Far from a Democracy. Democracy is two Lions and an Antelope voting on what's for dinner. The Lions will win the vote every time.

Yep. Democracy and a Republic are not the same things.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

I find myself in general agreement with the argument of J.S. Mill's ON LIBERTY. He argues that society should curtail the freedom of its citizens if and only if they are using that freedom either to harm other individuals or some necessary societal institution.

The "Harm Principle" precludes "Legal Moralism"--the view that the immorality of an action is sufficient for its being illegal. It also precludes "Paternalism"--the view that laws should be written to protect (adult) citizens against their own stupidity.

So this brings me into direct opposition to so-called "sodomy laws." I don't think the police should break into a private bedroom on a hot tip that a gay couple is at it again.

But it is a different matter altogether to demand that our society redefine the ages-old institution of marriage so as to include deviations from the norm.

You say that you cannot understand why people are opposed to this? "What harm will it do them?" you ask.

I think it comes to this: A society's stance on the nature of marriage and family is one of its key defining features. An official stamp of approval on homosexual marriages changes the very moral climate in which we raise our children. Traditional families will continue to teach their children the sacredness of marriage and fidelity, but they will be working against an accelerating cultural current that will continue to erode those more traditional values.

This, I think, explains the opposition, and it does so without my moving on to argue that homosexuality is immoral.

Further, were we to redefine what constitutes a marriage in order to include this deviation from the norm, then where should we stop? What about "cluster marriages"? The book, HEATHER HAS TWO MOMMIES, was written to create sensitivity in children regarding their classmates who may be raised in lesbian homes. If this, then why not TYLER HAS THREE DADDIES? Or how about CYNTHIA HAS TWELVE UNCLES (a new "uncle" shows up at mommy's breakfast table each morning)?

What principled reason can you give for allowing gay marriages but precluding all sorts of combinations? The only NATURAL argument I can think of for limiting a marriage to two people is grounded in heterosexual coupling with reproductive possibilities.

But IS homosexuality immoral? I certainly think so. One might begin by noting that certain things seem very much to have been made for certain purposes, and homosexuals seem not to have read the directions carefully enough. "Tab A" goes to "Slot B," that sort of thing.

But this will hardly convince you by itself.

Indeed, as a professional philosopher, my nature is to seek a common ground of agreement with a debate opponent and then argue from that common ground to the thesis that I am defending. But it may just be that you and I do not *have* a common ground here.

Homosexuality is immoral only if it is a perversion. And it is a perversion only if there is SUCH A THING as perversion.

The meaning of "perversion" is to take something and "twist" it away from the purpose for which it was designed.

Not everything is designed with a purpose in mind. My laptop on which I am writing was designed for its current use. It was not made to be used as a Frisbee or a boat anchor. A rock, on the other hand, is not for anything, and is not “misused” as a hammer, a paperweight or a weapon.

The whole question, in my opinion, comes down to whether human nature--and human sexuality--is more like laptops or rocks. If there is no Designer, then there is no context in which to define the notion of a perversion. And this will extend beyond the issue of homosexuality. Consider philosopher Peter Singer's recent defense of the morality of bestiality--sex with animals.

It may be, then, that the moral issue itself is merely a fissure at the surface revealing a gaping and shifting fault line deep beneath the surface. It is a fault line that divides entire worldviews.

This is a difficult issue for me as my wife and I have befriended a gay man who lives in my mother's Florida condo building. I *genuinely like* this person. He is bright--a college professor--very friendly and cheerful, and watches out after my mom. He recently was diagnosed with a melanoma, and just discovered that it had gotten into his lymph system. He is frightened, and, having just gone through a round with a different cancer, I have expressed concern and support, have been praying for him and told him so, all for which he was very appreciative.

How does one reconcile moral disapproval of a lifestyle with a real appreciation for the *person* who is engaged in that lifestyle?
I don't have a good answer, but for this little bit: there is much more to a person than his or her sexual orientation. I think that one mistake my conservative friends make is to treat homosexuality as though it is *the* defining characteristic of a person and thus blinding themselves to other redeeming qualities.

-----

-----

"Every time I'm in Georgia I eat a peach for peace."
--Duane Allman

Well stated. If there is morality there must be a definer of morality.

If no definer then there is no morality and all is do what you want, as long as you can get away with it.

And if something is immoral the negative effects will show in society. In regarding homosexuality they most assuredly have.

How does one reconcile moral disapproval of a lifestyle with a real appreciation for the *person* who is engaged in that lifestyle?
I don't have a good answer, but for this little bit: there is much more to a person than his or her sexual orientation. I think that one mistake my conservative friends make is to treat homosexuality as though it is *the* defining characteristic of a person and thus blinding themselves to other redeeming qualities.

Love the sinner and hate the sin. I think the Bible nails it head on there.

Love them and do all to help them end the sin. But never condone or approve of the sin.

I am dead set homosexuality is a sin, as is a number of other things in the Bible. And yet I do have homosexual friends.

In God's eyes all sin is sin and condemns one outside his grace. Thus, this must be my stance on sin as well.

Which means, the little lie is as much a sin as murder. Neither can be upheld.

But, at the same time, as Paul says, he struggles to not sin but sins daily. We must struggle to stop sinning.

Then there is get the plank out of your eye before trying to help the brother with the splinter in his.

Meaning, recognize we all have struggles with sin. And unless we are willing to fight our own we have no business intruding upon the lives of others.

So, if we don't want others to loving tell and correct us, leave them alone.

Yet, we are told we must work on ourselves to get rid of sin. So, that puts us back into the action.

Finally, while all sins are equally sins, spiritually speaking, in the flesh world sins most assuredly have ranks of damage and impact on our lives.

Sex sin is listed as one of the absolute worst because it impacts how we react to others, how we think about ourselves and so on in a very deep way.

Hope I am making sense.

As a generic statement, I guess what I am trying to say is we all sin and all must recognize what sin is and work on getting it out of our lives, which is a life long struggle.

But, at the same time, we cannot shut ourselves out of the world. Thus, there are sins that a society can tolerate and try to deal with person to person to make things better.

There are also sins society cannot tolerate, such as murder, theft, and forms of sexuality immorality, which goes beyond homosexuality as well. They are too destructive to society and cannot be endorsed or condoned.

When homosexuals put their sin in societies face, it cannot be condoned. When they keep their sins from impacting society it can be overlooked because they are hurting themselves alone.

This applies to other moral issues as well.

No, homosexuality is the THE defining quality. But it is a major one.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Yes, marriage has been around for a long time but only within the last century has marriage for love been around - prior marriages were for convenience, social stature or the ability to join two families wealth and assets together. The definition of marriage has already changed - at least here in the US - there are still some countries where marriages are pre-arranged and only after dowries are accepted.

Is homosexual marriage a deviation from the norm? Yes, but if the divorce rate ekes a little higher, so will traditional, marriage for a lifetime. Must we always do what the norm tells us to? The norm in Nazi Germany was to do what they told you to do, keep your head down and keep quiet. Six million dead Jews later.....

You end your comment well though, muddle, realizing that when this issue is discussed it is with people - friends, neighbors and family members at its core - not just shadowy figures that can or deserve to be lumped together under one blanket. If only everyone could meet everyone else, gay, straight, black, white, martian, etc., we might then see that if we don't do unto others as we would have them do unto us, we are really doing others wrong.

Two guys kisssing is an icky image for most - me included - but I don't need to press my opinions on them and make them stop, ( Funny how I find the image of two girls kissing not as icky - thank you "Wild Things" and "Cruel Intentions".

Anyway, if people want to join themselves together legally, allowing them to share a life together, it doesn't hurt me or my marriage. If your mom's neighbor signed a piece of paper with his boyfriend and it allowed the boyfriend into the hospital to be with him as a family member, how does that hurt anybody? If the boyfriend is able to inherit things from his partner after he dies, what do you care?

As for explaining gays to my son in the future, we'll have to do that regardless of whether gay marriage is allowed. I'm sure there will be countless other uncomfortable topics to discuss like erectile disfunction - (thanks TV).

Anyway, slam away everybody - tell me why I'm going to Hell and such.

Just kidding.

But I bet I got more readers for that subject.

The above is an older post of mine and I'm surprised that it has re-surfaced.

There are several issues that I would like to address, but I haven't the time. I'm on the road again (this time on a surfin' safari to Florida) and have a motel wireless connection. So I'll simply re-introuduce one of my main points in that post, since no one has replied yet.

If society is to condone Heather having two mommies, then what principled reason is there for precluding Tyler legitimately having three daddies? If marriage can be redefined so as to be more inclusive on the basis of gender, then why not make a similar alteration with regard to number--"cluster marriages"?

I conjectured above that the only natural and pricipled reason for sticking with *couples* is grounded in the heterosexual marriage relation with its obvious reproductive and familial implications. Remove that natural and (heretofore) normative ground and it seems that, in principle, anything goes.

Heck, Princeton philosophy professor Peter Singer has come out arguing for the moral permissibility of bestiality. What if we factor that into the mix? ("Do you take this poodle to be your lawfully wedded significant other?" "You may lick the bride.")

Hope your having a blast on the beach. I'm in the Ozarks putting on my best hillbilly front. Ooops...I mean Ozark American front. Man it's beautiful here on Table Rock Lake at the Bass Pro Shops Big Cedar Lodge. They're even having an NRA conference here. Not a bunch of men holding hands though.

Muddle. You need to write another song while riding the waves. I'm not sure how you are with country music but how about rewriting he lyrics to "I'm My Own Dads Grandfather" or whatever it's called. But instead of the being centered around some Alabama trailer community you would center it around gay and polygamous. Throw in a little bestialiy and pedophilia and you could be a platinum label in no time. Be Basomati would be one of your fans.

Muddle, my friend, there is a great counterpoint to your contention that gay marriage will lead to polygamy, bestiality and public sex with penguins outside of J.C. Penneys. (Okay you didn't claim the last part, but it IS addressed in the rebuttal.

Take a look at Dahlia Latwick's article "Slippery Slop" Click here . It addresses the issue far more eloquently than I could have.

Thanks for the link. This does directly address one of the arguments that I wish to advance. I have a reply in the works, but for now I'm sitting on the balcony, drinking an IPA and looking at the ocean!

Rhetoric, cliche and false argument is actually what it was.

I am amazed he would plead historical evidence against polygamy while at the same time pretending it does not exist against homosexuality.

Here is the great argument as to why polygamy falls in a different category and can be denied for legal reasons:

But one can plausibly argue that there is a rational basis for states to ban polygamous and polyamorous marriages in which there has been historical evidence of an imbalance of power, coercion (particularly of young girls), and an enormous financial burden placed on the state.

As a legal retort, does not a consenting adults have the right to enter into a dominate and submissive roles relationship? In fact, are they not many such relationships, in fact, because that is how the couple wants it? And in fact, is that also not seen in homosexual couples as well?

Are such relationships illegal now? No.

Have they been illegal historically? No.

Is young girl abuse limited to polygamous relationships? No.

Is not this issue, as concerns young girls, not overcome by the establishing legal age limits for marriage and sex to occur?

And as for the financial one, there are numerous illegal polygamous relationships out there today. And the DO NOT impose additional financial burden since they are often established upon the basis of the man and some of the wives working while another wife cares for the children during the day.

In otherwords, this is a totally false and contrived argument that does not fit the facts.

Yea, I have listened to the arguments of the pro-homosexual and the pro-polygamy groups.

And isn't it strange how each of these groups often sees the other group as illegal and immoral? That they should not be legally recognized?

In fact, to strip away historical opposition to homosexual marriage is to deny its use against polygamy and such.

Interestingly, such as the Genome Project findings are more supportive of polygamy. They found nothing biologically positive for homosexuality while the reproductive, normal human sexuality and such can at least in part be suppored for polygamy.

In fact, polygamy has a historical case that homosexualtiy does not. It has been legal in many societies throughout history.

Bottom line is this is a very bad argument against the slippery slope. It brings out historical and legal realities more friendly to polygamy than homosexuality.

Yet, polygamy also has a negative and destructive side society cannot legalize.

Not a good Counter Point at all. It blows up in its own face.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Just sticking with titles here.

There actually are groups working to get polygamy legalized.

As you say, in principle that opens the door to them ALL. Polygamy, polyandry, no age limit, beastiality, group marriage and so on.

There have been attempts at setting up communities where every one in town is one family and you have sex with whomever you want and the kids belong to the community.

When marriage ceases to be bound by moral and social standards as old as Man we have real problems on our hands.

Today, legal or not, we have real problems on our hands.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Colorado City Arizona is built around something similar to this. It's a strange place, lead by a so called "Prophet". Actually a spin off of the Mormons, I believe. Strange goings on for sure.

Yes, marriage has been around for a long time but only within the last century has marriage for love been around - prior marriages were for convenience, social stature or the ability to join two families wealth and assets together. The definition of marriage has already changed - at least here in the US - there are still some countries where marriages are pre-arranged and only after dowries are accepted.

That is only true in part.

In the royalty and such marriage was indeed political. And in some societies it was arranged.

You make the forumula too simple.

In Hebrew customs of the OT and at the time of Christ, yes, the families controlled the marriage to a heavy extent. But not completely.

The potential groom and bride met before a the marriage was locked in. The talked and so on.

Then, he offered the bride the wedding cup. If she drank, the marriage began then, since they had a different concept of how such things progressed.

If he did not offer or she did not drink, no way they would be married.

In some African cultures the women display themselves in ceremonies. In some others the men do. The opposite sex approaches the one they are interested in and it proceeds from there.

In Europe, among the lower socio-economic levels, there was most assuredly marriage for love. Of course, it had to be approved of by the parents, in most cases.

And marriage for love only in the last century in the US? Man, are you wrong there.

Courting and such has been a tradition here from the colonies on. Even a fact in Europe at that time and before.

So, basically put, your argument is both flawed and non-applicable for justifying homosexual unions.

Is homosexual marriage a deviation from the norm? Yes, but if the divorce rate ekes a little higher, so will traditional, marriage for a lifetime. Must we always do what the norm tells us to? The norm in Nazi Germany was to do what they told you to do, keep your head down and keep quiet. Six million dead Jews later.....
Apples and oranges.

Yes, morality is falling in this country. Does that change morality? Or does it say our society does not give much of a hoot about morality any longer?

Does it change the genetic fact we are born heterosexual, with some having herent homosexual traits or some just wanting to go that route?

Putting it another way, does bad choices change bad morality to good morality if society gets enough amoral thinking within it?

Or does it destroy the society and country?

Historical demographics shows it destroys a society.

You end your comment well though, muddle, realizing that when this issue is discussed it is with people - friends, neighbors and family members at its core - not just shadowy figures that can or deserve to be lumped together under one blanket. If only everyone could meet everyone else, gay, straight, black, white, martian, etc., we might then see that if we don't do unto others as we would have them do unto us, we are really doing others wrong.
While addressed to muddle, this argument is saying, 'if you disregard my problems I will disregard yours.'

Do unto others says if you want everyone to turn a blind eye to your serious issues then turn a blind eye to theirs. But, if you want them to really show love and caring, have them lovingly point out the issues with beating you over the head with it.

Self examination is another area we are failing miserably in within our society.

Do I like what I find in myself in every aspect? No.

So what do I do about it? Turn a blind eye? Or fix it?

As a society are there issues we simply cannot turn a blind to? Yes, but the wisdom is in how we handle it.

Two guys kisssing is an icky image for most - me included - but I don't need to press my opinions on them and make them stop, ( Funny how I find the image of two girls kissing not as icky - thank you "Wild Things" and "Cruel Intentions".

I see. So, there are no issues, in either case, of impact on our youth? No ramifications of the adults acting as this is just fine and dandy?

Anyway, if people want to join themselves together legally, allowing them to share a life together, it doesn't hurt me or my marriage. If your mom's neighbor signed a piece of paper with his boyfriend and it allowed the boyfriend into the hospital to be with him as a family member, how does that hurt anybody? If the boyfriend is able to inherit things from his partner after he dies, what do you care?

Gays can inherit from each other without marriage. It is called a will.

But when you try to force your family to accept gays as family member, meaning as In-Laws, holding spousal rights and so on, it most assuredly affects family. And not yours alone, but everyone's.

Hmmmm. Parental rights get in here as well since this brings adoption issues into play.

Can an open gay teen then be barred from force sharing of tents and such in scouting? What do you do with gays in military barracks situations? And so on.

As for explaining gays to my son in the future, we'll have to do that regardless of whether gay marriage is allowed. I'm sure there will be countless other uncomfortable topics to discuss like erectile disfunction - (thanks TV).

Yep. You will have to explain.

Are you going to tell them when a gay asks them out on a date it is fine if they want to go? Just be what you want to be?

How about lessons on what is moral and immoral activity?

Explain why society is backing and paying to promote such issues if you tell him it is not good or moral. Explain the double standard.

Anyway, slam away everybody - tell me why I'm going to Hell and such.

No intention to slam. But every intention to get some though in on how this can never be limited to the two married, how it impacts all of society and it is a moral issue.

To dismiss thousands of years of understanding on sexual relationship is dangerous.

Do your really think that in all of the civilized societies heterosexuality did not become the moral norm without good reasons? Both biologically, socially and otherwise?

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Gay couples getting married means they get tax and welfare benefits from the federal and state governments instead of those benefits being larger and given to legitimate couples who actually produce children - which is the real reason for the tax and welfare benefits.

How hard is that to understand, you parasite?
meow

Gay marriage does not affect my marriage. Let them get hit with the marriage penalty tax. As for not reproducing.......... after living in PTC for 10 yrs. I would say that is a good thing. Most people are not capable of raising good kids and should not be trying it. Further more they should not be getting tax breaks for breeding like rabbits on crystal meth. They should have to pay an extra fee for the services they use.

Many couples choose not to have kids because they know it is too much work. We know we don't have the time to discipline them. We like nice things and we like to travel.

"Gay couples getting married means they get tax and welfare benefits from the federal and state governments" EXACTLY...you've just proven my point. By the way...what a weak argument this is "legitimate couples who actually produce children - which is the real reason for the tax and welfare benefits" that's why married couples who aren't able to concieve don't recieve tax or welfare benefits...right?? Give me a break.

By the way, don't know if you've heard or not, but PTC is becoming the new southside gay mecca...better start thinking about when and where you're gonna move

Homosexuality is a dead end. There are no off-spring.

It is a choice, not a genetic absolute. Heterosexuality is the inherent genetic trait. It must be overriden to be gay.

And before anyone says otherwise, look it up. Homosexuality is a herent, not an inherit trait.

That means you have to choose to act upon a leaning. It is not locked into you like eye color.

Tolerance of it is also a historical sign of a society and culture in decay. Research that issue as well.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

I'm straight. I don't think I could ever be motivated to be intimate with a man. Why? I was born straight.

If you think that gay men weren't born gay, the perhaps you aren't sure if YOU were born straight.

I'm a big believer that the biggest homophobic is the biggest homosexual. I've seen it too many times. The guys who turned out to be gay from high school were the ones who always whined about gays. There's a reason they never stopped talking about (because they never stopped thinking about it).

I hardly ever think about gay men. Why? Because I rarely think about it.

Now, stop whining and just come out of the closet, guys (or should I say "gays"?)

I didn't choose to be a Hetero. I just am. Gay men or women are ZERO threat to me.

The post below comparing them to criminals is a joke.

I frankly don't get the issue.

I'm certainly not in favor a Constitutional Amendment that sets forth something that Americans CANNOT do, we haven't done this since Prohibition, and we see how well that worked.

All are born hetero. That is genetically inherent. And turning to that bad thing, the Bible, God says we are all born hetero. Science and Bible agree.

Some have traits to do things society calls undesirable, criminal and immoral. Such as I listed are herent, not inherent traits. The Bible calls them sin nature.

We all have bad herant traits/sin nature. But unlike inherited traits, you have to CHOOSE to act out on herent/sin nature.

And that is where you guys go totally wrong. You try to make hetero and homo EQUAL genetic traits. They are absolutley not. Neither scientifically or Biblically.

Even further than that, some, without any of the hereant traits, choose to experiment or go that direction for non-genetic reasons.

And that list you scorned includes traits that are NOT criminal as well.

What makes certain traits criminal and other traits non-criminal? Determinations of Law. The government determines some activities, herant or chosen, as damaging enough to require restriction and punishment.

In strict Islamic nations, under Sharia Law, if a woman is forced to have sex during the day by other than her husband, it is rape. If after sunset it is not rape. She was asking for it.

Unless it has changed, in England the age of consensual sex is 16. In the US the norm is 18. Law determines that in one place 16 & 17 is not a crime and in another it is.

Note in my list I did not state criminal and non-criminal. I simply listed things that are not good without ranking them in degrees.

I am not for witch hunting gays. But I a dead set against promoting homosexuality to a status never before allowed in any civilized nation.

If you cannot see the association, in Law, between such things as marriage, child rearing, military, children organization and all other institutions that have interactions between the sexes as an important consideration, then you are not thinking.

If you are trying to pretend, that under Law, you can allow gay marriages without opening the door to the issues of homosexuality involved in these other institutes, you are self deceptive.

Homosexuality has never been given the status of socially beneficial or legally recognized for very good reasons.

And neither has it in Christianity, or other religions in fact. Those who try to Biblically justify homosexuality Biblically need to actually start readng the Bible for what it says instead of their social agendas.

We live in a unique period of human history. Morality is collapsing. The Bible calls it Apostacy and the 7th church of Revelation, among others, warns the fate of those who pursue it.

Take the Christian part with a grain of salt if you don't like the Bible. But that leaves the Secular and Science points totally intact.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

You would like a Theocracy, or at least you come across that way. Oh yeah, the Theocracy you desire is Christian. Any other theocracy is out.

Theocracy scares me to death.

What else would you ban if given the chance? Maybe nothing is the answer, but I'm curious.

June 27, 2006, 7:05AM
Study suggests being gay has basis in biology
Men with several older brothers are more likely to be homosexuals, a Canada study finds

"http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4004440.html"

Study suggests being gay has basis in biology
Men with several older brothers are more likely to be homosexuals, a Canada study finds.

That is just flat wrong. The article says:

"We don't believe that there's any biological basis for homosexuality," Dailey said. "We feel the causes are complex but are deeply rooted in early childhood development."

There have been a number of attempts to establish a physical basis "and in every case the alleged findings have been severely challenged and questioned," he said.

Nurture, not nature.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

PTC Guy

I must admit that I’m rather surprised that you only quoted those that didn’t write the research paper.

“WASHINGTON - Men with several older brothers have a greater chance of being gay — whether they were raised together or not — a finding researchers say adds weight to the idea that sexual orientation is based in biology.”

The article continues with, "It's likely to be a prenatal effect," said Anthony Bogaert of Brock University in St. Catharines, Canada, who did the research. "This and other studies suggest that there is probably a biological basis" for homosexuality.”

Additionally it states, Additionally it states, "S. Marc Breedlove, a neuroscience professor of Michigan State University, said the finding "absolutely" confirms a physical basis.

As I have no dog in this fight; the only point that I’m trying to make is please don’t quote selective passages that support only your point of view.

The Genome Project was the most extensive work to date on these issues.

There were Panels of scientist researching and cataloging numerous genetic claims and the acutal results. There were labs in a number of countries across the world.

They spent millions in research over years.

On the issue of homosexuality the findings are explicit that homosexuality is not an inherent trait. Meaning no one MUST be a homosexual.

Leanings and such are fully compatible with the Projects findings. But the inherent trait remains heterosexual.

Research on identical twins also confirms it is not genetic.

It was also found a person can actually change their brains and traits, to a degree, over time. The Brain and such are not locked into one single mold.

You are trying to override nurture with nature. No major study, that has been properly validated, shows it is a biological absolute as you are trying to present.

Younger boys constantly exposed to extensive male companionship fits fully with nurture.

The idea a mother will produce a more homosexually genetic boy with each new male birth is absurd.

And I should not quote selected passages? What did you just do?

You quoted one to the dismissal of others.

You have ONE researcher doing the tests and ONE supporting the claims without running blind studies and that is suppose to be proof?

The Genome Project, among others, used panels of scientists and blind confirmation tests. And it cited a bunch of studies, of the nature you gave here, as being scientifically unsound in their rationale.

They tried to replicate the old claims of proof about homosexuality being genetic. Every one of those claims went down in flames as flawed in in either premise, excecution or accuracy of findings.

Bottom line is they found NO homosexual, alcohol or other such claimed irresistable genetics or biology.

They did find groupings where people were more easily addicted to alcohol and such. And groupings where more homosexuals occurred.

But they most assuredly pointed out two facts that cannot be denied:
1. If it was inherent, and not choice, all in those groups would have been homosexual. But less than half were.

2. If genetic, it would be a self exterminating genetic trait since they would not reproduce in the numbers needed to maintain it in the genetic pool.

Just reading the issues stated declare nurture over nature.

A good example were the Spartans. They went long times away from home and did not marry until their military duty was completed.

Homosexual activity was the norm since within the military it was homosexuality or celebacy.

But when their military duty was over and that could marry, the became heterosexual for the rest of their lives.

What does that mean? Choice.

How about prison? Do those who practice homosexuality, while in, go after the same or other sex, for the most part, when they get out? The other sex.

Then there are those who stop being homosexual and become heterosexual.

Some say they still get tempted and attracted to men at times. But they can resist the temptation, ate drawn to their women and the temptaton decreases over time for many. Ending complete for some.

Really, in the light of all the major research done rejecting homosexuality being inherited, citing two men is not very meaningful.

And no, I am not approaching this from a narrow minded bigoted point of view. The scientific, social and Biblical points on this issue are all in agreement.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

PTC Guy

Like I said earlier, I have no dog in this fight.

I personally don’t care of someone wishes to practice a “gay” lifestyle or not. As far as I’m concerned people shouldn’t be able to dye their hair purple.

I’m convinced that the only reason that this issue is being discussed in Washington is to distract the American people form real issues.

I only found the article interesting as a result of reading your earlier post that started with “All are born hetero. That is genetically inherent.” A short while later I happened across this article in “Google News” and remembered your post.

Again, this is another reason that I don’t debate religion with people any longer. Everyone takes it personally and the “debate” part ends.

As long as you don't cross some folks in this area, everything is fine. But some have "their" interpretation of the Bible and by golly, that's how it is. No wiggle room, no room for other opinions.

I love it when you guys on the other side make it out there is no issue until we say something.

Well, got news for you. Where there is disagreement on this level both sides cannot win. And your sides claims of tolerance and all the other mumbo jumbo is code words for not wanting to discuss it out, you just want to declare.

On homosexuality you just want marriage legal because it suits you. Science and everything else be damned.

Trying to pretend I didn't quote science and history, only the Bible is a lame argument. One from someone when they just 'want' and facts mean squat.

There is always room for others to voice their opinions. But when comes to deciding whose opinion sets the rules, You don't want to deal with facts, but just the outcome you desire.

No response on points of legal homosexual impact on the military, adoption, youth organizations and on and on except you want it legalized.

That is an agenda driven by emotion and personal desire, not facts and consequences.

And as for always becoming personal, that is a red herring argument. Presenting and weighing out evidence and facts is not personal, but the way issues should be resolved. Not just do it.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

PTC Guy there is no “our” side, “your” side, us, we or them.

I just posted the article because you brought up the idea in your earlier post.

Like I said, I have NO interest in debating the “gay” issue with anyone.

It just doesn’t mean that much to me. Truly, It wouldn’t bother me if someone were gay, green and Hindu just as long as their not stupid.

If I wanted a good debate I’d chose the topic of why “Organized” religions don’t have to pay taxes when they tell people how to vote on cretin issues. Now that’s something I could sink my teeth into. (pun intended)

P.S. I’m married to someone of the opposite sex and have two great kids.

I was mostly posting to Dawg, not you.

My only thing with what you said was that I was making it personal. Which I was not.

As for 'Organized' religions, that is a broad topic.

On one hand, I do not belong to any such organization. But on the other hand, as long as there are tax exempt political groups, I am not going to selectively want their status pulled.

As for what purposes religions are allowed to organize, I believe they can organize for every purpose other groups can organize, as long as they are bound by the same laws in those endeavors.

There you have my positions on that in a nut shell.

Later.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

When it comes down to laws in our Country, I tend to err on less is better. Not more banning this or that.

I'm trying to deal with facts. Facts such how what/how this issue could possibly be a burden to me or any of my Family. I can't see how it possibly could be. I don't see it as a crime against my Family or myself. As far as it suiting me, it doesn't suit me at all because I'm not a Homosexual.

I am probably about as Libertarian as they come on issues like this.

I agree on less is best. But society still needs structure, not anarachy.

Laws should only exist to defend the country and allow it to function properly.

So, we probably agree in a lot of ways.

And I am dealing with the facts on how homosexuality can affect us.

Having been a Boy Scout and 4-H leader, and having served in the mility, I have no problem seeing how it can affect our families. None at all.

And having seen how it impacts children in liberal schools and such, I most assuredly see how it can hurt us all.

Libetarians tend to go too far, in my book. Endorsing 'Let the Buyer Beware' is every bit as bad, to me, as the stupid government supporting lawsuits by those who use the top of a ladder when warned not to.

Later, I think we have beat this topic up enough for others to know where we stand and why.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Yea, it is a choice. Conscience or otherwise.

The old genetic argument is dead, buried and gone. The Gnome Project, among other, buried it.

People have strong leanings to do many wrong things. Science calls it herent traits and the Bible calls it sin nature.

I do not fear homosexuals. I do not avoid homosexuals. I do not attack homosexuals.

But I do not attempt to justify any problem trait people choose to act upon. Mine or anyone elses.

I was responding to those, such as you, who seek to justify and explain away what is immoral and harmful to society.

As for coming out of the closest and all those personal attacks, grow up. That is one of the oldest and most warn out statements around.

Neither am I gay or one who has the slighest trait toward it. Nor do I think about it except when it is pushed forward as an agenda.

When a nation looses its moral base the nation dies. Obviously, you go into the morally lost column.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Who would choose a path that leads to being scorned, discriminated against, beat, ridiculed, damned, shunned, etc? I know, they get laid more. That's the choice I would make.

Hello! Look at the world around you!

People choose to be thiefs, murderers, pedophiles, tatoo their bodies head to toe, pierce their bodies and dye there hair lavender and on and on.

There are pedophiles and rapists who claim they were born that way. Are we going to let them off the hook now as well?

Do the guys who put on dresses and wigs and walk the street HAVE to do that? They are FORCED to try to look female?

Are the females the put on men's closes, strap their boobs down and cut their hair butch forced to do so? They HAVE to look like males?

And you ask who who make foolish choices? Or wonder if it is a choice or not?

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

"Homosexuality is a dead end. There are no off-spring"...once again, weak. There are many heterosexual couples that aren't able to concieve, I guess that's their choice too, right? I'm overwhelmed by this show of ignorance. And by the way, how do you know people aren't born that way? I assume you made a conscience decision to be straight? While I go research some of the statements you made, maybe you should think about this, "Dr. Henry Adams of the University of Georgia, was the first to attempt to test the proposition empirically. The results? Individuals who score in the homophobic range on the "Homophobia Scale" demonstrate signficant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli". Just a thought

"Homosexuality is a dead end. There are no off-spring"...once again, weak. There are many heterosexual couples that aren't able to concieve, I guess that's their choice too, right? I'm overwhelmed by this show of ignorance.

This is either an ignorant argument or a circumspect and pointless one. Solely stated to try to justify a non-point.

True, SOME heterosexual couples do not have children. But NO homosexual ones give birth.

And many who do not bear their own adopt. Thus they give those children and stable, marriage based and true family.

Arguing the exceptions does not negate the majority point.

And by the way, how do you know people aren't born that way?

You speak of ignorance and then say this?

There has been much genetic research done on this issue. The Gnome Project, in example, was massive and clearly said homosexuality was herent, not inherent, and thus a choice to follow a desire and not a genetic mandate. Like some people being more prone to lying, stealing, drunkeness and so on.

If you try to give homosexuality a pass on this issue you must give all herent traits a pass.

We all have them, one kind or another. But we are responsible for choosing to act on them or not.

I assume you made a conscience decision to be straight?

You are not paying attention. Heterosexuality is inherent, not herent.

While I go research some of the statements you made, maybe you should think about this, "Dr. Henry Adams of the University of Georgia, was the first to attempt to test the proposition empirically. The results? Individuals who score in the homophobic range on the "Homophobia Scale" demonstrate signficant sexual arousal to male homosexual erotic stimuli". Just a thought

You are not paying attention.

I already said it is a herent trait. Not an inherent trait.

People with tendancies to lie must resist doing so. As with those with tendancies to steal.

A tendancy toward something is not the same as having no choice but to do that something.

There are many ex-homosexualies now happily married to women and having families. Yes, the tendancy is there, but they do not act on the tendancies and are much happier and less confused.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Homosexuality being wrong has nothing to do with constitutional amendments being necessary. Of course they shouldn't get the benefits of marriage from the government because it wasn't set up for such a purpose. But to try to prevent homosexuality with more laws is about as useless as was the prohibition of liquor and women's sufferage problems. We made a mistake with slavery, women's voting rights, outlawing liquor and depriving most any race except caucasian into politics. Let's don't legislate any more moral situations. It is just a vote getter for those who think the administartion is serious.

And frankly, we totally agree on this being an election year thing.

I'm also not sure it wouldn't serve the purpose of having less abuses from benefits etc from Govts/Business's. If people truly had to get married to get benefits, would they do it? If they couldn't just say they are "partners" and I want my benefits, costs would drop. I know my Wife's company thinks so. She works in Human Resources of a large company and sees the abuses every day.

Well, highgreen, consider this.

They do get the benefits in some states. But it is not called marriage.

So, they get married in one state where it is legal, move to another that does not allow it. Split up and take up with someone else. Then move to another state that recognizes such partnerships, but not marriage.

See the mess this heads into? Who is legally what where?

Marriage, by definitions, entails rights, responsibilities and such, as a couple. Thus it has serous impact.

Even worse. Legally married in one state with a legal adoption. Then move to a state where neither is recognized.

Allowing gay marriages in any state is a can of worms. And that can has already been opened.

It needs to be stopped.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

I said it was not a marriage. They live together if they want just as millions of others do without marriage.

I didn't mean to imply you did.

My point was that something needs to be done because there are states allowing such marriages, adoptions and so on.

What do we do about them and the impact they have on others?

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Here's an idea, allow civil unions. You don't even have to call it marriage since that word seems to get all of the straight peoples' panties in a wad. Call it whatever you want to call it, just give EVERYONE equal rights. Homosexuals don't deserve to be treated as second class citizens. I'm not sure what "impact" it would have on you if gay people were allowed the same rights as straight people. Who you marry is none of my business and I honestly couldn't care less who you chose to live your life with...why would I?? No one is asking you to marry another man so honestly you shouldn't really be concerned with it. I don't see how it's going to affect your marriage or anyone elses for that matter.

You guys don't want to marry. You just want a free ride and to force your ways on the rest of us so you can somehow justify your sick and peverted minds and actions. As far as the benefits go it's just another case of a group of people looking to live off of "other peoples money". Now there's a movement in the queer gangs to make polygamous queer marriages legal.

There will come a time when the queer community will have tried to cram their agendas down our throats one to many times and there will be a backlash. Stay out of our faces girly boy and we'll leave you and your gay buddies alone. We really don't care what you do with each other until you try to force us to accept your sickness.

Take your "straight bashing" somewhere else girly boy.

A "free ride"?? Since when does wanting EQUAL rights, mean a free ride? Gays don't want more rights than heteros, just the same. No one is "forcing" their ways on you sweetie. I feel pretty confident in telling you that gay people DO NOT want you to be a part of their community and really don't give a rat's a** who you do or don't sleep with. Equal treatment isn't forcing anything on anyone. And to the VERY misinformed statement you made "As far as the benefits go it's just another case of a group of people looking to live off of 'other peoples money'"...the gay community is a very wealthy constituency and definitely isn't looking to live off of anyone's money.

I'm also not really sure what "ageda" you're referring to. If equal treatment means that it's being crammed down your throat and if equal treatment is an "agenda", then I guess you're right. It sounds to me like heterosexuals are EXTREMELY insecure. I had no idea that the gay community was so powerful and was such a huge threat to straight people. Now go run hide in your bunker and make sure you have plenty of canned foods and water because the gays will be arriving soon to takeover the world.

No one is in your face and I am definitely not "straight bashing"...you are the one bashing and having to resort to the immature tactic of name calling, which is in itself all the evidence that I need to prove that you my darling, are ignorant and uninformed. For that reason, it's pointless for me to make any attempt to have an intelligent exchage. I'm actually embarrassed for you at your stupidity so I'll do you a favor in an attempt to prevent you from sounding even more ignorant, and let you go on your merry little way filled with hate.

OK, I have taken a long enough break from responding. Did anyone notice I have been gone, or even care?

Anyway, 2cents, give me one example of rights a straight person has that a gay person does not. Can you name one?

Bout time you woke up. I'm a hate monger he says. Well...I've been called worse by better. When challenged just toss out the Hate Monger Monicker.

I got really bored with the stupid posts going on here and needed a break. Anyway, I will be back, just not getting drawn into illogical and mindless debates.

Maybe you've missed this whole discussion...marriage.

review your post. I got married. You can too. Try again.

Emergency medical care authorization and treatment, hospital visitation and notification (sorry, you're not "family"). Lack of ability to hold property as tenants by the entirety (e.g. "surviving spouse"). Immunity from testifying in court. Homestead exemption survivor. Intestate succession ("dying without a will").

Need more?

I am straight. The same rules apply to any non-family member. Your examples apply to a spouse. Neither can have a spouse of the same sex.

Suppose John Doe and Richard Roe are lifelong partners, have been for years. John Doe and Richard Roe WANT the benefits of a civil union, but are denied these currently. One day, John's son from a previous marriage gets beaten half to death by your "Christian" son at school for having "gay parents". Richard Roe is denied visitation at the hospital because he is not "family".

And then you come online and complain about how your boy is "persecuted" for his faith.

You mean to slander Christianity. My religion was never mentioned in my posts. But, in typical liberalism fashion, you will take any opportunity to bash Christianity.

You mean to say you don't have a good argument, so you will attack me and make me and my son out to be the proverbial bad guys.

Now, I will respond to your imputed point. My best friend, my girl friend (assuming I was not married, but had a blonde, female significant other), my co-workers, etc could be denied visitation because they are not part of the family. Now, where does the non-equality fit in?

Straights and gays are allowed the same rights; and they both are denied certain "rights". They are the same. You and this movement are wanting to make up rights that would only apply to one segment of the population. Then you would have inequality.

Watch out WakeUp. You stepped in the middle of true hate. The hate of the traditional family and culture because by trying to take us down (Christians or not) they somehow feel like they are justifying their sickness and perversions. Just make sure these guys don't get near you sons. They have no boundries.

The real agenda comes out.

What is said here is that son now is not the legal heir and family representative if something happens to a father. The gay partner can actually override him because his relationship would be legally equivalent to a wife's.

Or, the son cannot stop someone from being there he does not want there.

So, that opens the door to government survivor benefits, legally having spousal standing in estate issue and a ton more.

So, there are legal issues that are not moral issues at stake.

Then look at such as Scouting. Gays would force boys to tent with openly homsexual boys. Should boys and girls tent together as well then?

And Scouters? Should there be openly gay leaders taking boys into the woods, isolated from others?

How about barracks? How do you house a gay? With the opposite sex to take away the sexual activity? How would women feel about being housed, showering and so on with gay men?

But then, you could only have one gay per barracks with the opposite sex.

Then there is children. Married couples adopt, right?

Anyone who says this is a non issue legally has an agenda, or is just plain blind to all the surrounding issues. And they dismiss the rights and issues heterosexuals would be legally required to accept.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

We're talking about conferring equal status upon monogamous domestic partnerships, and you want to insinuate that all gays are somehow pedophiles by definition.

The only liar here is you, Basmati.

Misquoting and mistating me does not make me a liar. It makes you a bad poster. One who deliberately resorts to such antics to try to knock down another poster you cannot defeat with facts.

I never have said, and never will say, all homosexuals are pedophiles.

I am saying such sexual desires have NO PLACE in such as Scouting or military barracks.

Just in Fayette County, a number of Leaders have gone down for molesting boys. They joined Scouting to get access to them. Lied to become leaders.

Heterosexuals do not molest the same sex. Homosexuals and bi-sexuals do. It is a fool's game to try to label one who does such as heterosexual since it violates the meaning of heterosexual.

And what a crock to make this sound as if legal domestic relationships does not reach beyond the the two persons.

It has already been pointed out how many other people and issues are immediately affected by such a legal standing.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

Viewing civil unions or gay marriage as a single issue that remains in its own boundries is absurd. Legalizing gay marriage would open up a can of worms that would erase all boundries set by civilization for thousands of years. Great points PTC Guy. The scenarios could realisticaly be broadened much further than those you stated.

I'm not surprised that you agree with PTL Guy's theory that "gay" equals "pedophile".

I suspect most Americans would disagree with that absurd claim.

The vast amounts of peodphiles have been proven to have homosexual tendencies. I don't think most Americans would disagree with my supposedly absurd claim.

I think Git Real and PTC Guy have a lil something goin on between the two of them if ya know what I mean

Oh man you got me there girly boy. Me and PTC Guy. Oh no, wow wee that one really hurts. Now my life has been destroyed. Ouch. Ouch. Ouch. And it wasn't a choice. I guess I was just born outed. Now I have the right to have multiple partners and catch all kinds of stuff and blame Bush for not coming up with a cure for it and whine cause I can't piggy back on some dudes insurance so I can get my treatments. Does this mean that now I am an official democrat?

Your a sweetheart..I'd like to meet you.

In bathroom stalls?

No, usually Upward Bound games and things like that. But if you'd be willing to meet me, I guess a bathroom stall would be okay if that's the kinda thing you like

Upward Bound??? What you be talkin bout?

You chose the stall...tell me when and where

Not in this life time. Got it made where I'm at. And everything fits where it's supposed to.

Do you honestly think 2cents is real? I think it's someone pulling our leg.

You don't know what you're missing

I love it when you and PTL Guy use words like "proven".

Here's some proof for ya:

In 1994, Pediatrics, a peer-reviewed journal published a paper entitled "Are Children at Risk for Sexual Abuse by Homosexuals?". (volume 94, issue 1, pp 41-44).

The results? Two physicians reviewed every case of suspected child molestation evaluated at Children's Hospital in Denver over a one-year period in 1992. Of the 269 cases determined to involve molestation by an adult, only two of the perpetrators could be identified as gay or lesbian. The researchers concluded that the risk of child sexual abuse by an identifiably gay or lesbian person was between zero and 3.1%, and that the risk of such abuse by the heterosexual partner of a relative was over 100 times greater.

Thanks for the info. basmati. It really gives homosexuals a bad wrap when all these straight perverts molest little boys. Of course, there will always be people who think that men molesting little boys makes them gay, when like your post said, there's less than a 4% chance that the person is homosexual. Git Real and PTC Guy have something out for homosexuals for one reason or another, maybe their wives aren't satisfying them

You are such a silly girl now aren't you? A man going after boys and somehow that isn't a homo act? It's kind of like me racing on the interstate at a 140 mph. That ain't speeding. Speeding is keeping between 75 and 110 mph.

You'd argue with a brick wall. Can't argue with statistics and I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that those statistics came from someone who's a tiny bit smarter than you honey.

The molester says he is not a homosexual so he is not? Or says he never did it before, so he is not a homosexual?

Does that mean until one has sex they are a nonsexual awaiting classification statistically?

It is a stupid and actually hysterical proposition. By definition if the same sex stimulates you sexually you are homosexual or bisexual, not heterosexual.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

I came up with that one on my own. You say I'd argue with a brick wall. And you wouldn't? Honey..you couldn't afford me even if...

LOL...Guess we're gonna see if we can squish the cat flat....I mean the lion.

You're turning me on here

Enough said. :}

I think I love you

100% of all man on boy sexual abuses result from homosexual tendencies. And no....these crimes are no more severe than a man or a woman molesting any child boy or girl. Your study doesn't phase me much as most of my opions are formed by the day to day crimes we hear about on a daily basis. I don't care if 80% of the crimes are committed by heterosexuals I'm not going to trust my kids to a homosexual that has chosen a perverse lifestyle.

If you need a babysitter, I'm free on Mondays. The rest of the week I'm busy running my daycare

Heterosexual, by definition, is being sexually drawn to the the opposite sex ONLY.

Being drawn to the same sex makes one homosexual or bi-sexual by definition. The idea you have had to act on those desires, in the past, X amount of times, to be officially a homosexual or bi-sexual is absurd.

By definition a heterosexual cannot be drawn sexually to the same sex.

-----------------------------
Keeping it real and to the core of the issue, not the peripherals.

So glad to see another person of intelligence here basmati. You and I both know that there's noway of conducting an intelligent conversation with some people.

My post was simple. I want to know what right(s) I, as a straight, have that a gay person does not have.

Since you don't agree, you will take the typical approach and say anyone that is different than you is wrong, unenlightened or unintelligent.

Anyway, you two found each other. Have a great time dicussing your "unequal rights" in an intelligent way. Since you gave up on me, I'll do the same. Have a great day.

A gay can marry a person of the opposite sex.
A straight can marry a person of the opposite sex.
A gay cannot marry a person of the opposite sex.
A straight cannot marry a person of the opposite sex.

It looks like the same rules apply to both. So where are one's rights violated or not equal? They look they same to me.

Wow, I can't believe that's your argument. Have a good day

what are you talking about?