Based on Dayton's stance that it negatively impacts on adopted children I think it does fit the criteria.

I put a disclaimer in my post because I anticipated this reponse. Please read the post thoroughly.

BAITING the question to get the "anticipated response", is like a lawyer making a statement and then withdrawing it because of an objection. If you knew the answer before hand, why make the statement?



And my stance that not all heterosexual parents are fit parents. What is your point?

Just getting back to this, been gone a week.
If you ever have a wife, and her family is modest by nature, are you going to show up at a family function in revealing clothing? If so, try the open leg short shorts with no underwear so your nuggets are easily exposed. See if your wife allows it, to start with. That is what I meant by not flaunting your sexuality. The rules are the same whatever your sexual preference. In polite society, you don't go out of your way to offend others. Anything else is juvenile selfishishness.
There was a time when gay pride parades were held that exceeded common sense not to mention civil behaviour. Those public "in your face" displays did little to gain tolerance or acceptance. You are unlikely to force anyone to tolerate anything by getting in their face about it.
My stance is acceptance, not just tolerance, as I have had lesbian and sex change (to female) co-workers, and now that I am retired I still have a lesbian friend that I remain in contact with. None of them are "in your face" about it. It is their overall behaviour and intellect that I like, their bedroom preferences are none of my concern.

There is kissing, and there is KISSING. Last year at DisneyLand I saw a young couple enjoying each other in ways that are not acceptable in public. They paid big bucks to get in the gate and then spend their time clinching in the corners? They could have gotten a motel room for less money and had all the privacy they needed. Holding hands is not offensive, and in some societies even male friends do that, and they are not gay.
Having a sexual presence or persona and flaunting it are clearly different.
And tho I am not the type to use the Bible as a source of truth and light, isn't Leviticus the source of the time and season verses? There is a time and place for certain behaviour, and DisneyLand in the middle of the day is not the place or time for the grinding of pelvises.

Bill55AZ,

Thankyou so very much!!! I really appreciate hearing that from you! I'm a mature adult and I have a career and I'm an Aunt 10 times over, I know the unsaid rules of PDA. It's sad that some people have to ruin it for all of us.

It's true, there are some in the gay community that act like idiots! I'm the first to admit that! And there are some in the straight community also, but it seems like that percentage of over-the-top gay's give the rest of us a bad reputation!

I would have to agree with you Bill, and Billy Jean. Gay or straight, I find it appalling that some couples grope and give in to the throes of passion in public. Now, that's not saying that I would not like to hold my partner's hand in public. There have many times when I wanted to do this, and felt afraid for my personal safety. That's wrong. I shouldn't be fearful when all I want to do is hold someone's hand. But I would never, NEVER start making out with her in a restaurant, or coffee house. And that's not because I'm gay, and my partner is a women--that is because I try to be respectful to other people. And personally, I don't want my sex life on display for the whole world to see. It is unfortunate that a small group of our community chooses otherwise, and takes it upon themselves to represent all of us.

Are you really that THIN-SKINNED?

The problems posed by homosexuality affect only : Homosexuals.

If something is wrong, we should call it out as such. To do otherwise would harm not just us, but the people who are affected (again, homosexuals).

Should we allow people to continue to do things that are wrong, simply because they are doing these things?

Jesus said something to the effect of "Love the sinner, hate the sin". I think that sentiment is appropriate here. Just because you are doing something that you feel it "right" doesn't make it right.

I am sure that people who gamble too much don't think of themselves as bad. As a matter of fact, I would think that most people, regardless of what they do, do not consider themselves bad. They rationalize their choices.

My argument against homosexuality (stated earlier) is its inability to exist outside of an environment which contains its opposite. Homosexuals cannot procreate naturally, by doing what they themselves "feel" is right.

I know that homosexuals feel that this argument is flawed. That is their right.

I have nothing against any individual. I have a problem with people's actions. Whether or not you choose to be homosexual, you DO choose be a practicing homosexual.

For those who think : "Well, we can't stop someone from acting out their sexual urges!" I say : YES, we can, and we MUST when those actions are wrong.

For example, some pedophiles feel true "love" for their victims. They love young boys (or girls), so who are WE to stop them from acting on their sexual impulses. These people feel no attraction to adults, who are WE to say that they must stay celibate?

The argument FOR homosexuality used here can be turned on its face. It has been argued that simply because something has been done in the past does not make it the right thing to do. The same argument can be applied to homosexuality. Just because some people do this, it does not make it the right thing to do.

I would like to see a pro-homosexual argument as to why this practice SHOULD be allowed to go on. So far, the burden of proof has been on DR and company to attempt to prove why it should NOT go on. What are the arguments FOR homosexuality?

Love? See the pedophile example (for the record, I am NOT equivocating between homosexuality and pedophilia)

What is the argument FOR homosexuality?

Amlord, as I have mentioned in a previous post, I have TRIED to be straight. Believe me, I know that my life would be much easier if I could fall in love with a man, both emotionally and physically, have children with him, and keep a happy home life as a straight couple. But guess what? I threw up repeatedly when I had sex with a man. So, I tried again with another man, a man that I felt a true, deep connection with. Guess what? I vomited every time we had sex. I can't be straight. It is harmful to my emotional psyche to be with a man, and when I am with a woman, I feel "right," the word that you seem to use quite a bit. Imagine how you would feel if the tables were turned, if the "norm" was to be with someone of your same sex, and you just couldn't do it. You were physically and emotionally incapable of sharing your body, of sharing your heart with that person. What would you do? Take it like a man, and suck it up, and pretend that everything was alright? Trust me, you would attempt suicide within a year, just as I did. So, please, don't tell me--someone who has been through absolute hell over her sexual orientation--that I should not "practice" homosexuality just because it "feels right."

That's YOUR interpretation of the Scriptures and how YOU wish to apply what Jesus said. If you go by your reasoning alone on what's right and what's wrong, then Muslims wouldn't be able to practice their religion in America along with Jews, buhdist and wicans! Everyone would be Christian, no one would drink or smoke, cuss, have premarital sex or watch any movie R rated or listen to music with vulgarity! *geesh* This IS A FREE COUNTRY and you cannot apply your religious beliefs or standards of morality to someone else. Read up on the Constitution!
Now, if you would like to reiterate your social reasons on why homosexuality isn't "norm", go right ahead.

Normal: from M-W.com:

(the first definition is actually perpendicular...heh).

The stats bear out that 90-95% of the population is straight. The VAST majority. That is, therefore, normal.

(by the way, I made no reference to condemning other religions)

As far as shellyfanatic's argument:

I am sorry, but that is not enough. What you feel or what your urges are is irrelevant to what is right and wrong. I am not saying that you chose for any particular reason, but we don't, for example, let kleptomaniacs use the excuse "I couldn't help myself". We don't let depressed people stay in the house all day (if we want to help them).

Believe me, I am not saying that homosexuals are bad people. I don't even use a biblical argument to justify my position that homosexuality is wrong. I used a scientific (sort of ) methodology. The reference to Jesus was to show that although the act is wrong, the person is still a person to be loved. Jesus did not endorse sinning. But then again, neither did he condemn the former sinner after the sinner asked for forgiveness. (Again, as stated, Jesus himself made no reference to homosexuality).

What I AM saying, just to be obtuse is that homosexuality is not natural and should not be condoned.

But it IS natural. There are many creatures in the animal kingdom that engage in homosexuality. And just because you think something isn't natural doesn't mean it cannot be protected or deemed permissable for the population.

Very off the top examples: tatoos, body piercings, S&M, liposuction, plastic surgery, BIRTH CONTROL, ABORTION...

I just want to add this interesting little tidbit to the board. A new, and very recent study has just come out that proves it is completely natural for women to be attracted and sexually aroused by both genders. I am trying to find a link to that story. Please be patient.

The link to my above post:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...usedbybothsexes

Why should heterosexuals be allowed to have sex outside the purpose of procreation?

Love? See your own pedophile example.

The argument for homosexuality is the same for heterosexuality. Why do you have sex with a woman if you aren't trying to get her pregnant and raise a family? Because it feels good? Because you like you like to express your love physically?

If you don't want homosexuals to have sex with one another, perhaps heterosexual couples shouldn't have sex with one another without seeking to procreate. That seems to be the lone reason justifying heterosexual sex more than homosexual sex. Somehow I don't think the public would accept that as a good reason to avoid a good roll in the hay.

Edited to add: Shelley, if you could in the future, try to avoid double posting. You have a 12 hour window to click the edit button of a post to make corrections or additions. After this window has passed double posts are acceptable. Thanks

Edited again to add:
Feel free to venture into the Nurture vs Nature thread and prove it isn't natural, amlord. Over 400 obsverved species and over two millenia of human history might disagree.

I am so very sorry that my personal life story is not enough to validate my sexual orientation in your eyes, Amlord. As far as what is right and wrong, I refer you to an earlier post that I made:

So, according to the definition of normal, and using your assumption that normal is 'natural' and 'not normal' unnatural, other groups which fall into the unnatural category would include: Redheads, left handed people, anyone with an IQ over 120, and people who can twist their tongues.

BJ asked me to define normal, I never made the argument that homosexuality was wrong because it is not "normal".

A group of homosexuals, (before the miracles of modern science) would not be able to procreate while doing what feels "natural" to them. They, therefore, as a species would die off. THAT is nature's argument against homosexuality.

You cannot say that because something occurs in nature, it should be accepted, either. Some species kill their children, is that acceptable? Some follow one leader to the doom of all, is THAT acceptable? I am sorry that there are so many threads going on this same topic. I can't be everywhere, Abs, but maybe you can! (don't like the new avatar, btw, I like the older one better)

Shelly, there is no reason for me to "validate" your life. It is yours, not mine. I have made an argument against the ACT of homosexuality, not against anyone personally.

So, Amlord--what you are saying is that, if a lesbian couple, for example, were able to reproduce without the aid of a man, then homosexuality would be "right?"

And by the way, it is "shellEy", as in Percy Bysshe Shelley.

My point is that you didn't refute DR's claim by saying potential harm doesn't fit the criteria. The fact that hetero parents also harm children is meaningless as far as this argument goes.

HOW IS IT MEANINGLESS!?

Straight people have NO limitations(other than physical) or legal obstacles on becoming a parent. Any idiot(straight or gay) can reproduce, the difference is that gay people have the fear of their children taken away just because they're gay. We would all agree I hope, that the vast majority of parents in this country are straight, right? Then logically you would conclude that the vast majority of children living in abusive homes live in STRAIGHT homes, right? How can you deduce that Gay parents would harm children when they have to make the EXTRA effort in becoming a parent? If someone adopts a child, 9 times out of 10 they are going to be exceptional parents because the gift of that child was intrusted to them.

Eating their young and beckoning others to their doom affects other people, and negatively at that. Homosexuality is between those participants engaging in homosexual acts. Two men exchanging blowjobs or two women similarly pleasuring one another in their home doesn't hurt you or society at large. Two women or two men holding hands as they walk down the street does not harm you or society at large either. It's a lousy comparison and I'm surprised to see you suggest it.

As far as homosexuals' ability to procreate, at least lesbian couples are very, very close to doing so WITHOUT the aid of a man:
http://bric.postech.ac.kr/science/97now/01...ow/010712a.html

THIS is exactly why I get so angry with the part of our society that thinks forcing gays into the closet will somehow be good for society, or the family, or marriage or whatever.

That argument makes absolutely no sense and causes nothing but heartbreak for so many people. I much prefer having a society with openly gay people than one where families are created and live in misery due to the intolerance of people that have no business pushing their morality or religion on others. These are the same idiots that work so hard to merge church and state and find certain kinds of intolerance acceptable. They are the ones that deserve to be shunned and despised...not the gays in our society.

I haven't read this entire thread because I stopped at this post to reply. I have a feeling there will be some people who will take this personally but I will tell you it isn't meant to be directed at one person or anyone in particular that posts here.

Well the 10% figure was admitted to be a bunch of *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** not too long ago. I'll track down the cite later if you need it.

But as long as the rest of us can avoid being exposed to it, fine. Keep it to yourself. The problem is that is getting tough to do even on over the air network TV.



Well, no, not really, hate wouldn't be the focus of the shows as it isn't the focus of their beliefs, but that's also a subject for another thread.



Yeah, life's rough that way. Some people can't afford any coverage at all. Some couples can only afford minimal benefits. It's sad that medical care is so expensive.



Yay! Straight pride!

That's why it should be provided by the government... ANYWAY.....

Hey, I'm all about "Straight Pride". I wish more people took pride in themselves, if they did, maybe there wouldn't be so many problems in our country.

I'm PROUD to be a woman. I'm PROUD to be an American too. I'm PROUD that I'm buying a home. Saying "Straight Pride" is ineffective as a retort.

excuse me, how is it "a bad influence on children"? one, that statement implies something wrong with it, and two, it has no influence because orientation is inborn.

Just thought that I would post this new headline: WalMart has extended its antidiscriminatory policy for employess to include gays and lesbians. Yea, I can finally work at WalMart!

And the 3 big car makers.

And a host of other big companies. And this list will start growing very, very quickly. Because now it gets to liability. Nobody is going to set themselves up for a discrimination lawsuit.

Also, Canada is a factor in my opinion. Gays will be running north to get married because unlike the Netherlands and Belgium (that have registerd partnerships), there is no citizenship requirement. Not even a blood test. If companies don't cover these married couples, it'll cost them big in the long run.

If I were a betting person, I'd say legalized marriage in the US will become a reality within a year after the '04 elections.

We can only hope that this is the case.

The Right wing is starting to sqirm...

Let's get away from the one-liners and get back to having a constructive debate

http://www.fair.org/activism/savage-homophobia.html

This link describes what an MSNBC was saying to gay callers on the air.
Regardless of Savage's personal views, this behavior was unprofessional, to say the very least.



I hope he's not claiming he has the moral "high ground."

It's not much of a question I'm afraid. That's like asking if being male is right or wrong. Or having red hair. Ultimately, it isn't any of anyone's business what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom.

I always thought taking pride in things that were beyond your control was a little silly. Why be proud of being a woman? Is it something you can change? It's like being proud to have blue eyes.

Pride is something that you should take in accomplishments, not genetics. You should take pride in things you do, not something that was coded in your genes before you were born. At least IMO.

Welcome to the forum, Cephus. Please don't post two posts in a row. If you have more than one person to respond to, you can do it all in the same post, and if you were the last person that posted, and you feel that you need to add to your argument, you can use the "Edit" button. There is a twelve hour window to edit posts. If the window is up, then you can post two posts in a row. Thanks!

That's not much of an answer, I'm afraid. You see, being a homosexual is not like being a male or having naturally red hair because being a homosexual is a chosen trait, not a naturally-acquired one (there is no evidence to refute this). You can't treat them the same because they just aren't in the same league, though gay rights activists try most heartily to claim that they are in order to help their case (see demands 6 and 7 below).

Tell me, why isn't it anyone's business what two adults do in their bedrooms? What if one of them intends to kill the other, and does. Is it then still nobody's business? I'm all for private domain, but there are lines that have to be drawn. What if they're shooting heroin? Is it still nobody's business? Murder and using illegal drugs are both forbidden by law, based on moral code. At one time, homosexuality was exactly the same. I'm NOT saying that being homosexual is as bad as committing murder, but crime is (was) crime. My point in all of this is: if it's somebody's business when people take illegal drugs, even if it's in the privacy of a consenting adult's own home, or when somebody commits murder, even if it's in the privacy of a consenting adult's own home, or when somebody performs illegal computer hacking, or animal abuse, or ANYTHING criminal done in the privacy of a consenting adult's home, why isn't it so with homosexuality? WHO does it and WHERE are unimportant. The WHAT is of importance. So, if homosexual relations are nobody's business (because the people who do it are consensual ), as a result of the continuing loss of moral fiber in this country, what's next? Where does it end?

Besides, it doesn't stop there. Homosexuals don't just have their private fun and leave it at that. Beyond wanting to be tolerated, they want homosexuality to be declared and accepted by all Americans to be just as moral as heterosexuality. Here's a list of demands that were made by the homosexual movement on April 25, 1993 at the March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay, and Bi-Sexual Equal Rights and Liberation:

1. We demand passage of a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender civil rights bill and an end to discrimination by state and federal governments including the military; repeal of all sodomy laws and other laws that criminalize private sexual expressions between consenting adults.
2. We demand massive increase in funding for AIDS education, research, and patient care; universal access to health care including alternative therapies; and an end to sexism in medical research and health care.
3. We demand legislation to prevent discrimination against Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgendered people in the areas of family diversity, custody, adoption and foster care and that the definition of family includes the full diversity of all family structures.
4. We demand full and equal inclusion of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgendered people in the education system, and inclusion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender studies in multicultural curricula.
5. We demand the right to reproductive freedom and choice, to control our own bodies, and an end to sexist discrimination.
6. We demand an end to racial and ethnic discrimination in all forms.
7. We demand an end to discrimination and violent oppression based on actual or perceived sexual orientation/identification, race, religion, identity, sex and gender expression, disability, age, class, AIDS/HIV infection.

These demands, which conjure up such gall that I can barely believe it now, prove a lot of things. Basically, homosexuals want to be able to do whatever they want, they want to be liked for it, they want people to have to learn about their lifestyle, and they want the American taxpayers to pay for it all. Oh, and most sickening of all (see demand number 2), they want even more tax dollars to clean up their mess, and AIDS is THEIR mess. AIDS in America was caused and spread by the promiscuous nature of homosexuality.

So, I think it IS somebody's business what goes on in the privacy of consenting adult's bedrooms when it is the largest contributor to the spread of the world's deadliest disease and could come to impose billions of dollars on America's taxpayers.



You're right, there would be more. Pride is how war and conflict take root.



Says you and very few others. Look at what the laws of this country are founded on: Christian morality. Despite what you might think, religion was always a big part of the mixture, even if a national church (an American equivalent to the Church of England was what the Founding Fathers were trying to avoid) was avoided. The only people pushing anything on anybody (without right, I might add) are people like yourself, trying to push immorality and atheism on America, not vice versa, because you can't push something that already is and has been in place since the very beginning. Such are the people that deserve to be shunned and despised, and I assure they are by the majority of people.

Those demands are for acceptance and to be treated like any other human, not to do as they please, you seem to want to make homosexuality evil to push some hidden stelth cause. The same freedoms they ask for are the same any "normal" people(by bigots) have. I guess these normal people could murder and such, so they should also be shunned from some great moral light. homeosexuals, at least the ones i have known, tried very hard to be good members of society, and all of them were christian but one, something i am sure the religious right in america hates.

Two sad cases are a girl who was scared to death of people, was harrased constently, then dropped from high school to escape such torment, another was a guy in the town i live in, tried to kill himself twice, because he could not accept himslef, religious family, father hated him.

I am stright, and i feel a need to let such people lead normal and accepted lives in society. Not hide there whole lives in some cave.

because being a homosexual is a chosen trait, not a naturally-acquired one (there is no evidence to refute this).

We choose to participate in heterosexual behavior too. I could chose celibacy if I so desired.

You cannot turn off sexual attraction. You may find it repulsive (although I would lay money that if it were two attractive females engaged in a sex act, you'd be aroused) but that doesn't make it wrong or abnormal or UNnaturally aquired.



You can order Bruce's book here:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN%3D0...3169516-5671000

Your sexual orientation is fixed, just like red hair and blue eyes. I challenge you to find indisputable proof otherwise.

[quote]That's not much of an answer, I'm afraid. You see, being a homosexual is not like being a male or having naturally red hair because being a homosexual is a chosen trait, not a naturally-acquired one (there is no evidence to refute this).[/quote]

Actually there is evidence which suggests that the predisposition toward one gender or the other is genetically programmed. Of course, you can choose to follow your predisposition or you can choose not to and your environment certainly plays a role, but to say that it's a choice is rather ridiculous. Did you *CHOOSE* to be heterosexual? Please tell us about the details of your choice. Or are you simply heterosexual?

[quote]Murder and using illegal drugs are both forbidden by law, based on moral code. At one time, homosexuality was exactly the same.[/quote]

Are you done going off on a silly tangent? At one time slavery was legal. So what? What business is it of yours what two consenting adults do sexually in their bedroom? Why do you take such a personal affront to it? If you want to control what they can do... can they likewise tell you who you can sleep with?

[quote]Homosexuals don't just have their private fun and leave it at that. Beyond wanting to be tolerated, they want homosexuality to be declared and accepted by all Americans to be just as moral as heterosexuality.[/quote]

I don't know of any that care about 'morality', they simply want the same legal protections and priviledges that heterosexuals enjoy. We went through this for blacks and women already, they have just as much right to basic protection as everyone else. No one cares if you want to hate homosexuals. It's shallow and rather ridiculous, but hey... whatever floats your boat. You just can't harm them in any way because of your hatred.

[quote]1. We demand passage of a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender civil rights bill and an end to discrimination by state and federal governments including the military; repeal of all sodomy laws and other laws that criminalize private sexual expressions between consenting adults.[/quote]

What's the problem with that? Discrimination is wrong, period.

[quote]2. We demand massive increase in funding for AIDS education, research, and patient care; universal access to health care including alternative therapies; and an end to sexism in medical research and health care.[/quote]

I don't know that they have a right to 'demand' anything, but I think an increase in funding for AIDS and other diseases is a good thing overall. And again, discrimination is wrong so an end to sexism is hardly unreasonable, depending on what they mean by this.

[quote]3. We demand legislation to prevent discrimination against Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgendered people in the areas of family diversity, custody, adoption and foster care and that the definition of family includes the full diversity of all family structures[/quote]

Not seeing a problem here. They should be held to the same standards as everyone else.

[quote]4. We demand full and equal inclusion of Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals and Transgendered people in the education system, and inclusion of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender studies in multicultural curricula.
[/quote]

If by this they mean no discrimination against gays, I support it. I don't think there's much anyone can do to demand Gay Studies in schools though as colleges especially choose their own curricula.

[quote]5. We demand the right to reproductive freedom and choice, to control our own bodies, and an end to sexist discrimination.[/quote]

Not seeing a problem here either, are you?

[quote]6. We demand an end to racial and ethnic discrimination in all forms.[/quote]

I have no idea what this has to do with gay rights, per se, but in general it's a good idea.

[quote]7. We demand an end to discrimination and violent oppression based on actual or perceived sexual orientation/identification, race, religion, identity, sex and gender expression, disability, age, class, AIDS/HIV infection.[/quote]

No problem here either. Discrimination for most of these is already illegal, adding sexual orientation shouldn't be a problem.

[quote]Basically, homosexuals want to be able to do whatever they want, they want to be liked for it, they want people to have to learn about their lifestyle, and they want the American taxpayers to pay for it all.[/quote]

Oh, what gall. They want to enjoy the same basic freedoms that heterosexuals enjoy! Off with their heads! For shame! Oh, and clue time, AIDS is spreading like wildfire among heterosexuals worldwide. Promiscuity is hardly a gay trait. Where do you think all these teenage pregnancies come from? Virgin births?

Gee, maybe we should stop looking for a cure for lung cancer. After all, smokers deserve it right? It's THEIR mess, let them die of it.

[quote]Look at what the laws of this country are founded on: Christian morality.[/quote]

LOL! Sure, that's why George Washington said: "The United States was in no sense founded upon Christian doctrine." The founding fathers were very critical of religion in general and Christianity in particular. Remember, most of the original settlers of the US came here fleeing religious oppression in Europe. Our founding fathers were, by and large, atheists, deists and unitarians.

It's a shame what kind of ignorance has been allowed to fester in America.

What I mean to say is, there have been no studies that indicate that homosexuality is a genetically-acquired trait. There is no "gay gene" in other words, so it all comes down to a choice. As a result of my beliefs (added to the fact that it's common sense), it is clear to me that, unless some anomalous circumstances lead to a different choice, organisms will, by nature, be heterosexual. I agree that sexual attractions are often unwavering, but homosexuality, along with promiscuity, adultery, and other sexual relations (heterosexual, I might add) out of wedlock are considered to be sin in my book. These ACTS, and the people who perform them, are sinful. I did not declare this as such, but God did, and as such I believe it. HOWEVER, I also believe that Jesus Christ taught us to forgive each other just as he did. Therefore, if any homosexual comes to learn the error of his/her ways and repents, he/she is forgiven. It's a simple as that. That's what I am trying to convey: that I am concerned with the world I live in and the people who share it with me. I cannot stand idly by and let sin become a normal, and even welcome, outlet for people to plug into. The world that I will one day bring my children into, I have to try and do whatever I can to make it the best it can be. Homosexuality is a sin, it is repulsive and I hate it. I pray for those who have been deceived into thinking otherwise.



They are demanding for things that they had and would still have today if they had not chosen to lead an immoral lifestyle. Though it's slipping fast, the moral code that this country was founded on would be in accordance with this. It's the same as with any other immoral act. When you choose to do it, you choose to subject yourself to the dislike of moral people who stand for something and were strong enough to withstand the same sinful onslaught. You portray a weakness when you commit such acts, like it or not. So, it is my view that these people, who "can't control themselves", not be endowed with certain privileges as they have requested. If "normal" people commit such acts, they should get the same. It's not the person that matters, but the choices made by that person.



Indeed it is. Almost your entire post is a great example of it. Throughout you continued to say "I see no problem here." You're a perfect example of the kind of people who have no moral backbone and stand for essentially nothing. That's a common trait among people it seems these days, and getting moreso. Like I said, if you "see no problem" with homosexuality, what won't you "see a problem" with next? That's what scares me. We're becoming a modern-day Rome, and we will fall just the same if it continues.

The founding fathers (FF) may have acknowledged God during their discussions, but not Jesus, so when someone says that we are a "Christian Nation", they are being exclusionary. And we as a people of a fledgling nation had already seen too much of exclusion. We had lots of non-Christian religions here during the time of our nation's birth, and the FF were aware and respectful of them.
The dominant Christian religion of the world at that time was the Catholic church, and the FF were very aware of how European governments were manipulated, if not dominated, by the Pope, and also were aware of the horrible results of the history of that relationship between church and state.
And although there isn't much written by historians about it, I bet there were just as many homosexuals per capita then as there are now. You just can't legislate away the reality of something, much less the "morality" of it.
As to how homosexuality occurs, there is a thread on it subtitled "Nature or Nuture" where I have posted something I saw on a documentary about hormonal imbalance as a potential cause.
There may not be a genetic cause, but that does not mean that there is not a cause. Either way, I doubt any sane person chooses a so-called lifestyle that causes them to face so much rejection by so many.
Personally, I don't have to worry about gay men hitting on me. I ain't pretty enough for that. Heck, I was lucky to get a pretty (but surely half blind) Idaho farm girl to marry me.

I think we need to get the "choice" thing out of the way.

When many people refer to being gay is a choice, what they are saying is that you choose to go to a gay bar, you choose to have sex with a member of the same sex, you choose to pursue a gay marriage. That is not debatable.

As far as the gene thing goes, well here's the deal. We haven't found one. In my opinion, I don't think it's that engraved into our blueprints. It is my belief that there are tons of different variables that affect one's sexual preference.

I've heard many times, "when I was three, I felt different from the other kids, I knew then that I was gay". That one makes me get all giggly inside. I didn't know if I liked sour cream when I was three let alone whether I'm checking out the older five year old girls cuz they're just so hot!

So, let's just say for a second that it's bunch of different reasons, what's so wrong with saying you made a choice that you like women over men or vice versa? Forget the beatings and all that for a second, forget all the things you would use as a rubuttal like "why would I choose to be beaten?" and that kind of thing. Forget all of it for just a second if you will, please. What's wrong with saying, there's a guy..hmmm...a girl....hmmm...nope I like the guy better. I wouldn't hold anything against you in fact I'd respect you for saying it, but expecting me to prove a negative, that the gay gene does not exist, which is like trying to prove that god does not exist, is unfair. Proving a negative is nearly impossible, because no matter how much evidence, no matter how many trillions of dollars we could spend on it, you know what you'd say? "You just haven't found it yet."

Now, put the beatings back in there, and we have a problem again. It takes a lot of courage to admit that you just prefer a man, that you don't care if someone hates you for it. It's so much easier to blame it on your genes. Maybe one day we'll figure out exactly the circumstances that "create" gay people, and I actually hope we do. I hate an unsolved mystery.

Ah, one last thing, many of the conservatives have pointed out "flaunting". Well, I can't speak for them, but maybe it's the pride parades, maybe it's the rainbow bumper stickers? Maybe it's that little bit they ran on nickelodeon called "tolerance(or something like that), which is just another name for thought police. I can't think of one parade that targets and promotes heterosexuality as the entire point of the parade, I have never seen a "proud to be straight" bumper sticker. I've never seen a broadcasting station telling little kids it's ok to be heterosexual. It isn't the responsibility of the government, nor business to tell your kids what's moral and what's not moral, that's what parents are for. Maybe people would lighten up on singling others out if they didn't paint big red targets on their foreheads? You can be "out" and not tell everyone you are. Why would anybody care anyway unless they wanted to date you?

So, to the point of the topic, is it wrong? I don't think so. It's your business not mine. I once considered myself a homophobe, then something happened to me......but that's a story.....not meant for these boards.

As I said in the marriage thread, I do indeed support gay marriage.

Unfortunately, this is coming from the guy who is demanding that he be allowed to discriminate and hate people because they are different. Granted, you're young and you obviously have a lot of growing up to do, but if you can't see that the kind of ridiculous hatred you're spouting is wrong, there probably isn't a lot of hope for you.

The bumper sticker thing and all that, to me at anyrate is just a way to try and be "outside" with yourself, not hiding in a cave somewhere. I just do not understand, for the sake of "morals" why this cant be. For responsible people, how many non responible hererosexuals exist Now if you can give me some report that relates murder and death and all things not approved by society, to homosexual behavior, then you would have a case for it being "evil" but to me i think its "normal", i dont think its any more "evil" then it is "good"

Perhaps you should revisit the Nature vs Nurture thread again sometime. Myself and others have provided several posts with sufficient resources to say otherwise.

Morality is subjective so your concept of sin is not some universal evil applicable by or to all persons and things. You're arguing abstractly rather than objectively, and shouldn't expect to find any support in a debate employing such tactics.

It doesn't seem worth the effort to argue with you, CTE, about the differences between equal rights and special rights. Know that there is a difference beyond a myopic, discriminatory field of vision.

You seem to be implying an ambiguous slippery slope without even giving it any direction. The fall of Rome had nothing to do with homosexuality, if that is indeed what you were implying by your statements.

Not sure if this was addressed to me but no where did I mention "morals" when it comes to bumper stickers. The only mention of morals was in reference to the nickelodeon 30min segment where they were teaching kids tolerance(thought police) of homosexuality. It's not their business any more than it is mine to tell you what to think.

As I said before, you can be "out" and not have bumper stickers. You can be religious without having that big fish thing on the back of your car. You can be patriotic without having 40 flags on your antenna,etc... It draws attention, that's all I'm saying. Don't want to be singled out? Don't advertise. Not advertising does not mean you're in the closet.

Back to the mystical gay gene? The one everybody swears exist but can't find (other than the x10923b/48 blah blah blah gene somebody claims - but nobody can substantiate).

Anyhow, someone better tell all those people in Homosexuals Anonymous (do a google search on THAT and see how many ex-gay people will dispute all the pro-gay arguments from non-gays) that they're wasting their time if you truly believe it's genetic.

We don't make a choice to be heterosexual because our body anatomy and chemistry (tetesterone vs. estrogen) steer us that way. We can make a detour, but that's really the choice. Darwinism dictates the natural selection of our species. Survival of our species is hardly a choice. We can choose to remain celibate, homosexual, or marry your favorite bowling ball and contribute to evolutionary suicide. Or, we can follow our body designs and propagate our species. If reproduction were simply a "choice", we would have been extinct millions of years ago.

Sorry, but moral equivalence amounts to no morality at all. And not surprisingly, that is exactly where the liberal citiizenry is trying to take us. However, that is going to be a tougher fight than they ever imagined.

Hang tough CTE, there's a whole lot of good people who feel just like you do!

I think its to early to say if its a gene or not, homosexual behaviour can show itself in prison systems, but does that prove anything either way, why would it happen in nature if animals are so without thought and just a robot.

I dont think homosexual behaviour will be the end to human population growth by far

Show me why, without religious doctrines, that it is the downfall of society on a whole to why it should be banned.

And ataal, i was posting on the bumper sticker to make a point, not that you said they should live in caves, sorry about that.