, he had the husband killed. He repented but suffered dreadful consequences because of his behavior. His family was dysfunctional and his son’s rebellious.
If you want to reference scripture on sexual behavior, why not mention what Jesus said in the book of Matthew. This is from chapter 19:
http://bibleresources.bible.com/passagesearchresults2.php?passage1=Matthew+19&book_id=47&version1=31&tp=28&c=19
“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
In short, Christ said the one man one woman – forever – is the best model for everyone. This arrangement was the intent of the Creator, and safeguards one emotional, physical, and spiritual wellbeing. It’s certainly a sure cure for AIDS
May 30th, 2007 at 2:05 pmSaywho: I had been wondering how someone could come up with the illogical conclusions that you reach. After seeing the thought patterns displayed in your explanation above, that question has been answered.
Thank you.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:07 pmthat’s right bit bit, it’s just the gays having the aids sex
May 30th, 2007 at 2:13 pmyou sir are truly a scholar
It’s certainly a sure cure for AIDS
Comment by bitblt
Wow. You’re pretty stupid, aren’t you?
Everyone knows there are absolutely no heterosexual men or women who have, or ever will have AIDS. No sir-ee bob.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:18 pm/sarcasm
So homosexuals are a different species of human?
May 30th, 2007 at 2:19 pmI don’t think I’ve ever come across that argument before.
Wilco and Zooey,
Believe you reading something that’s not there. You might want to give what I wrote an additional thought or two.
One man one woman is the sure cure for all AIDS spread by sexual contact.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:23 pmSpeaking for myself, a heterosexual male, I have no interest in “promoting†homosexual behavior (as I read the term “promoteâ€) but neither do I have any interest in restricting it or condemning it.
Comment by KRank — May 30, 2007 @ 1:02 pm
This is called rationalization on your part KRank. You say that you don’t restrict or promote this behavior. You in the start of your reply called it “LOVE”. You would need to establish a fact that “love” is a tangible object or thing before you can establish that on a even deeper level if love exists then is good or bad, natural or unnatural. Natural selection terminates or makes irrelevant given blood lines that diverge from the natural path.
As you stated you are heterosexual so to you in reality homosexuality is irrelevant. You also said you had no interest in, “restricting it or condemning it.” Now you imply that you are reserving a power to restrict it or condemn it, but since you’re not interested in it you don’t. It in this case is the realization that homosexuality is irrelevant to heterosexuals.
If homosexuality represented a direct threat to your ability to reproduce than your reserved power to restrict or condemn the behavior could be used. This is survival of the fittest in action.
Friend, I have no quarrel with you or bone to pick I just needed to point out that when push comes to shove why waste your time debating irrelevant bonding choices with someone (me) who has already determined that it would be silly to practice homosexual behavior.
Now what I think is that if people want to be together MM or WW or WM then all they need do is do so. Beyond that all marriages by the government should be condemned since they more often than not lead to divorce. Matters of support need to be addressed through contractual law. Insurance matters need to be addressed with contractual law. Matters of health care and hospital stays should be addressed by living will, family or friends.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:26 pmbitbit, it’s not a cure.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:29 pmit may be a preventative measure, but not a cure
same can be said of one man one man, or one woman one woman
if you only “mate for life” then you can prevent all std’s, regardless of whether you’re in a hetero- or homo- sexual relationship
Saywho, you are a crank. Marriage is a contract. That’s why it’s the reponsibility of the state. The Church didn’t even perform marriage rites for several hundred years. It was a State thing.
bitbit, you might try reading David loved Jonathan more than women. If you can’t pick up on the hints in the Bible, how can you ever hope to decifer the parables of Jesus?
And Saywho, you really don’t know anything about genetics, do you? Just like all your conspiracy posts and goofy theories on everything, you just make up what you imagine you overheard while doodling during high school biology. If you have no problem with homosexuality, get over it. And don’t start talking nonsense such as “natural” and “unnatural” behavior as if it were some psychosis. And don’t pretend to know what’s meant by “love” when you clearly have never known it.
May 30th, 2007 at 2:57 pmSaywho said marriage is the leading cause of divorce. I kid you not.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:02 pmZooey
david
Simple stuff here:
Zooey replies are mainly ad hominems
KRank replies seemed to be debate till he resorted to ad hominms
David’s replies are mainly ad hominems
May 30th, 2007 at 3:02 pmSaywho said marriage is the leading cause of divorce. I kid you not.
at least without context, that’s funny.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:09 pmseriously, how “sacred” is marriage btwn man & woman when 1/2 end in divorce
if it truly is sacred, then legislate requirements for a marriage, such as love, or living together, or even basically liking each other.
but that’s not going to happen, is it. and it shouldn’t. marriage is a social contract. it has nothing to do with “sacred” or “profane”, as it has no qualitative qualification. it’s simply an agreement between two people
All you TP flunkies need to pick up a college (Human Physiology) text book and study the male/female reproduction chapter. Study and understand how the male and female are designed to function together sexually.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:10 pmFlaco, what does that have to do with this?
May 30th, 2007 at 3:14 pmUnless you’re stating the only “right” sex is the standard? So no manual, oral, etc, either.
Ever.
And are you stating sex is only for reproduction?
I’m not sure what you’re getting at.
Saywho said marriage is the leading cause of divorce. I kid you not.
Comment by david — May 30, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Yes, I did since the truth is that the divorce rate is over 65% now. If you don’t get married then you can’t get divorced! The idea of marriage is that the breeding pair pays money for a license and then (in the past) pays for medical tests to secure permission to be married. In the end 65% or more get divorced. The institute of marriage has produced a sea of lawyers. Since the odds are so poor the government should replace marriage with a prenuptial session with a onetime fee.
The government instituted laws to minimize the damage of drugs and the damage of bad marriages should be addressed before they are even entered.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:19 pmWilco and Zooey,
Believe you reading something that’s not there. You might want to give what I wrote an additional thought or two.
One man one woman is the sure cure for all AIDS spread by sexual contact.
Comment by bitblt
bitblt,
These two are not able to understand what you are saying so do not waste time with them (low IQs).
May 30th, 2007 at 3:19 pmI’m not sure what you’re getting at.
Comment by Wilco
That is understandable for you Wilcox.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:21 pmSorry it is over your head.
Saywho, you think my posts are mostly ad hominem attacks? LOL. But you are wrong about the history of marriage. And your outline of genetics is barely correct when applied to peapods and not at all when applied to codpieces.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:24 pmFlaco, if you have nothing sensible to contribute to the discussion, then be a gentleman and leave.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:29 pmLearned behavior like smoking or drinking gasoline or a genetic mutation or complete BS. I know that when animals do it, it is related to dominance but their minds are not as complex. Comment by Saywho — May 30, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
So what you’re saying is that homosexuality in Animals is different, because they don’t have “control” over their own behavior? Is that how you prevent yourself from acting on your Homosexual “urges”?
As for the genetic mutation – is that why several studies have identified genetic differences in gay people?
Don’t let *science* confuse you with your bigotry, and religious dogma – idiot.
Homosexuals claim that they are born this way so that it is genetic. Comment by Saywho — May 30, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Actually *scientists* are the ones that claim this – as most homosexuals aren’t *geneticists*. What most Homosexuals claim is that they “knew” they were gay – in the same way that heterosexuals “knew” they were straight. If you don’t “know”, you are either bisexual or in your case “in denial”.
They go further and claim that since they exist and that many animals have this behavior then we are all in fact homosexuals. If you observe two male chinchillas they will demonstrate this behavior in order to establish dominance. If the same two males were mated with females provided fertile then they would reproduce. Comment by Saywho — May 30, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
You actually are st*pid enough to try to conflate acts of “dominance” with pairing and mating? You do realize that several species that “mate” also pair up exclusively as homosexuals – right? Even when there are “plenty” of other gender available? As for your “two males” comment – typical closet male. Homosexual behavior exists for both male and females of species – idiot.
If the Chinchillas were born homosexuals then they would go extinct since they would not be able to reproduce. At best you could claim they are bisexual. Observation indicates that when male Chinchillas do this behavior it is an act of dominance (pecking order). Homosexuals have no method of natural reproduction so enter science or adoption. Comment by Saywho — May 30, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
BAHAHAHA, what a st*pid comment! You are dum enough to imply that this trait only gets passed on directly? Ever heard of “recessive” traits? You do realize that homosexuals like Rev. Haggard do also reproduce – right? Isn’t an active “fantasy” life great – is that how you pretend you’re straight?
If X were male and Y were female they could create several Zs who could be Xes or Ys. Barring science, if two Ys or two Xes meet they can create no Ys and are rendered unable to sustain their genetic codes. Hence that particular DNA is lost for all time and this is extinction at work. Natural selection at work. Comment by Saywho — May 30, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Natural selection occurs at both a “species” and an individual level. If as a species, it’s more beneficial to have a ‘recessive’ trait that produces ’spare’ individuals that don’t reproduce for the most part but contribute to society – it can help the whole group survive.
Your understanding of ‘genetics’ (or lack of it) has made me nearly bust a gut – LAUGHING AT HOW ST*PID YOU ARE!!!!
Homosexuals own natural selection terminates both blood lines! It is fun to talk about this but like I said you would need science or to step outside the homosexual pair bond to have a genetic chance. So to the point homosexuality relies on heterosexuals in the end or expensive science (a woman can do this not a man). Comment by Saywho — May 30, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
Unless they stay in the closet like you and Daryll have, and reproduce – right?
Ironically gay people don’t have any higher percentage of gay children than straight people do – which kind of flies in the face of the “simpleton” genetic theories you like to believe…
Sorry dum bass – but you have no legitimate reason to “hate” gay people. Your prejudice is unfounded, and your arrogance is amusing considering how st*pid you are!!!
May 30th, 2007 at 3:31 pmAll you TP flunkies need to pick up a college (Human Physiology) text book and study the male/female reproduction chapter. Study and understand how the male and female are designed to function together sexually. Comment by Flaco — May 30, 2007 @ 3:10 pm
Does that chapter cover XY chromosome females, hermaphrodites and other sexual ‘variations’? How exactly are those supposed to *function* again?
You do realize that our species and all mammal species arose originally out of hermaphroditic, and non-sexed life – right? Your *simplistic* view of sexuality and biology really makes me laugh!!! Tell me, did you get that from the same *book* that taught you the earth was *flat*? BAHAHAHAAA
May 30th, 2007 at 3:34 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
My following comments are not made to assert that since I don’t know about these things, they can’t be true.
Rather, I’m presenting my degree of understanding, and if you have links, or other info, that show I’m wholly incorrect, I’d appreciate being corrected.
I have read about these studies, and I understand that none of them have reached the conclusion that the differences are causative.
I believe there have also been brain studies that suggest physiological differences between the brains of heterosexual and homosexual men, but none of these – as far as I know – have concluded that the differences are causative. They are simply observagtions.
And, as would be important in science, none of the brain studies can tell if the differences occurred after or before the individual “became†involved in homosexual behavior.
There are also brain studies that show that learning to juggle or a mother hearing the cry of her newborn causes changes in the brain. The study of the jugglers also shows that when the individuals stop juggling, the changes when away.
Could you cite one study, or one source, that claims that a cause for homosexuality have been found? I’m not looking for studies that suggest a cause has been found. I’m looking one that says the cause has been found.
May 30th, 2007 at 3:52 pmI have read about these studies, and I understand that none of them have reached the conclusion that the differences are causative.
I believe there have also been brain studies that suggest physiological differences between the brains of heterosexual and homosexual men, but none of these – as far as I know – have concluded that the differences are causative. They are simply observagtions.
And, as would be important in science, none of the brain studies can tell if the differences occurred after or before the individual “became†involved in homosexual behavior.
Yet there ARE genetic differences that have been identified. That means there IS a genetic component – period.
Go read this article, it debunks the “Gay gene dies out” b*llsh*t.
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6519
Could you cite one study, or one source, that claims that a cause for homosexuality have been found? I’m not looking for studies that suggest a cause has been found. I’m looking one that says the cause has been found. Comment by bitblt — May 30, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Oh dear st*pid nitwit. That’s the problem with you dum bass fools. You always want a *simple* answer. Had it ever occurred to you that genetics isn’t so simple? Two people that both have the same gene say for “diabetes”, don’t necessarily express it – depending on other genes, factors, etc. That doesn’t mean that diabetes doesn’t have a genetic factor, nor does it mean that the gene isn’t “causative” for the diabetes.
In otherwords – your post is st*pid, ignorant, and non-scientific. Just as I would expect from the anti-intellectual wingnut circles.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:03 pmCould you cite one study, or one source, that claims that a cause for homosexuality have been found? I’m not looking for studies that suggest a cause has been found. I’m looking one that says the cause has been found. Comment by bitblt — May 30, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
Don’t be a dum bass. There isn’t “THE CAUSE”, as though it’s some dreaded “disease”. That’s insulting to gay people, you f*cking homophobic bigot.
If you want to know the likely genetic factors that are known to be involved in homosexuality – look here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_basis_for_homosexuality
May 30th, 2007 at 4:07 pmThanks for taking time out of your busy day to comment.
Am I safe in assuming this means the studies “suggest” a link but have not confirmed causation?
IOW, you roll the dice and you get a homosexual.
My understanding is that the factors that produce a male homosexual are different from the factors that produce a female homosexual.
I’m under the impression that the emotional factor has much greater influence with female homosexuals.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:13 pmPost not directed to any one poster…
Once a blood line ends it is extinct. If you do not reproduce your DNA ceases to move to another generation and it can be said at your passing that you went extinct. Individual blood lines diversify or go extinct. Ultimately the diversified blood lines go extinct as well since the eventuality is that the line ceases to diversify (environment and or reproduction issues break chains). So extinction is coded into our DNA since our only immortality is established through reproduction.
Hence homosexuality to me signifies an irrational behavior that caters to self gratification. Sex and love are two different things. Homosexuality explains a sexual behavior not love. Rationally I loved my father but I never had sex with my father. Intuitively you can then understand that if my father and I did have sex that relationship would be viewed as incest and against nature.
How many of you approve of incest? You want homosexuality to be accepted so then you should have no problem with incest or even pedophilia since a young person could fall into love with an older person. Pedophilia has a better chance of extending blood lines since it could result in natural selection but homosexuality all said and done is self indulgent sex. Marriage is for breeding pairs and creates protections for the offspring (for all of that there is the gift of marriage penalty).
David’s ad hominem attack of my claim that marriage should be abolished altogether since statistically marriages do more harm than good does not discuss the constitutionality of marriage. Why would I need permission from the government to do something that I want to so long as it could only hurt me? I could marry a woman and then later on decide to beat her. Now someone is getting hurt even though that was not the intent.
If you live with someone long enough you are considered married even though you are not married. The sea of lawyers throws the word palimony around. The main thing couples need is joint insurance and power of attorney. Two people should just be able to call themselves married and if they want any severance then they need paper contracts.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:17 pmValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
Since I haven’t read the wikipedia reference, for which I thank you, perhaps you can help me, and all the readers who see these posts.
Will the wiki reference tell us why homosexual men desire to have sex with other men on the streets of American cities? ( New Orleans Southern Decadence Festival )
Is this desire also genetic, or should we just go with perverted – or is that too simple for you?
May 30th, 2007 at 4:18 pmYou do realize that our species and all mammal species arose originally out of hermaphroditic, and non-sexed life – right?
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
False, not true, another flunkie joins the TP science team.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:19 pmFlaco, you are not contributing.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:27 pmIf you find a statement to be false, explain why.
It’s how adults discuss things.
Believe you reading something that’s not there. You might want to give what I wrote an additional thought or two.
One man one woman is the sure cure for all AIDS spread by sexual contact.
Comment by bitblt
No bitbit, I got it. You’re still full of it.
One man (or woman) can come into a relationship with AIDS, knowingly or unknowingly.
I haven’t read the comments after your very confident assertion yet, but I’m sure someone has already said this. Just reaffirming….
May 30th, 2007 at 4:31 pmAnd SayWho, I absolutely disagree that “marriage is for breeding pairs,” as there is absolutely NO such requirement. Again, there are no requirements for getting married aside from one person being a man and the other a woman (in most states, that is). If it’s your personal belief that only people who intend to have children should be allowed to marry, fine, but that seems antithetical to your statements.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:32 pmOtherwise, I agree with you on this. My rights end where yours begin. I don’t care what anyone does if it doesn’t affect me. Let homosexuals marry. It’s a public right and shouldn’t be subject to such discrimination. Equal rights for all, etc.
Banana slug = ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
If a substantial amount of wiggling fails to separate them, the male’s organ will be bitten off (with the slug’s radula). If a banana slug has lost its male sexual organ, it can still self-fertilize, making its hermaphroditic quality an invaluable adaptation.
ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus bit off his own male organ. No wonder you cannot think “straight”. Do you self-fertilize?
May 30th, 2007 at 4:34 pmZooey replies are mainly ad hominems
Comment by Saywho
ad hominem
You keep using that phrase, Saywho, but I don’t think you know what it means.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:40 pmbitblt,
May 30th, 2007 at 4:41 pmFYI
Zooey is a manhater
Otherwise, I agree with you on this. My rights end where yours begin. I don’t care what anyone does if it doesn’t affect me. Let homosexuals marry. It’s a public right and shouldn’t be subject to such discrimination. Equal rights for all, etc.
Comment by Wilco
It’s like banging your head on a wall, isn’t it? I say we stop, and leave these people in their ignorance. What say you, Wilco?
May 30th, 2007 at 4:42 pmFYI
Zooey is a manhater
Comment by Flaco
Just because I don’t like weak men such as yourself, doesn’t mean I don’t like men. Why don’t you go kick your dog? You’ll feel better.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:43 pmZooey, aside from Flaco, these folks seem to have several reasoned responses.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:46 pmMy problem with these sites is so often, a discussion gets buried in and by rhetoric, and the nuances of a person’s side of an argument gets lost and I think that may well have happened here some.
Except Flaco. He’s just being an idiot.
Zooey U married right?
May 30th, 2007 at 4:46 pmAnd SayWho, I absolutely disagree that “marriage is for breeding pairs,†as there is absolutely NO such requirement.
Comment by Wilco — May 30, 2007 @ 4:32 pm
So (medical problems aside) why on Earth would a man want to be married to a woman other than to breed? Gays the world over have coined heterosexuals as “BREEDERS” why on earth would they do that?
May 30th, 2007 at 4:46 pmIt’s like banging your head on a wall, isn’t it? I say we stop, and leave these people in their ignorance. What say you, Wilco?
Comment by Zooey
Just like chubby bully Rosie O’ Donnel leave when you cannot take the heat.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:51 pmSaywho, there is no contractual obligation to have kids when married. Many people think that marriage is for committed relationships, that having kids is purely secondary. That’s all my point is. You can have kids whether you’re married or not. You can not have kids whether you’re married or not. The only difference between a committed relationship with a marriage license and a committed relationship without one, is that piece of paper.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:54 pmAnd Flaco, you have no game at all. Get off the court before you get stepped on.
May 30th, 2007 at 4:55 pmLater, folks
May 30th, 2007 at 4:56 pmDo not let homosexuals “marry.”
We want a nation that’s worth preserving!
Don’t touch God’s rainbow!
May 30th, 2007 at 4:59 pmLater, folks
May 30th, 2007 at 4:59 pmThank you for leaving Wilco
I guess Zooey is not married.
No man strong enough for her, too much women.
That is ok at least she is not breeding any metrosexuals
May 30th, 2007 at 5:03 pmad hominem
You keep using that phrase, Saywho, but I don’t think you know what it means.
Comment by Zooey — May 30, 2007 @ 4:40 pm
Zooey,
I am not aware of posts or replies on this site written by you that contain facts or offer honest debate. I am aware that you often make posts that are attacks against other posters where you do not debate them but resort to character assassination. I remember that you and I went over the Period Pill thread and then after numerous ad hominem attacks you exclaimed you were “through with me.”
Now it appears that you lied about that since you are clearly posting messages to me. Honestly, you chose to make it a personal thing or a war of words. That isn’t debate! I didn’t even owe you this post or need to take the time out to respond to you. After numerous insults aimed at me rather than debate I don’t resort to your level. After all this is only a blog so you decided that you can treat posters you disagree with disrespect and engage in ad hominem attacks!
In the interest of peace Zooey maybe you would consider simple debate?
May 30th, 2007 at 5:10 pmSaywho, there is no contractual obligation to have kids when married. Many people think that marriage is for committed relationships, that having kids is purely secondary. That’s all my point is. You can have kids whether you’re married or not. You can not(SIC) have kids whether you’re married or not. The only difference between a committed relationship with a marriage license and a committed relationship without one, is that piece of paper.
Comment by Wilco — May 30, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
I’m generalizing, mind you I am aware (being married) of possible reasons for marriage of a man to a woman. Marriage should be a serious undertaking. Men and women get married to have a family and all that comes with that. Many times from infertility or cheating marriages end in divorce. Regardless the main point is that a breeding pair is made and can only be ended by death, separation or divorce. Other than family what would be the point of this risk?
May 30th, 2007 at 5:23 pmDamaging effects of the closet
May 30th, 2007 at 7:20 pm.
I believe that it is especially important today to discuss the damaging effects that the closet has had and continues to have on gay people. Given the current political climate of a presidential election approaching it is time to put “the closet†in some sort of context. It is also time for all of the candidates to step up to the plate and say how they really feel in spite of what the fear the ramifications may be. Gay rights are a civil rights issue that the candidates need to take a stand on without double speaking to protect their political asses. We need to provide some context for which people can better understand what “the closet†is and what it does to those that are in it. “The closet†is the emotional hiding place that many gay people recoil into out of fear of perhaps losing the love of their families or the acceptance of their school-mates.
When children reach a certain age when they begin to understand social expectations and what society deems proper and improper is when “the closet†door goes shut on an important part of early childhood development, being their sexuality. Children learn earlier than perhaps people realize that their same sex attractions are not considered normal but in fact unhealthy and morally reprehensible to many. These processes for heterosexual children as they discover their sexuality are such delicious feelings that add a whole new dimension to their lives. Gay children are denied this. Gay children in an effort to be considered normal will learn to role play or act as if they share the same feelings of opposite sex attractions.
Going into the closet is a terrifying and lonely experience that causes gay children feelings of deep loneliness. Suicide among gay teens is epidemic. They feel that they are the only ones in the world with these “abhorrent feelings. All children want and need to feel accepted by their peers in order to develop a healthy sense of self. They are instead bombarded daily by representations and celebrations of heterosexuality in the media, advertisements, at school and basically everywhere they look, those are the only images presented.
One important point I would like to make is that other minority children living within a dominant culture at least have their families to go home to that don’t wish that they were of the majority culture. However gay children do go home to straight parents that do wish their children were straight, that is if they even knew the truth which is rare. These closeted children live in constant fear of having their true nature discovered and will therefore often practice through observation what they believe it looks like to appear heterosexual. They will begin editing their speech, their walk, the way they move their bodies all because of the fear of being discovered or “outed†so to speak. This editing process is not only demeaning, exhausting but also damaging to ones self-worth.
However, often when gay children graduate from school and go out on their own and perhaps go on to college they will generally find others just like themselves with the same sexual orientation. As any reasonable person can imagine what it must feel like to finally fit in and feel a sense of camaraderie for likely the first time in their lives. These feelings can be an overwhelmingly wonderful experience. So overpowering and overwhelming that it can also unfortunately be a double edged sword and be dangerous as well. These now young adults will often out of their desperate need to feel those wondrous feelings of total acceptance for who they are will often then simply acquiesce to the pre-established norms and behaviors of the gay culture in which they now find themselves a part of. We need to understand that these men and woman that make up gay culture bring with them their own emotional baggage of what the closet has done to them throughout their lives. These accumulated wounds from childhood will often manifest in a variety of ways. Many of these manifested behaviors are not necessarily healthy.
The pitfalls that gays need to be ever vigilant about are the fact that addictions of all varieties and suicides are at a much higher rate than their heterosexual counterparts. The damage of the closet then can lead these young men and woman to adopt these behaviors so as to feel a part of that culture as well. There emotional damage has already been done so they are much more easily influenced by the culture enough so that they will follow along with the unhealthy and damaging behaviors as a means of dulling the pain of life long feelings of social denunciation.
We as a society need to be more compassionate to these emotionally damaged souls and start accepting them for whom they are no matter what their sexual orientation may be. This will not happen over night but we have to start somewhere if we are to be a part of the process of the healing of generations of gay men and woman that have been stigmatized for only one reason, that being whom they are innately attracted too. Aaron Jason Silver http://www.aaronjasonsilver.com
In the interest of peace Zooey maybe you would consider simple debate?
Comment by Saywho
Let me see if I have this right….first you attack me, saying you’ve never seen me engage in honest debate (because something you haven’t seen certainly hasn’t happened), and if I respond to you in any manner it’s ad hominem, then you call me a liar, then call me names……and then you ask me if I would consider a simple debate.
The answer is no, Saywho, and this is why:
You are always so certain of your position. You are not interested in debate, you are interested only in bringing me around to your viewpoint alone. You engage in catastrophic thinking, which is impossible to debate, and simply try to beat your opponet into the ground.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:32 pmComment by aaron jason Silver — May 30, 2007 @ 7:20 pm
Well and compassionately spoken, aaron.
May 30th, 2007 at 7:33 pmWill the wiki reference tell us why homosexual men desire to have sex with other men on the streets of American cities? ( New Orleans Southern Decadence Festival )
Is this desire also genetic, or should we just go with perverted – or is that too simple for you?
Comment by bitblt — May 30, 2007 @ 4:18 pm
Will you tell us why heterosexual men desire to have sex with women on the streets of American cities? ( Fort Lauderdale or any other spring break )
Is this desire also genetic, or should we just go with perverted heterosexual – or is that too simple for you?
Dum bass.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:20 pmAm I safe in assuming this means the studies “suggest†a link but have not confirmed causation?
IOW, you roll the dice and you get a homosexual.
My understanding is that the factors that produce a male homosexual are different from the factors that produce a female homosexual.
I’m under the impression that the emotional factor has much greater influence with female homosexuals.
Comment by bitblt — May 30, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
You mean like how there’s no gene linked to the “causation” of heterosexuality – thereby proving that it’s “all in your head”?
You’re a r*t*rded anti-scientific religious nut job, f*ck off loser.
Considering how *emotional* you are to come here and *fight* for your bigotry – does that make you an emotional lesbian? Mizz Cheney?
May 30th, 2007 at 9:22 pmI’m generalizing, mind you I am aware (being married) of possible reasons for marriage of a man to a woman. Marriage should be a serious undertaking. Men and women get married to have a family and all that comes with that. Many times from infertility or cheating marriages end in divorce. Regardless the main point is that a breeding pair is made and can only be ended by death, separation or divorce. Other than family what would be the point of this risk?
Comment by Saywho — May 30, 2007 @ 5:23 pm
You should ask an infertile, or older couple this. Are you saying people that lose their spouse, and are “too old to breed” should remain alone, and without a “companion”?
You’re a Jake*ss.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:23 pmBanana slug = ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
If a substantial amount of wiggling fails to separate them, the male’s organ will be bitten off (with the slug’s radula). If a banana slug has lost its male sexual organ, it can still self-fertilize, making its hermaphroditic quality an invaluable adaptation.
ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus bit off his own male organ. No wonder you cannot think “straightâ€. Do you self-fertilize?
Comment by Flaco — May 30, 2007 @ 4:34 pm
Considering what a brainless slug you are, no doubt you’re a “self-fertilizing” wingnut yourself. But thanks for *demonstrating* what an *un-scientific* mind you have. Maybe you can explain to the class how the world is flat?
May 30th, 2007 at 9:24 pmPost not directed to any one poster…
Once a blood line ends it is extinct. If you do not reproduce your DNA ceases to move to another generation and it can be said at your passing that you went extinct. Individual blood lines diversify or go extinct. Ultimately the diversified blood lines go extinct as well since the eventuality is that the line ceases to diversify (environment and or reproduction issues break chains). So extinction is coded into our DNA since our only immortality is established through reproduction. Comment by Saywho — May 30, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
What a st*pid and simpleton view of genetics. I already posted a link to *educate* you on the topic – dum bass.
Hence homosexuality to me signifies an irrational behavior that caters to self gratification. Sex and love are two different things. Homosexuality explains a sexual behavior not love. Rationally I loved my father but I never had sex with my father. Intuitively you can then understand that if my father and I did have sex that relationship would be viewed as incest and against nature. Comment by Saywho — May 30, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Actually *sex* refers to *attraction*, which is often intertwined with love. These do often overlap, but aren’t mutually exclusive. Homosexuals both have sex, and fall in love, just like heterosexuals. So you were molested by your father – that explains your self loathing, and the rejection of your homosexuality…
How many of you approve of incest? You want homosexuality to be accepted so then you should have no problem with incest or even pedophilia since a young person could fall into love with an older person. Pedophilia has a better chance of extending blood lines since it could result in natural selection but homosexuality all said and done is self indulgent sex. Marriage is for breeding pairs and creates protections for the offspring (for all of that there is the gift of marriage penalty).
You actually are st*pid enough to conflate pedophilia and being gay? Considering most pedophilia is “hetero – by your childish definition” in nature, then are you saying that it negates “heterosexual” adult sex? Or was your strawman just because you see the item as “immoral” between two adults, and wanted to associate with another negative act? Dum bass!
David’s ad hominem attack of my claim that marriage should be abolished altogether since statistically marriages do more harm than good does not discuss the constitutionality of marriage. Why would I need permission from the government to do something that I want to so long as it could only hurt me? I could marry a woman and then later on decide to beat her. Now someone is getting hurt even though that was not the intent. Comment by Saywho — May 30, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Why do you need to be married to a woman to beat her? You seem like the type that would just beat a woman because you enjoyed it!
If you live with someone long enough you are considered married even though you are not married. The sea of lawyers throws the word palimony around. The main thing couples need is joint insurance and power of attorney. Two people should just be able to call themselves married and if they want any severance then they need paper contracts. Comment by Saywho — May 30, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
And the THOUSANDS of benefits at the federal and local level that go with marriage, including inheritance, hospital visitation, taxation, property rights, etc., etc., all of which are either void or *weak* if you aren’t married – dum bass!
The *proper-papers* claim is always thrown out by people that are completely ignorant fools! There is no *substitute* marriage, there is either marriage, or not. Someone that claims “palimony” might get “some” rights, but they won’t get all – Jake*ss.
May 30th, 2007 at 9:32 pmI hate to *inform* you homophobes of this. But what clinical studies have *proven*, is that homophobes are closet cases… Look it up, you’ll find that’s the reason you’re so *fearful* and *hateful* to gay people – it’s ALL ABOUT YOU – SISTER!!! Another bunch of *ssh*le self loathing log cabin republicans – YAWN!!!
May 30th, 2007 at 9:38 pmYou’re a Jake*ss.
Why do you need to be married to a woman to beat her? You seem like the type that would just beat a woman because you enjoyed it!
dum bass!
Jake*ss.
Another bunch of *ssh*le self loathing log cabin republicans
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — May 30, 2007 @ 9:23 pm
What else can be said except your reply constitutes another in a long line of ad hominem messages. Even if you had information that was meaningful to share your use of insults damages your credibility. If you just asked me questions than I would address you. You are about as cleaver as the acronym in your screen name that has a GFU(Y).
I don’t mind reading your threads but the name calling shows that you are immature and then after a close read you seem to rely on ad hominem attacks since you lack any real substance. You use many sarcastic remarks in your writing and frankly it doesn’t pack the impact of more subtle digs that you could make if you debated in a mature way.
You constantly use the word as ss and that may indicate where your thoughts originate from? It may also demonstrate your total disrespect for other people and their views. One point I can make about you from reading your posts is that you are one of the most abusive people on TP. You have no credibility as far as I can see since you are a poor communicator.
If you want respect then you should start learning to be civil and refrain from using your foul mouth! Till then I will just assume that you no longer exist and I don’t owe you that or even this reply.
PAX
May 30th, 2007 at 10:28 pmBut what clinical studies have *proven*, is that homophobes are closet cases
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus — May 30, 2007 @ 9:38 pm
Asshat, pure trash, clinical studies have proven nothing!
May 30th, 2007 at 10:28 pmOne point I can make about you from reading your posts is that you are one of the most abusive people on TP. You have no credibility as far as I can see since you are a poor communicator.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
This moonbat is a common species (moonbaticus pissoffis).
May 30th, 2007 at 10:45 pmOne point I can make about you from reading your posts is that you are one of the most abusive people on TP. You have no credibility as far as I can see since you are a poor communicator.
Comment by ValiantVenusGrewFromUranus
This moonbat is a common species (moonbaticus pissoffis).
Comment by Flaco — May 30, 2007 @ 10:45 pm
Slight error Flaco I made the comment, “One point I can make about you from reading your posts is that you are one of the most abusive people on TP. You have no credibility as far as I can see since you are a poor communicator.” I directed it at the individual VVenusGFY.
I agree that it would be better if he included these studies and the actual conclusions of them. Since this individual can’t supply any imperial evidence of any claim he/she makes then the conclusion is that what remains is disinformation and profanity.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:03 pmSaywho, you want respect. But you offer bizarre non-conventional views of marriage and homosexuality and act as if your mentioning them gives them validity.
If you’re brain is filled with Selfish Gene propaganda, you wouldn’t understand homosexuality. It’s irrational. All love is irrational. Perhaps you’d prefer to go back to the arranged marriage.
Oh, that’s right. You disdain marriage. I’m not sure then how you intend to propagate the species. Or do you think we should become a Lesbian Nation without any males at all? It’s doable now.
I understand what Zooey is complaining about. She has debated with you. But the Closed-minded always become deaf to counter arguments or dismiss them as feeble jokes. You actually hope we’ll get angry and swear so you can stop respecting us. Isn’t that so?
May 30th, 2007 at 11:05 pm“imperial evidence”. That’s very funny. I think you mean empirical evidence. I’d say that was a Freudian slip, your excellency.
May 30th, 2007 at 11:08 pmSaywho, you want respect. But you offer bizarre non-conventional views of marriage and homosexuality and act as if your(SIC) mentioning them gives them validity.
My view on marriage is valid since it is mine and I believe it should be outlawed. I mentioned that if the government can demand you put on a seatbelt to drive than the fact that 65% of marriages fail indicates a systemic issue requiring a more honest approach.
I suppose it would still be a marriage but what should change is the way it is done. Ceremonies are on the back end but the concern would be the frontend and that would be contractual law. Couples would need prenuptials and should take some classes. Once they agreed and completed the necessary contracts they could then have a ceremony.
I don’t have a “view†regarding gays since homosexuality is a dead end. The rear area is an exit and doing things in that area can cause damage leading to cancer and prolapsed so why would I take chances like that? You can have sex with a car for all I care as long as there are no costs or taxes for me. On a moral level all sex in that area (the rear) is disgusting and repulsive to me. I would not dream of doing that to my wife and sex with another man would never happen.
I enjoy hearing about the 1500 animals that practice “homosexuality†but then there is a big rub. The word homo is the clue. Homo as in homo sapiens or humans or mankind. The implication is that since monkeys have male on male contact to establish dominance that this is homosexuality. Monkeys are not humans so we need another word. Monkeys happen to throw poop so then we should to based on the mind numbing logic.
So, my ideas about sexuality depart from yours. Many insist that they are all knowing and my view is wrong. I don’t have to agree with any of you and I don’t feel shame since I know that homosexuality is simple sexual gratification. I’m not sure if it is a learned behavior, genetic mutation or both and to me debate about it is fun. The one person here mentioned diabetes and dominant or recessive traits. Today they believe that diabetes is caused by a virus that damages the pancreas. They are testing a cure now for children that has worked in 90% who received the treatment.
We are looking at a sex act between men in this case and like I said do it all you want as long as your actions don’t endanger me or cost me money or resources. In my opinion it is a waste of your time but then it is your time to waste but the reason I made that conclusion is that when I was in my breeding days I made three kids with my wife and that is the goal of life. I lead a healthy (as possible) lifestyle and I consider homosexuality a dangerous death style. Naturally my opinions are valid since they exist otherwise it would not be an opinion.
If you’re brain is filled with Selfish Gene propaganda, you wouldn’t understand homosexuality. It’s irrational. All love is irrational. Perhaps you’d prefer to go back to the arranged marriage.
Now david how can I respond to this? You used ad hominem attack and assumption.
My brain is like any other and healthy.
I’m not selfish at all and you have no way of knowing that.
“Selfish Gene Propaganda†must be a new band?
I understand that gays want more than acceptance and equality. Gays want special laws like the hate bill to give them special protections. Gays want to endanger the constitution at my expense with special laws and considerations.
Love is a word and it is irrational to say the least. I love my dog but I don’t want to marry him or have sex with him. I love roller coasters but I wouldn’t want to live with one. I love my kids but could not imagine them sexually. I love my best friend Tony and have known him since 1983 but I have never been his butt buddy.
I’m not into arranged marriage for many reasons but then I am married. If you are holding this in context to my “view of marriage†than I have covered that already in the start of this post.
Oh, that’s right. You disdain marriage. I’m not sure then how you intend to propagate the species. Or do you think we should become a Lesbian Nation without any males at all? It’s doable now.
Well since the divorce rate is so high maybe some demand destruction will make the heart grow fonder? I mentioned that the government sanctioned institute of marriage in its present form should be banned. I don’t like government intrusion and knowing what I do now do not seek governmental sanctioning or approval. Why would you? 65% get divorced and that is great for blood sucking lawyers. The extent of it should be prenuptials.
I understand what Zooey is complaining about. She has debated with you. But the Closed-minded always become deaf to counter arguments or dismiss them as feeble jokes. You actually hope we’ll get angry and swear so you can stop respecting us. Isn’t that so?
So, you speak for that person. You defend her. You chime in. Then reality is a harsh pill David. You need to focus on the reality that Zooey is her own person and is not the frank, honest person you make her to be. I’m not asking anyone to defend me or fight my battles or dress my wounds. Rather than listing an example you use an ad hominem attack by painting me as closed minded. I know who I am and your assertion is wrong. I would hope that you would debate the facts but you, Zooey and others resort to well you know the phrase. If you get angry than take a breath!
Comment by david — May 30, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
“imperial evidenceâ€. That’s very funny. I think you mean empirical evidence. I’d say that was a Freudian slip, your excellency(SIC).
Comment by david — May 30, 2007 @ 11:08 pm
My word processor auto corrected a typo on the word “empirical†and decided that I must have wanted the word “imperial†instead. Then I never bothered to proof read it. I’d say it was a TYPO but Freud has nothing to do with that issue. So, as long as you are being petty allow me to point out that “Excellency†is a proper word and gets a large erect E like I have rather than the tiny one you Freudian slip people have. Did you see me there emulating your petty style? Even though quoted me, you needed to capitalize the “I†in the word, imperial since it was the first word in your broken sentence structure.
PAX
May 31st, 2007 at 3:49 amI’m amused by the vituperate responses about a subject that many people know very little about.
I’m openly gay, and I still don’t know all that much about it!
I was raised by very conservative parents that encouraged me to always question what many people accept with no proof, so I consider myself a critical thinker. I also tend to question my own assumptions, and not assume I must be correct just because I believe something.
I honorably served in the US Army, and learned to take responsibility for my own actions and not blame my mistakes on others, which means I have very little in common with any elected Republican (and some Democrats).
I am a Christian, but I realize that blindly following the Bible leads one to a life of contradiction and refusal to engage the brain. With the contradictions in the Bible, it would be wrong to attempt to justify prejudice with Biblical verses. Yes, there are a very few verses against same-sex relations. There are many more verses in the Bible about helping our fellow humans in need and fighting oppression and inequality. The “c”hristians in this nation tend to allow their prejudices to lead their faith, and ignore the teachings of Jesus as they vilify anyone who doesn’t agree with their opinion.
I have been with the same man for over the past 7 years, and we’ve got our legal house in order. Marriage doesn’t exist on a piece of paper, it exists in the hearts of the two people involved. We’re married, no matter what others say.
May 31st, 2007 at 8:23 amSaywho, where do you live? Reno? 65% is not supported by the facts. It’s less than 50%. And compares favorably with business startups. And I don’t know what happened when you married, but most couples discuss things before making the big commitment. Indeed, more and more couples live commonlaw until children enter the picture. I actually think things are much better now than they were in the 1950s when divorce was scandalous and commonlaw a sin.
Saywho, your understanding of homosexuality is woefully ignorant. It is akin to being left-handed and is never going to become extinct. And the prefix homo- is Greek for ’same’ and not Latin for ‘man’. It means same-sex. And anal intercourse is only one means of expressing same-sex love. And you certainly don’t have to do it to anyone, not even your good bud Tony.
Selfish Gene refers to Darwinist Richard Dawkins’ famous book. Although Dawkins would find your ideas about genetics rather fuzzy, a whole generation of rightwingers picked up his book and used it or abused it to rekindle the social Darwinist debate.
I don’t believe your problem with imperial/empirical was a typo. The fact is that you never offer genuine empirical evidence. Your stats are fuzzy and your facts are mere opinion. Your theories are IMPERIAL in the meaning of autocratic. (And here ‘auto’ means ’self’ and not General Motors.)
May 31st, 2007 at 8:58 amSaywho, where do you live? Reno? 65% is not supported by the facts. It’s less than 50%. And compares favorably with business startups. And I don’t know what happened when you married, but most couples discuss things before making the big commitment. Indeed, more and more couples live commonlaw(SIC) until children enter the picture. I actually think things are much better now than they were in the 1950s when divorce was scandalous and commonlaw(SIC) a sin.
I live in a house David and the 65% came from the internet. That was one of the high ones but in general the accepted figure around is about 50%. In general the statistics from the government are mainly down played. So while you are contented with one statistic I am with another. That does not mean the divorce rate is acceptable at any number. 35% would be too high of a divorce rate for me to.
In my opinion marriage should be banned as it is practiced. I stated my reasons several times and this has become a circular argument. Regardless, my original comment will have no traction since the institute of marriage is already established and all of those lawyers will never allow their gravy train to stop. If classes and prenuptials were made mandatory the divorce statistic might drop.
Saywho, your understanding of homosexuality is woefully ignorant. It is akin to being left-handed and is never going to become extinct. And the prefix homo- is Greek for ’same’ and not Latin for ‘man’. It means same-sex. And anal intercourse is only one means of expressing same-sex love. And you certainly don’t have to do it to anyone, not even your good bud Tony.
ho•mo1 (hÅ’mÅ)
n.
A member of the genus Homo, which includes the extinct and extant species of humans.
ho•mo2 (hÅ’mÅ)
n. Offensive Slang., pl. -mos.
Used as a disparaging term for a gay man or lesbian.
So, HOMO means “humans” or “fags” take your pick; not chinchillas, monkeys, worms, fish, plants or snails but humans. If you pay close attention you can read the part there about EXTINCT HUMANS.
You then resorted to an ad hominem regarding what I can or can’t do with a person that I know. This is you rationalizing your sexual beliefs and imposing them on others. This is a Gestapo tactic along with getting special treatment by Orwellian laws like the “Hate Bill.”
Selfish Gene refers to Darwinist Richard Dawkins’ famous book. Although Dawkins would find your ideas about genetics rather fuzzy, a whole generation of rightwingers(SIC) picked up his book and used it or abused it to rekindle the social Darwinist debate.
You did it again David since you originally said, “If you’re brain is filled with Selfish Gene propaganda…” I didn’t read that book though I know that it exists and have a good idea about the content.
By my stating, “must be a new band” was a dig on you since you labeled that book as propaganda. I don’t embrace your scientific method David. Darwin is a theory not a fact. Till someone can suggest something better I will accept Darwin’s claim that Mutations arise that either help or hinder existence. Helpful ones create new lineages; harmful ones die off. “Survival of the fittest” is an abridged way of saying organisms with mutations that increase the species’ chances of reproduction do better than ones that don’t.
You know what, away from this particular topic about gays wanting special treatment I believe that all of humanity is on the brink of a die-off. We are facing peak-oil, war, famine, weather change, illegal immigration and life is getting harder. We are watching the breakdown of civilization as history repeats itself.
You are squandering your remaining time looking for rights that you don’t deserve for a “feel good bill” that does nothing to end the war, conserve energy, create jobs, end famine, save the oceans or anything notable for that matter. You are spinning your wheels since you can’t convert me and I have stated that you can do what you like as long as it does not affect me.
I don’t believe your problem with imperial/empirical was a typo. The fact is that you never offer genuine empirical evidence. Your stats are fuzzy and your facts are mere opinion. Your theories are IMPERIAL in the meaning of autocratic. (And here ‘auto’ means ’self’ and not General Motors.)
Comment by david — May 31, 2007 @ 8:58 am
You don’t believe me? Say it ain’t so! Here I can assure you that you are no “True Dicktective(SIC).” There are no debatable points since you are insinuating that I lied but you can’t prove that and this is the hallmark of ad hominem attack on your part. Like they say little fella, “Sticks & Stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.”
Kisses
May 31st, 2007 at 11:50 amSorry about the double post. I waited and the post did not show up and thought that maybe it was a word filter issue so I reposted and edited a few words.
May 31st, 2007 at 12:39 pm