There are several threads currently on the board about different “gay” subjects. These include gay marriage, gays in the military, gay pornography and hints within one of these threads about gay’s adoption.

Throughout all the gay threads over a two year period, I have taken a position that one hears little about these days – laissez-faire. I do not understand how any of these things havbe any negative impact on me, as a straight man, one way or another.

Question for debate:

How do gay marriage, gays adopting children, gays serving openly or otherwise in the military or gay pornography have any adverse impact on individual straight people?

Note: I’m interested in individuals – not society. I’m not interested in slippery slopes about polygamy or incest or any other slippery slope someone might come up with.

A simple answer is, it doesn't for most individual people. Only the homophobic, Christian evangelicals and radicals, and politicians wanting votes from these people are the ones who are "affected". And even these people, it doesn't change who they are inside, at most they are disgusted or think its the opposite of their belief and "family values" (I am so tired of hearing about that phrase now). I'm a straight individual and sure, if I hear about homosexual things, activity, or people it strikes me as a little odd as I can't see that way or do things they do, but I'm not downright affected as a person.

Well gee, maybe you need to narrow this down just a little further to exact the responses you seem to be looking for.

If some creep stood on the street corner in Chicago and screamed how much he likes sex with 4 year old boys, does that really affect me individually? Your premise seems no different than mine.

It seems to me you are framing your debate to eliminate the arguments you don't like. Why not just say that?

Thanks for introducing the emotionally laden and irrelevant issue of pedophilia into this thread. I guess it's too much to ask that we debate gay matters on an intellectual level rather than one of emotion. For your information, the type statement you made above is the reason I started this thread.

If you don't want to answer within the narrow construct of the thread as written DR, then nobody's twisting your arm for a response.

You asked for an opinion. Well, here goes. I think the preoccupation with gay related topics is sapping the positive energy out of this board, much as it did the election of 2004.

I don't think you can separate these into only affecting a person individually. Because as society changes those changes will end up affecting people on an individual basis.

From your last post it seems you don't want these issues debated BoF.

But that is what this debate board is all about. Debating issues that affect us and society as a whole.

Such as the advice you gave DR. Nobody is twisting your arm to respond or even click on those threads.

You might do well to note Sleeper that this is in the section "Principles and Personal Philosophy." Unless someone is trying to hide behind group affected answers, I see no problem in asking for an individual response.

Gay related topics are valid topics to debate. The issue of gay marriage happens to be an issue that has come to the fore in the last few years. It is an interesting topic and I have learned quite a bit about constitutional law and societal as well as legal views on marriage as a result. It can be frustrating as people throw the same - already answered -questions, the same - already tackled - issues, and tend to challenge them, not with logical argument, but emotion and (in some cases) personal attack. The same could be said for another issue on this board... Israel. Do we not discuss these issues simply because they have an emotional component? I would hope not.

To answer your question, I believe it has some adverse effect... if distaste, repulsion, hatred, moral outrage can be considered adverse effects.

The only way what gays do has any adverse impact on straights is it makes them uncomfortable.

Period. End of sentence.

Gay people weird out straight people. They always have and most likely they always will as long as they regard them as "not like us." As if gay people don't have to make money to pay bills, eat and buy clothes, send their kids to school, serve in the military and come in close personal contact every freakin' day with heterosexuals.

Gay bars. Gay porn. Gay basketball players. Gay actors. Gay boat cruises. Gay sex. Preface anything with the word "gay" and that's a prescription for guaranteed heterosexual drama.

"Special rights?" Only because gays are singled out for special wrongs.

If men are from Mars and women are from Venus, then gays and lesbians must come from out of this solar system entirely. People are often confused or fear or hate what they don't understand and a lot of people don't understand homosexuals.

I disagree with you BoF that the "gay topics" on this board saps positive energy from the board. I enjoy the non-gay subjects on this board too, but there are certain hot button issues that always generate a lot of passion and emotion. Gays in the military and gay marriage and gay adoption and gay porn are not the most important issues in the world. But subjects wax and wane all the time. There are numerous threads that deserve more attention that die a quick death from lack of interest.

The weighter matters of the world have their day. If another 9/11 event happened you'd have twenty related threads because a terrorist attack on America is more significant than a wedge issue about two women getting married to each other in white wedding gowns.

Homophobia and stereotyping gays (and the reactions of straights) can only be dispelled by open and free and honest discussion about what it is that makes us so fired up regarding these subjects. Trying to squelch the conversation only drives it underground and that's no good for anyone.

Not for gay OR straight members or anyone seeking candid debate over a divisive topic.

That's true, to some degree. Where I have an issue is when individuals display their sexuality in public in ways that make others feel uncomforatable. I have no problem with two men going at it with each other, but please not in front of me. I would ask the same for a man and woman, or two women. It goes down to having respect for other people and their desire to not have to see such explicit behavior. That is why the thread on "gay porn day" is not okay with me. That is also why I am not in favor of "gay pride parades." It is gratuitous and unnecessary. PERIOD.



I beg your pardon, but granting homosexuals the right to marry is legitimate. Giving them a day to celebrate pornographic interaction with each other is illegitimate. Just as it is in the heterosexual world.



Yes, openly discussing this is necessary to come to an understanding.

Well for one any of those things will make some people uncomfortable. That "some" people can be a majority. Majorities make rules. Occasionally an injustice is so great though that the protection of the minority is compelling enough to make a rule in their favor.

While gays will ultimately garner that protection pedophiles will probably never garner it. Which is to say that there will never be pedophile friendly laws.

Black Civil Rights are often used as a comparison point to Gay Civil Rights. Black as a minority have, in law, become equal to the majority. I understand this is not necessarily true in practice - see also CEOs. However, I don't know that this is correct comparison.

Besides the obvious inability to "see" homosexuality there's also the difference in perception. Blacks were seen (are by some still) as "less than human" - I don't see anyone questioning the humanity of homosexuals.

So to the question - what's the adverse impact? It makes some people uncomfortable. For others it is an affront to their entire world view - and understand this is not something they can change. There isn't some switch they can flip to stop being religious. Much like homosexuals inability to stop being gay so it is unfair to suggest they just "get over it" - although that's just what we'll have to do.

I may need to clarify something. I am not trying to squelch all debate regarding gay topics, but I am a bit weary of threads on these subjects receiving obsessive responses, filled with slippery slopes and bad information.

Sure, it’s hard for truth to hide under the shining light of scrutiny, but here’s an examples of what I’m talking about.

A Statement



A Response



Isn’t the very mention of pedophilia on a gay thread a non sequitur? What is the relevance here?

I just found an article by Gregory Herek, Ph.D., Professor of Psychology at the University of California at Davis.



http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html...olestation.html

Why does the word pedophilia even work its way into a gay related thread?

Yesterday chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, peter Pace, did issue a personal statement.



http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/23449.html

Geez, Pace is against “sin.” Is the personal effect on Pace that he can’t live in what he considers a skinless (I meant sinless, but I'll leave the keyboard version of a Freudian slip. It seems to fit. ) world? Good luck Petey ol' chap.

How do gay marriage, gays adopting children, gays serving openly or otherwise in the military or gay pornography have any adverse impact on individual straight people?
They give deeply immoral people who argue in favor of torture, approve of lying to start wars, trash the Earth, etc. an opportunity to bloviate on about how much better they are than somebody else. If it weren't for conservatives some of us might think "morality" referred to something other than what you do with your genitals, thank God there's somebody around to remind us that Jesus wants us to hate gays rather than helping the needy.

No the mention of pedophilia on a gay thread is not a non sequitur and I haven't notice it popping up on every thread. Since I think I've been fairly clear that I am pro gay marriage, pro open gay for the US Military and the context of the sentence is that gays will ultimately prevail but pedophiles will not I'm having a hard time understanding why you took the thread where you did.

The question is not whether you are for or against gay marriage.

What was the point in bringing up pedophilia in the context of this thread? How is it relevant to anything?

BTW: I have no problem with the rest of your post, just this one line.

It's the absolute least acceptable sexual deviation there is.

Have it your way BA with yet another of your signature meaningless one liners.

It does not relate to the question I asked. To refresh your memory:

How do gay marriage, gays adopting children, gays serving openly or otherwise in the military or gay pornography have any adverse impact on individual straight people?

Did I ask anything about pedophilia?

Pedophilia is sometimes compared with homosexuality by people who feel it is a deviant choice made by sexual deviants. I do not share that opinion whatsoever. It's absurd.

However, the point I'm trying to make that no one has addressed, is that behavior effects public opinion. The problem that a lot of people have with homosexuality is simply the physical nature and manifestations that occur in public. I have witnessed homosexual men (out in public) behaving in a flamboyant and overt sexual way. It's repugnant to me, and I guess to many others as well. Should homosexuals care?

If they want the negative connotations regarding their sexual conduct to be subverted they should care. I'm sorry but expecting everyone in society to just "get over it" and be okay with whatever you throw at them isn't going to happen. I'm sure there thousands, if not millions of sick perverts out there who are heterosexual. But you wouldn't know it because they don't hang it out for everyone to see. Now, I'm not saying that all gay men do this and I'm not saying that gay men are sick perverts.

Yet, if gay men would be more discreet about their sexuality when they are in public I sincerely believe there would be a lot less controversy over such issues as gay marriage, parenthood, military enlistment, etc.

I answered that question. Thoroughly. You picked a sentence out of the answer I gave and questioned a word. I answered that. I can't help it if you can't remember what you asked.

How do gay marriage, gays adopting children, gays serving openly or otherwise in the military or gay pornography have any adverse impact on individual straight people?

Simple answer: it doesn’t.

The people who squawk the loudest generally don’t even have any contact with gays. It’s the whole idea of it that offends them and makes them uncomfortable.

Don’t look then. People do all sorts of things in public that may or may not offend others. Teenagers play graba** and tonsil hockey in public. Fat men walk down the street with their butt crack hanging out for all to see (true story). Homeless people lie around on sidewalks in their own puke or pee. People pick their nose. People have loud obnoxious conversations on their cell phones as if the world revolves around them. Solution? Leave or turn away. Don’t make it into an issue where one group is singled out for different treatment.

Gay people are still people.

Trust me, I do turn the other way when confronted with any of the behaviors that you have just mentioned. The point I'm trying to make, Daffy, is that a huge part of the perpetuation of homophobia has to do with public perception.

Gay Pride parades and Gay Porn Day do nothing to further the cause for Gays of America. That's the truth of the matter. I, for one would like to see homosexuality embraced in a positive way.

Furthermore, heterosexuals are affected. The mothers, father, sisters, brothers of gay people do not want to see their loved ones looked at as freaks. A way to dispell the stereotypes is to take more responsiblity for the images that are perpetuated.

I agree in part. However, straight people don't have parades that center around their sexual preferences, with open and "interesting" clothing choices (i.e. butt-less chaps, etc). If I had a parade that was about enjoying tall, well-built, southern women... would it be acceptable to have them in skimpy tops and thongs walking down the street? People would think it a little odd... if not obscene. Homosexuals think it's 'prideful'?

I tell you the sharpest contrast between straight sexuality and homosexuality is that a large portion of the homosexual community believes it acceptable to flaunt their sexuality as if the rest of the world should be part n' parcel to the process. What do I mean?

- Do heterosexuals have stickers on their cars that denounce their 'straightness'? Millions of homosexuals have rainbows, purple triangles, or those little yellow stripes in purple boxes.
- Do heterosexuals have 3 blocks on bourbon street where men walk in chaps regardless of the day of week?
- Do heterosexuals have straight parades and porn days?
of course not

The fact is that typically homosexuals that behave in a less conspicuous manner are rarely on the radar any more than other people.

I've worked around gay people that didn't discuss it, and at times some people didn't even know. (I have a guy that is a tellecommuter in BC and no one really knows) People think of him as _____, the client services dude who tellecommutes. Not _____, the 'gay' dude who tellecommutes. Seriously. He defined himself as the guy that likes Dr. Pepper, watched American Idol religiously, and then moved to BC but stayed with the company and on our team. His sexuality isn't a part of the thought process unless someone happens to bring it up.

You know, I saw some guys throwing beads at women to get them to take their shirts off at a Mardi Gras parade. Clearly heterosexual marriage needs to be banned until heterosexuals can learn to control themselves in public.

People are people. Why should my rights be based on some guy you saw in assless chaps on sensationalist news coverage of a pride parade? For that matter why should the guy in assless chaps have any less rights than you do?

Obviously you must never have heard of Mardi Gras... or Carnivale... or the Mermaid Parade in Coney Island. The only reason there seems to be a problem with gay pride parades is that they involve homosexuals and their sexuality.



Yeah... heterosexuals never flaunt their sexuality. We have television shows dedicated to flaunting heterosexual sexuality. Just watch MTV during Spring Break. I've never heard anything so ridiculous.



Homosexuals aren't "denouncing" their homosexuality with those stickers. Denounce: to quote Princess Bride - I don't think it means what you think it means.

As for "announcing their sexuality", you want to know why?
Imagine every day of your life having people whisper conspiratorially to you how much they hate people like you, it gets really old. If you don't want gays to be flamboyant the first step is getting homophobes to be less blatant. But nobody will ever start a thread here debating how to treat homophobes.

Sometimes aevans176 people find what they are looking for. From 1984 to 1989 I worked in a special school for disabled students. One of the assistants was gay. He had been there several years. After a couple of years he started bringing male friends up to the school to do volunteer work. Something clicked one day and I asked another assistant, “is ______ gay? Her answer was, “Where have you been. Everyone else in the building knows that.”

In teaching special education, I had learned that some types behavior have to be eradicated immediately – throwing objects that could injure someone across the room, for instance. Less serious behaviors were best ignored. It’s amazing how much better life is if you just put a frequency filter on certain things.

I had failed to noticed or tuned out , or whatever , the fact that this guy was gay. Supposedly he had even discussed the matter in the lounge, but I avoided the smoke and gossip filled lounge whenever possible.

I am about as interested in a gay person sex life as I am listening to some loudmouth boast about how many women he’s scored.

The last time I got into a debate on this website about homosexuality I ended up upsetting a young man and that was not my intention. Please allow me from the outset to apologize for any remarks that anyone may find offensive. I’m new to this site, but it is my understanding that we may be controversial so long as we remain cordial.

“How do gay marriage, gays adopting children, gays serving openly or otherwise in the military or gay pornography have any adverse impact on individual straight people?”

Wow! That’s a lot to pack into one question. As such, I’m going to break this up into sections.

Gay Marriage

Gay marriage is a rather new issue and its effects to society at large and individuals, in particular, is still not entirely clear. However, what we do know is disturbing…

In 1989, Sweden became the first country to allow homosexual marriages followed closely by Denmark and Norway. In these countries today the vast majority of children are born out of wedlock (up to 80% in some areas). And most young couples in these countries have given up on marriage altogether (source: The Criminalization of Christianity by Janet Folger).

So in those countries that allow homosexual marriages, marriage has become meaningless. While I will not bore anyone here with the advantages that marriage provides to both men and women, we now have individuals that will never share in those benefits. In addition, we have individual children who will not have the security of a mom and dad “bound” to one another in marriage.

But this is only a sound-bite in a very complicated issue. For a more detailed answer to this issue please read Marriage on Trial: The Case Against Same-Sex Marriage and Parenting by Glenn T. Stanton and Dr. Bill Maier.

Gay Adoption

The standard for any issue involving children has always been “what is in the best interest of the children” except for when the “homosexual element” is added into the equation and then the standard gets changed to one of “rights”.

However, what is in the best interest of children is that they have a mommy and a daddy. The promotion of gay adoption ensures that individual children will be robbed of either having a mommy or a daddy. And since this is not in the best interest of the individual child, it should never be allowed.

Gays in the Military

As I’ve already documented in another thread concerning this very subject allowing someone to serve “openly” can affect the individuals that serve with him (or her) in his unit. The military is a unique organization in which the trust and cohesion that must exist within the group is critical to the survival of the individuals within the group. Introduce anything into the group that will affect its cohesion and trust and you threaten the survival of the individuals within the group.

Gay Pornography

Gay porn promotes a lifestyle that does not benefit society and so the individuals within that society suffer. For example, AIDS primarily affects the gay community. And all of the money that the federal government spends on AIDS related programs comes from the individual taxpayer (that’s you and me).

But individuals are affected in other ways, as well. A young lady at my church was divorced about 4 years ago. Her husband of ten years came to her and asked for a divorce because he was gay. Her entire life was turned upside-down and left her questioning everything she had come to know.

One woman in our community came to me a few months ago and wanted to know if gay people could go to Heaven (the answer is “yes!”). But why would she want to know? Because her 10 year old little boy was molested and the boy’s therapist had warned her that her boy becoming homosexual was a possibility.

Or I could tell you about the elder lady that broke down into tears after she informed me that her son is gay.

These are three more individual straight people that have been affected by homosexuality.

There are more.

“Note: I’m interested in individuals – not society. I’m not interested in slippery slopes about polygamy or incest or any other slippery slope someone might come up with.” – BoF

Sorry BoF, but the lawsuit to allow polygamy has already been filed to allow three Utahans to be legally married and husband, wife and wife. They claim that anti-polygamy laws are “unconstitutional”.

And let’s not forget that in 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the “repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of people entering into a marriage unit”.

You see, sir, if you change marriage to mean anything other than one man and one woman then marriage can mean anything and lose it’s meaning altogether. Just like the individuals in Denmark, Norway and Sweden are finding out.

“Thanks for introducing the emotionally laden and irrelevant issue of pedophilia into this thread. I guess it's too much to ask that we debate gay matters on an intellectual level rather than one of emotion. For your information, the type statement you made above is the reason I started this thread.” – BoF

Pedophilia is not an “irrelevant issue” when it comes to the gay debate. Also in 1972, the Gay Rights Platform called for the elimination of age of consent laws.

I would also take issue with this quote from Dr. Herek, “The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children.”

The British Journal of Medicine found that gays were 18 times more likely to molest children than heterosexuals.

I’d say that was “relevant”.

“I beg your pardon, but granting homosexuals the right to marry is legitimate.” – Doomed Planet

Point of fact, mam, but homosexuals have the exact same right to marry that you and I do. To grant them a right that you or I do not have is to bestow on them “special rights”.

I hope I do not give the wrong impression. I do not hate gays and lesbians nor am I “afraid” of them and I do not wish ill on anyone. But there is a large attempt in this country to force homosexual acceptance on society. As a Christian, I know that I must stand-up and resist this attempt to protect the sanctity of marriage, etc.

And it seems that Christians are generally not thought too highly-of by some at this site. That’s fine. But some of you seem to have some pretty strange ideas about what you think Christians believe. My Christian beliefs say that gays and lesbians are to be treated with dignity, respect and kindness.

How is this “homophobic”?

Any chance you could provide some links to back that up? Trust me, I'm on the same side of the argument as you in spome ways, but I think you need to back those claims up.

Completely False.

The Marriage rate in Sweden is low, but there is NO link whatsoever that the legalisation of Gay marriage has ANYTHING to do with that, marriage rates were low prior to gay marriage being legalised and have hardly changed. In fact the most recent state of marriage rates in Sweden (2005) shows a marriage rate 1% HIGHER than it was in 1988.

As Opposed to Denmark. In Denmark de facto gay marriage has been legal since 1989, and since that time the marriage rate among the general population has increased by 11%. It is currently the Highest it has ben in over 30 years.

Norway legalised marriage in 1993, and since then the marriage rate has increased by 4%.

Same in Iceland, marriage rates currently HIGHER than they were prior to legalisation of marriage. In Canada, marriage rates remain unchanged, though divorce rates are DOWN by 4% since gay marriage became legal.

The fact is, according to the stats, gay marriage is the best thing that could have happened to the sanctity of marriage in most countries. Of course, that doesn't prevent the far right from making things up to suit their needs.





Completely False

This argument, if you will forgive me, allways irritates the hell out of me. I personally agree that the ideal situation for a child is with one mother and one father. But your somewhat bizarre analysis above makes it sound like gay adoptive parents will be REMOVING children from ideal families, stealing them away into gay homes. In fact, (surprise surprise) adopted kids come either from orphanages or from social services after being removed from unfit parents. So I agree, two gay parents is not the IDEAL situation for a child. But you apparently would prefer to leave the kids in abusive homes, or orphanages because that is preferable to exposing them to 'the gay'?

There are over 200,000 children currently in orphanages or temporary foster care in the US, if gay parents wish to and prove themselves worthy and capable of taking some of them into stable homes, I think you would have to be insane or really, really hate kids to presume that the status quo would be 'better' for the kids than gay adoption.



Completely False

Not to rehash the entire other thread, but suffice to say: Firstly, the exact same argument was used to keep blacks out of the military (by the far right, in fact) and was (of course) absurd. Secondly, 16 first world nations have allowed open gays in their military, and according to both ALL those countries AND an in depth analysis by the US GAO, with no difficulty in unit cohesion or morale whatsoever.



Completely false.

Firstly, your facts are wrong, AIDS is primarily a heterosexual disease and has been for years. Secondly, the fact that you would single out gay sex as 'promoting a lifestyle that does not benefit society' is absurd for two reasons. A-) have you SEEN some of the hetrosexual porn out there? B-) As far as I know, we do not live in George Orwell's 1984, to be legal something does not have to demonstrate that it is beneficial to society.



I'm sure she would have felt MUCH better if he had come asking for a divorce because he was straight, and had found a young hot woman. Sorry, She was affected by loss and Divorce, in a society where heterosexual divorce rate is over 40%.



Gee, maybe we should do something to make rape and child abuse illegal! Oh wait, we already do. Sorry, Again, she was affected by her child being raped.



Thats about the only example you gave which actually had anything to do with the effect of homosexuality. So whats your answer, ban gayness? Send the boy to one of those fundamentalist Christian 're-straightening' centres?




How on EARTH can this have anything to do with gay marriage? The Mormons have been fighting this battle for about 2 centuries, every few years such a challenge comes up and is soundly defeated. Trying to pretend Mormon polygamy is somehow linked to legalisation of gay marraige, especially as it is STILL ILLEGAL, is farcical.




Poppycock. Marriage has been changing in meaning for centuries. It once meant one man and many women, it once meant civil not religious unions, it once meant women were property, it once applied to female childrwen as young as 9 years old, it once didn't aloow divorce, It once meant only people of the same social class, it once was arranged by parents, it once involved a dowry or bride price, it once meant only people of the same race. The only real 'tradition' of marriage is its eternal mutability with the times, it has changed more often than you can count, and yet people are still getting married.




Funny, I did a bit of a search and was unable to find any such study or statistic in the British Journal of Medicine. Statistically though, as homosexuals represent about 4% of the population (one would thus expect them thus to represent 3-4% of child molestation cases) your 'statistic' (if not invented) would mean that 72% of ALL child molestations were committed by homosexuals. I wonder there [Dale[/b], do you REALLY think the facts will bear out that unbelievable number? Sure you want to stick by that statistic?




Well, as long as you feel it is your divine duty, that makes it all right then I suppose. With God on your side you can make up statistics and tell others how to live their lives with perfect clarity, right?

Dale,
You put us at a disadvantage with this statement.



Please notice this statement from the top of the principles and philosophy segment.


http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index.php?showforum=15

With this in mind, I have only one brief statement. I think you are drawing your concept of Christianity on grounds entirely too narrow.

Only in the US, that paragon of individualism, could we somehow argue that the individual could be separated from society.

There are no individuals outside of society. The individual cannot survive outside of society, as man is a social creature.

Consequently, I see your question as academic to a fault.

Oh come off it- if anything- heterosexuality is WAY WAY WAY "in your face" every day, every minute.

- Do heterosexuals have stickers on their cars that denounce their 'straightness'? Millions of homosexuals have rainbows, purple triangles, or those little yellow stripes in purple boxes.

Have you seen, oh, a TV commercial- like EVER? How about Christian churches with bumper stickers "Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve"- how about all those fishes on bumpers, etc etc- hell, a whole college of racism and hate- Bob Jones university- is supported by heteros on a mission of hate. 40k students every year in fact. GW spoke there- remember?

- Do heterosexuals have 3 blocks on bourbon street where men walk in chaps regardless of the day of week?
Haver you EVER been to Mardi gras, spring break, or, oh, about the 1 million hetero strip clubs in the US? You can see more bare breasts than in a free breast exam day at the hospital. Sex- OMG- it is the flesh pots of today. Lord knows I had my fun there- no gay parade can EVER equal the debauchery there, and that dates back to the 70s BTW.

- Do heterosexuals have straight parades and porn days?

YES< YES AND YES- MOST porn is straight porn, most sexually charged anything on TV is 99% hetero-

Heteros flaunt thier sexuality in manners and numbers that gays can't even hope to reach in thier best fantasies.

Really- get off your high horse- heteros have far more issues on this one that Homosexuals ever will.

You have to be really scared of something to be so angry about homosexuality. So much anger and emotion must come from some where but I have only a vague notion regarding religion and the fear of death that might explain where, and frankly who cares anyway?

I saw a gay pride march once and it was awful. Loads of men in s&m gear prancing about in the street, and baring their buttocks at the onlookers. It was truly pathetic. Not because it was immoral or because it was threatening to my sexuality or anything like that, but because it was several hundred adult human beings desperately demanding the world pay attention to them and I was forced to wonder what it is that they lacked so badly that they had to resort to such anti-social and iconoclastic methods. "Hey every one look at me, I'm gay! check out my butt." Once the gay parade had passed by however, Diana Ross still echoing off the buildings, I got on with my life. That was it, a few moments of amazement and pity.

Another time I was sitting at home with two friends from my days in Uni. They'd come over to visit us, and we were sitting and talking about life. They are two gay men, and it became apparent that when asked about life in England these days, their perspective was 'gay', for wont of a better word. They saw everything from a 'gay perspective', and I had to ask them if they were aware of this because it came across as a socio-political point of view. As accepted wisdom rather than personal observations based on experience. They explained this, thus; Homosexuals have been forced onto a set of 'roles' by conventional society. These 'roles', are defensive in nature and use provocation as a means to push back the criticism gay people often get.

Okay fair enough, but I wonder if by pushing back so hard as to flaunt their buttocks in the street they aren't forcing conventional society to react in turn? After all, not every one wants to be invited to partake of the pleasures of a strange mans buttocks and I think I know how most people would react if such a act were perfomred outside the context of a gay pride march. There is a social contract which restricts human beings from open acts of sex, real or stimulated, regardless of which sexuality you are, because by doing this you are foisting your self onto other people. When confronted with a gay pride parade I could understand why so many people find them disturbing. I am not interested in an invitation to regard another man's butt, or to see two men simulating oral sex on the pavement. Its not that I find it disgusting, its just that I find it invasive. Its like I am being forced to bear witness to their sex life. I know that if two heterosexuals were simulating oral sex in the street, they'd get arrested for disturbing the peace. I don't see why a gay pride parade needs to have gratuitous displays of homosexual sex in order for gay people to feel proud of who they are.

Then I think about carnivals, where there is just as much flaunting going on and wonder whats the difference? Well carnivals don't appeal to me either, I'm not the sort who dances in the street, but watching carnivals is not disturbing. Indeed, all those female buttocks swinging to the samba can be quite appealling. The difference is, I don't feel excluded. Even though no one is realistically asking me to partake in the pleasures on display, they are still appealling to my manly nature. The flaunted buttocks take on a much more personal and pleasurable dimension.

So whats the difference? I am the difference. Its my reaction that makes the difference.

There is nothing wrong with gay pride parades, or carnivals, its just people having fun, but as is always the case, people should respect each others boundaries. Its not easy to know who is going to be excited or replused by your buttocks, so its a good idea to act with moderation. If an onlooker is not looking over joyed to see your rear end, don't wave it at him. Smile and pass him by. The world is big enough.

Gee, I stayed up late to post my response and by the time I got up the following morning I already had a number of replies. My thanks to each of you!

Concerning gay marriage, Vermillion had the following to say…

“The Marriage rate in Sweden is low, but there is NO link whatsoever that the legalisation of Gay marriage has ANYTHING to do with that, marriage rates were low prior to gay marriage being legalised and have hardly changed. In fact the most recent state of marriage rates in Sweden (2005) shows a marriage rate 1% HIGHER than it was in 1988.

As Opposed to Denmark. In Denmark de facto gay marriage has been legal since 1989, and since that time the marriage rate among the general population has increased by 11%. It is currently the Highest it has ben in over 30 years.

Norway legalised marriage in 1993, and since then the marriage rate has increased by 4%.

Same in Iceland, marriage rates currently HIGHER than they were prior to legalisation of marriage. In Canada, marriage rates remain unchanged, though divorce rates are DOWN by 4% since gay marriage became legal.” - Vermillion

Now, I really would love to know what your source is here. Unfortunately, because gay marriage is still such a relatively new concept researchers still don’t know the full extent of the consequences involved with this issue. However, European statistics show, in fact, that marriage is on the decline. But to give you the benefit of the doubt, they’re could be some areas in those countries where there could be a slight increase in marriages. I suspect that such increases would be a part of the normal variation in marriage rates. However, overall rates in these nations are on the decline (source: The Criminalization of Christianity by Janet Folger).

"The fact is, according to the stats, gay marriage is the best thing that could have happened to the sanctity of marriage in most countries. Of course, that doesn't prevent the far right from making things up to suit their needs.”– Vermillion

Gay marriage is the best thing that could have happened to the sanctity of marriage? Really? And which “stats” would you be referring to?

Because I know you wouldn’t be “making things up to suit [your] needs”. So what is your source?

Concerning gay adoption…

“This argument, if you will forgive me, allways irritates the hell out of me. I personally agree that the ideal situation for a child is with one mother and one father. But your somewhat bizarre analysis above makes it sound like gay adoptive parents will be REMOVING children from ideal families, stealing them away into gay homes. In fact, (surprise surprise) adopted kids come either from orphanages or from social services after being removed from unfit parents. So I agree, two gay parents is not the IDEAL situation for a child. But you apparently would prefer to leave the kids in abusive homes, or orphanages because that is preferable to exposing them to 'the gay'?

There are over 200,000 children currently in orphanages or temporary foster care in the US, if gay parents wish to and prove themselves worthy and capable of taking some of them into stable homes, I think you would have to be insane or really, really hate kids to presume that the status quo would be 'better' for the kids than gay adoption.” - Vermillion

You’re almost right and I’m tempted to give you the benefit of the doubt, however…

Adopting gay-parents are similar to adopting heterosexual-parents in that for the large majority of both groups of parents they are primarily interested in adopting babies and there is a “premium” put on those children. So anytime gay parents are allowed to adopt a baby it will be (except for very few exceptions--such as special needs children) at the expense of a heterosexual couple and we both agree that it is in the best interest of the children to have a mommy and a daddy.

And, no, I would never choose to leave a child in an abusive home because it is preferable to exposing them to “the gay”.

Concerning gays in the military…

I’m afraid we may run the risk of beating a dead-horse here so I will politely refer you to the thread addressing this very issue. I have already made known my views there.

Concerning gay porn…

“Firstly, your facts are wrong, AIDS is primarily a heterosexual disease and has been for years.” - Vermillion

My facts are wrong? Yes, AIDS is a universal disease that strikes all cultures, however, most new HIV infections occur each year among gay men. (Please note “Male-to-male sexual contact” under “Transmission Category”: http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance...no1/table1.htm)

“Secondly, the fact that you would single out gay sex as 'promoting a lifestyle that does not benefit society' is absurd for two reasons. A-) have you SEEN some of the hetrosexual porn out there? B-) As far as I know, we do not live in George Orwell's 1984, to be legal something does not have to demonstrate that it is beneficial to society.” – Vermillion

I didn’t “single out” gay sex. It was posted in the debate question to address and I addressed it. Period.

“A-) have you SEEN some of the hetrosexual porn out there?” – Vermillion

Not since college and that was a long time ago. Are they doing it different these days?

“B-) As far as I know, we do not live in George Orwell's 1984, to be legal something does not have to demonstrate that it is beneficial to society.” – Vermillion

Quite true! However I never stated, suggested, hinted, insinuated that homosexuality should be illegal. This is a very complex issue and is best dealt with a great deal of compassion.

However, I must admit to being rather pleasantly surprised to hear you acknowledge that homosexuality does not benefit society.

Keep walking towards the light, Vermillion!!

Next, Mr. Vermillion, you didn’t seem to like my examples of how homosexuality affects individuals, which was the point of the whole debate question. I’ve only provided three examples here and as I pointed out in my original response…

there are more. Many, many more.

You also wondered about how my example of the folks in Utah trying to marry in a polygamous marriage had anything to do with gay marriage. After re-reading my initial response I must confess that this is a fair criticism. I didn’t explain that this lawsuit was not as a result of the continuation of what the Mormons were trying to advance. This lawsuit was instead as a result the homosexual fight to obtain marriage “rights” (source: The Criminalization of Christianity by Janet Folger).

Of course while attacking the example of the Utah “couple” I provided, you also chose to completely ignore the following statement, “[a]nd let’s not forget that in 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the “repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of people entering into a marriage unit”. – Me (Dale)

I wonder why…

And, Mr. Vermillion, you really didn’t seem to like what I had to say when I stated, “if you change marriage to mean anything other than one man and one woman then marriage can mean anything and lose it’s meaning altogether.” – (Me) Dale

As you responded with, “[p]oppycock. Marriage has been changing in meaning for centuries. It once meant one man and many women, it once meant civil not religious unions, it once meant women were property, it once applied to female childrwen as young as 9 years old, it once didn't aloow divorce, It once meant only people of the same social class, it once was arranged by parents, it once involved a dowry or bride price, it once meant only people of the same race. The only real 'tradition' of marriage is its eternal mutability with the times, it has changed more often than you can count, and yet people are still getting married.” – Vermillion

All fair statements and all exceptions to the rule which has been “one man, one woman”. All you need to do is look across both time and cultures and you will see that this has been the predominant standard that remains even until this day.

Besides, didn’t you ever wonder why the exceptions you listed above haven’t survived to present day?

And didn’t you notice that even with the exceptions that you provided at no time in the past has marriage ever included same-sex marriage?

And regarding pedophilia…

"Funny, I did a bit of a search and was unable to find any such study or statistic in the British Journal of Medicine. Statistically though, as homosexuals represent about 4% of the population (one would thus expect them thus to represent 3-4% of child molestation cases) your 'statistic' (if not invented) would mean that 72% of ALL child molestations were committed by homosexuals. I wonder there Dale, do you REALLY think the facts will bear out that unbelievable number? Sure you want to stick by that statistic?" – Vermillion

and…

“Any chance you could provide some links to back that up? Trust me, I'm on the same side of the argument as you in spome ways, but I think you need to back those claims up.” – DaytonRocker

Gladly!

http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/cgi-bin/store...p;ppinc=product

It’s actually a DVD and discusses briefly the study I mentioned above. It is also an overall good resource for this topic but focuses primarily of the political aspect of this issue.

I know this part of the debate is more than just a bit sensitive so I think it should be stated clearly and unequivocally that being gay does not make you a pedophile. I think this is one area we could all agree on.

But, Mr. Vermillion, how can you question the study I provided but completely ignore the true statement I made which said, “in 1972, the Gay Rights Platform called for the elimination of age of consent laws.” – Me (Dale)

Doesn’t this fact deserve some consideration on your part?

In addition, this same demand was included in the demands by the Gay and Lesbian Task Force in their march on Washington in 1993. Other demands included, but were not limited to:

1. Implementation of homosexual, bisexual and transgendered curriculum at all levels of education.

2. Lowering the age of consent for homosexual and heterosexual sex.

3. Legalization of homosexual marriages.

4. Custody, adoption and foster care rights of homosexuals, lesbians and transgendered persons.

5. The redefinition of “family” to include the full diversity of all structured families.

6. Access to all programs of the Boy Scouts of America.

7. Affirmative action for homosexuals.

8. The inclusion of sex-change operations under a universal health-care plan.
(source: The Agenda: The Homosexual Plan to Change America by Louis P. Sheldon)

And before I turn you loose Mr. Vermillion, you said, “as long as you feel it is your divine duty, that makes it all right then I suppose. With God on your side you can make up statistics and tell others how to live their lives with perfect clarity, right?”

Sir, I never claimed any “divine right” and I have not made up any statistics. And far be it from me to tell someone else how to live their lives.

But at the same time, sir, I do not have to sit idly by and watch as the values that made this country great are turned upside down. This is ultimately a battle over values and at the end of the day somebody’s values are going to determine societal norms.

Lastly I will turn my attention to Mr. BoF. Sir you stated that I put “us” at a disadvantage regarding my statements about how some people view Christianity. All you need to do is take a look around some of the forums and there are those with some pretty harsh views of Christians. I’ve reframed from making any sweeping comments or generalizations and have directed my comments to only “some” people.

And they are certainly more than entitled to their opinion. Far be it from me to criticize anyone for having an opinion.

But then you (Mr. BoF) go on to state, “[w]ith this in mind, I have only one brief statement. I think you are drawing your concept of Christianity on grounds entirely too narrow.”

I don’t get it. I do not understand what this means or how my “concepts” can be too narrow. It seems that you are simply dismissing me and my arguments altogether.

What am I missing?

I don't have much more to add to the hysteria about gays, but when I read the arguments that heteros don't flaunt sex in everyone's face, I had a really hearty laugh. And it reminded me of the billboard I pass every day on my way home from work advertising the "Adult Expo", where heteros go to check out the latest "adult toys", see the latest porn and meet their favorite porn stars...and the myriad billboards of very scantily clad females advertising the various and sundry strip clubs in the area. Hooters comes to mind; an entire chain of restaurants geared toward heteros leering at enhanced cleavage bursting out of tiny shirts. Nope, those heteros don't throw anything in anyone's face, do they?

And let's not even get into the too-well-publicized latest bimbette trend of not wearing underwear.

Jeez, it makes gays look downright modest!

Ya, somehow the "out" antics of heteros is SOOO much more moral than some pathetic gay parade where old, out of shape dudes wear chaps without pants.

Hey DG- where does that hedonism thing happen this next year- sounds like fun

Really- the ridiculousness of the anti-gay argument is pretty laughable- there really isn't an argument against, except Dana Carvey as the Church lady saying "must be SATAN"

There is 0 logical argument against gay rights of any meaningful discussion on this subject, 0 empirical evidence against the "degradation of society" due to gays having equal rights.

Vermillion and others have posted, on a number of threads, debunking pretty much every argument made by the forces of anti-freedom- so what is the problem?

Methinks alot of dudes are pretty conflicted about thier own sexuality, and need it to be illegal so they won't decide to up and be gay one day.

Sweden does not allow same-sex marriage. It views same-sex unions differently than marriage - following the increasingly popular separate but equal mentality. It allows Registered Partnerships as an alternative to marriage. This occurred in 1995 after Denmark and Norway. If you got this information from Janet Folger, I would call into question the credibility of such a source as she can't even get the facts straight.

The first country to allow same-sex couples access to marriage was the Netherlands in 2001. The only countries that allow same-sex couples access to civil marriage are the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and South Africa - and the State of Massachusett's in the United States.

Since 1988 Sweden has offered Domestic Partnerships to heterosexual unmarried couples as an alternative to marriage. Does your source take this into account? Are the increased "out of wedlock births" occuring amongst those engaged in Domestic Partnerships? Does your source take any of these types of births into account in her analysis? I mean, for every heterosexual couple in a Domestic Partnership, that's one less couple that is married... right?

You are mistaken, the numbers O provided refer to the overall marriage rates in those countries, and they have ALL increased or at worst remained statis since the leglisation of gay marriage. You were quite correct to ask for a source, I should have included it in the first place, my bad. They come from: http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subj...DE5NTE4NzUxOQ==

In Norway in 1986 there were 20,407 marriages, which went down to 19,456 in 1991. Then civil partnerships were legalised, and in 1996 there were 23 314 marriages.

Or you could just go to the national statistics page of each nation. marriage was on a steady, unchanging 30 year decline in Iceland since 1970, until gay marriage was legalised, when suddenly it started to rise again. Check the numbers yourself.
http://www.statice.is/?PageID=444&newsid=1635

Perhaps 'the Criminalisation of Christianity' by the far-right wing ideologue Janet Folger, is not such a good source?





It is the ideal for them to have a mommy and a daddy. It is in the best interests of the child to have a stable home with loving parents. To deny the hundreds of thousands of children in the horrific foster system or orphanages another chance at such a home for the sake of religious ideology is simply cruel.




That isn't quite what I said, but OK< if you wish. Mind you by that standard, I suppose the Church shouldn't exist either.




Janet Folger again. That aside, you just repeated the point to which my rebuttal stands. How can you draw a link between this Mormon lawsuit and attempts to legalise gay marriage, when mormons have been launching such lawsuits semi-frequently for the last century and a half?




Predominant? Yes. Unique? No. Polygamous marriage has certainly ocuured, legally in many cultures and reluigions in the past. You can't simply dismiss the ever-changing mutability of marriage as being 'a list of exceptuions', it isn't, it is evidence that marriage is a fluid living institution, and that is its only 'sanctity'.

Besides, didn’t you ever wonder why the exceptions you listed above haven’t survived to present day?



You mean apart from Clasical greece, Classical Rome, Assyria, Carthage, 17th Century Italy or 18th century Spain?



Well sadly, I can't consult the DVD at the moment, though i DID take a moment to look through what OTHER DVD's they have on offer, such as 'The Evolution Conspiracy' and 'Harry Potter: Witchcraft Repackaged'. I didn't see one about how the US never landed on the moon, but it's in the same league. Suffice to say I do not consider a quote I have not seen emenating from these nutjobs to be a valid source, and I don't think that is entirely unreasonable.




Yes I ignored it, largely because you are completely wrong. The 1972 Gay rights Platform called for the elimination of all STATE laws regarding age of consent. This is because the FEDERAL age of consent law of 16 does not discriminate between homosexual and heterosexual ages of consent, while many state laws do. Pretending this was in fact some effort to entirely eliminate age of consent or legalise sex with childred is staggeringly dishonest.




No, I suspect you have not made up any statistics. You just accepted without question or research when far-right wing ideologues made up statistics, and repeated them here. And, I'm sorry, is not your ENTIRE first post based around telling others how to live their lives?



That's funny, I'm pretty sure right and freedom of the individual were pretty central among the values that made the country great. That an no religion having the power to dictate its opinions to law.


I am not questioning your faith, which I'm certain is pure, nor your religion, which I'm sure acts with the best of intentions. I am questioning your desire to legislate against a group of individuals who have done nothing to harm you or yours, preventing them from havin equality in a manner that will not harm you or yours, because of some obscure reference in Leviticus right beside a total prohibition against eating shellfish.

Your values are your values, and I wish you the absolute best with them. But do not pretenbd that your values have any special justification to be forcibly imposed on others by legal exclusion. And given the sources you have used here, and the staggering bias easily visible in a 10-second google search about their authors, I can add only that I hope you do not share in them...

I said "put us at a disadvantage" because I'm not sure how far other members can go in countering Christian arguments without getting into a debate on faith, which the board prohibits.

Some input from the staff on this might be useful.

My statement about drawing your definition "too narrow,” had to do with Christian components being under a rather large umbrella with perhaps Unitarians being on the left of the continuum and fundamentalist protestants being on the right end. There are all sorts of variations between the two ends of the continuum, including a gay oriented denomination - the Metropolitan Community Church. Attitudes towards homosexuality vary greatly from under the Christian umbrella.

Edited to add:

Dale,

I have a problem with your links.

The one to CDC takes me to a search engine, not a CDC article.

The second one to Jeremiah Films is interesting. It has videos on Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses and evolution, etc. My guess is that they are produced from the narrow perspective of conservative Christianity. How objective is their material?

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance...no1/table1.htm)

http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/cgi-bin/store...p;ppinc=product

Hey Mr. BoF,

I checked the CDC link and it said, "The page you requested cannot be found at this time. It may be temporarily unavailable or it may have been removed."

My apologies, the link was good at the time I posted it and showed AIDS infections by categories across racial lines. I posted it as it backed-up my position and find it a little disheartening that the link is no longer good. Please accept my apologies once again.

As far as the Jeremiah Film link, they do take the view of conservative Christianity, just as I do. I think we are both objective (fair and balanced? ).

Thank you and everyone else for their response. I'll respond back as the opportunity permits. I'll also find another link to replace my CDC link for you and Mr. Vermillion.

Dale

I really should stay away from debates on this topic, because they always -- always -- go around and around and around and never lead to anything. This is because there are (at least) two wildly different ways at looking at the universe which lead to (at least) two different basic premises which underlie the millions of words that have been exchanged on this topic. And never the twain shall meet.

But I cannot let this statement go unchallenged.

Either you think that persons of the same sex loving each other, romantically and/or sexually, is good or you think it is bad. It really is that simple.

On a planet starved for love and pleasure -- on a planet screaming with human agony -- I cannot see how it is anything other than a positive good.

Sexual and romantic love eases the misery of human life, just a little. To know that it exists -- to know that it is real -- makes my life better.

We even have Miss and Mrs. pageants out this-a-way, your wholesome version of heterosexual flaunting. And then there are the rodeo kings and queens, and on the sordid side of it, the murder of a little miss whatever up in Boulder.

Regarding the question of debate, I have experienced zero impact on me from homosexuals other than having had some very good friends in that group. Ken gave me money when I was down and out without the expectation of repayment. Patty taught me fingerpicking guitar. I worked with a guy who was having a sex change, and that was strange. There's an impact that might be considered negative, but I got over it.

Meanwhile, I bet there are gay people all over the place, but I'm just not aware of their sexual orientation. Maybe because that's mostly irrelevant in everyday life, and at night I'm not paying attention because it's none of my business. I'm too busy with my own sexuality.

Why there are gay people has puzzled me. I don't know, maybe it's something built into life to make people go WTF? There's lots of that in life. I mean, why are there more horse's behinds than horses? It's one of those Zen paradoxes. I can say without a doubt that this particular Zen paradox has screwed me over more than once, most recently from a guy named Bernie Ebbers, who I am pretty sure is heterosexual, as if that makes any difference.

No one is talking about Mardi Gras Grendel. Mardi Gras lets it all hang out... different story. I didn't say " I saw a 1/2 naked dude on Bourbon street just south of the Tropical Isle" (anyone from Louisiana knows what I mean)

No one's rights are based on any of these things. The question is about how homosexual "issues" affect" mainstream Americans (paraphrased of course).

My response is that it really doesn't affect most of us, but many people feel as if homosexuality is "forced" upon them. No other form of sexuality broadcasts its stance like homosexuality. No one has stickers that say " I love taller-brown haired-southern looking- athletic type/but not skinny" women. Gay people have stickers, parades, etc. During those gatherings, OUTSIDE of festivals that encourage debauchery, often homosexuals engage in 'less than socially prudent' actions/dress, etc. It doesn't help solidify any strong hold on mainstream life.

Furthermore, homosexual men and women often stand out. In America this automatically ostracizes you as a group. For instance, lesbians and 'nelly' gay men can generally be picked out from 25 feet. Dress, actions, etc are very often 'different' than their straight peers.

People, like it or not, form opinions based upon these factors. Most people really don't care about what goes on behind closed doors, and as a general rule people don't even speak about it. However, social actions derived from sexuality are often relegated in the US specifically and only to homosexuals.

Stigmas, prejudices, and opinions are formed from such action. Think about this. How do many people feel if a kid comes walking down a sidewalk towards them with a mohawk, purple hair, piercings, and tatoos all over. Do people ordinarily draw conclusions? Is this wrong? Why would a round woman with a mullet wearing mens clothing that has a purple triangle on her car not automatically draw conclusions? The fact is that stereotypes nearly always have a shred of truth behind them. In terms of homosexuals, those that don't have big glaring homosexual advertisments don't really let us know... simply put, homosexuals that don't look/act differently and fit well into our comfort zone generally are treated the same as everyone else.

Thanks for the laugh so early in the morning. Great visual!

Seriously, though, for every "round woman with a mullet", there are everyday, average looking women (and men) who are gay. Not every gay man is a glittery, fey individual (if you want an example, check out the career Marine who lost his leg in Iraq-hardly a limp-wristed fop). I would venture to say the majority of gay men and women look just like everyone else, and don't "flaunt" their sexuality. Just like straight people - some dress provacatively and throw their sexuality in your face; the majority don't.

My point - so what's the diff?

[quote name='aevans176' date='Mar 22 2007, 04:48 AM' post='210815']
[quote name='Grendel72' post='210248' date='Mar 15 2007, 11:32 AM']

No one's rights are based on any of these things. The question is about how homosexual "issues" affect" mainstream Americans (paraphrased of course).

My response is that it really doesn't affect most of us, but many people feel as if homosexuality is "forced" upon them. No other form of sexuality broadcasts its stance like homosexuality. No one has stickers that say " I love taller-brown haired-southern looking- athletic type/but not skinny" women. Gay people have stickers, parades, etc. During those gatherings, OUTSIDE of festivals that encourage debauchery, often homosexuals engage in 'less than socially prudent' actions/dress, etc. It doesn't help solidify any strong hold on mainstream life.



[/quote]

Aevens- that is a load of bull- I have to call it a load of bull, because there is no other way to phrase it. Heterosexuality is thrown in your face in the US, every day, overtly, sexual and raunchy. There is no way around it. Homosexuality doesn't even COME CLOSE to the "broadcast" wave afterwave of overt heterosexual content. IT is everywhere- even a blind man can see it