The disproving of one single study, not a study of its own proving anything.

It is not supposed to be with polls and things as I said, genetic means it starts at birth, not necessarily that you inherit it. It is random really.

By the way, you ignore that your own country accepts homosexuality as a genetic factor, and has for decades.

You live in the past, and cling to beliefs on this subject that are insignifigant, and laughable.

[Edited on 18-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

You will never achieve perfection in humanity, plain and simple. Does that mean you do away with laws? That line of reasoning makes no sense. Because their is a percentage of humanity that will violate all law or norm, do we do away with all laws and norms? Of course not.

I find it funny that you have no problem with chicks digging chicks! LOL! Spoken like a true male!!

I do, however, find offensive tha tyou insinuate that all who are against this are "gay haters". First off, I'm gay. Not in the hijacked sense, but in the true meaning of the word. So, let's use the proper word...homosexual. The offense is that you say we are homosexual haters, as opposed to haters of homosexuality. To clarify it for the shallow-minded, love the sinner while hating the sin. You are trying to lay an offense at our feet while dodging or rationalizing the real offense.

Yet thats the thing, there is no offense. There is no logic that I can find to justify taking away rights from homosexuals and lezbians or bisexuals or whatever, This is why I can only view you as 'haters' becuase I can't understand why you would possibly want to make these people in our society have less rights and privledges than everyone else, its not right or fair.

Homosexuality may be a sin to you, a sin in your religion, but does that these folks should be given less rights than anyone else? Can you justify that Mr. Crowne? How can you say that your beliefs should decide wether or not somebody else is allowed the rights that you are allowed.

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Earthtone, as I said before, homosexuals have no "rights" because they are homosexual. They have rights as being human beings. Regardless of what you think, there is damage done to society, and the damage will worsen as this happens. Fifty years from now, people with hearts even harder than the hearts of today will be arguing that child sex is a right.

As far as "my" religion, again, it is the religion that the nation was founded on. If you would like to have a nation that was built upon another, go to another nation. Is there one where homosexuality is acceptable? I don't know. Maybe the overall political climate would better suit you as well. But do not attempt to hijack this nation.

That is a terrible argument. Sex with a child is, and alwasy will be, clearly wrong in the eyes of society. Two consenting adults having sex regardless of their gender is not wrong, don't be so dramatic. Homosexuality is acceptable in America, except for people like you who cannot get past it.

Yes, America was founded on Christianity, however America is supposed to be a land of the free. This war on terrorism that you seem to support is supposed to be for freedom and yet you try to stop it from happening. Why should everyone in America be forced to live to the code of the Religion that you choose follow? I think you need to wake up and see that homosexuality has been around for thousands of years and will not go away however much it is dismissed and outcasted by Bible bashing folks like yourself.

Originally posted by James the Lesser
Bush is supporting a bill that states marrige is between a man and a woman. I'm sorry, but just because he is a republican meat puppet, doesn't mean he can tell people who they can and can't love. Who, not just Bush, but anyone has the power to tell people who they have to love? NO ONE! You can't tell a man he has to love a woman and vice versa, this is America, land of the #ing free! Freedom of speech, religon, and in my views, freedom to love whoever a person wants to love.

What is so wrong with gay and lesbian marriges? Sure, christians say it wrong, but well, eating meet on a friday is wrong according to them, so I'll let them go.

Main arguement is well, what next? animals? incest? But why do they ask that? What does two people who love each other enough they want to make the ultimate commitmint(sp?) have to do with incest and dogs? That a whole other story. Besides, last I saw, straight couple's aren't doing that well with a 51-53% divorce rate.

My freind Amber loves Rae(full name Rachael) and is planning on going to Vermont to get married for it legal there. But if Bush and the other rich white heterosexual christian males(republican for short) get their way, she won't be able to marry Rae. Why? Hell, they been together longer than 28% of marriges that occur today. 4 years, both finally 18, love each very much, yet have to go to Vermont to get married. Why?

I don't know, republicans just like to tell the poor, nonwhite, female, gay, non christian, or democratic what they can't do since they are not republican. Fight Bush, vote Dean, Kerry, Gore, Bill Gates, whoever, just not Bush and other corrupt politicians.(republican for short)

Are you gay??????

Originally posted by AD5673

Are you gay??????

What hell does that matter? This is a debate, it's not personal.

James the lesser
Bush is supporting a bill that states marrige is between a man and a woman. I'm sorry, but just because he is a republican meat puppet, doesn't mean he can tell people who they can and can't love. Who, not just Bush, but anyone has the power to tell people who they have to love? NO ONE! You can't tell a man he has to love a woman and vice versa, this is America, land of the #ing free! Freedom of speech, religon, and in my views, freedom to love whoever a person wants to love.

No one said they were not allowed to love each other. I'll never get it, but you can't really stop them from doing it. That doesn't mean they should be allowed to marry. What if people take advantage of it and do it just to get the benifits they get from marriage.(legal benifits)

Why reward people for being gay if so many think it's wrong? I have no problem with gay people, but I think marriage is a step too far. There are both religious arguments and natural arguments against homosexuality, but you can't stop it. Just like you can't stop some people from having obsessive compulsive disorders. I think it's a mental disorder, myself. There's no other way to explain it.

BTW, not all republicans are christian. Not all of them believe in god. Not all of them are anti-gay. Very few of them are the ones that you seem to picture.

[Edited on 19-2-2004 by joehayner]

Originally posted by QuestForSafety
The disproving of one single study, not a study of its own proving anything.

They were not studies to disprove his, but independant. They serve now to disprove the idea.

It is not supposed to be with polls and things as I said, genetic means it starts at birth, not necessarily that you inherit it. It is random really.

Ok, if you say so

By the way, you ignore that your own country accepts homosexuality as a genetic factor, and has for decades.

I don't suppose you have anything to back up this little gem.

You live in the past, and cling to beliefs on this subject that are insignifigant, and laughable.

What is laughable is that you ask for studies that disprove the "gay gene" THEORY which has yet to be proven scientifically. After providing said studies, you still do not believe it. What is laughable is your lack of objectivity or open-mindedness. From what I have seen, which is a lot, I conclude that there is no gay gene, but rather that it is a learned behavior.

[Edited on 18-2-2004 by QuestForSafety]

Originally posted by earthtone

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne

Earthtone, as I said before, homosexuals have no "rights" because they are homosexual. They have rights as being human beings. Regardless of what you think, there is damage done to society, and the damage will worsen as this happens. Fifty years from now, people with hearts even harder than the hearts of today will be arguing that child sex is a right.

As far as "my" religion, again, it is the religion that the nation was founded on. If you would like to have a nation that was built upon another, go to another nation. Is there one where homosexuality is acceptable? I don't know. Maybe the overall political climate would better suit you as well. But do not attempt to hijack this nation.

That is a terrible argument. Sex with a child is, and alwasy will be, clearly wrong in the eyes of society. Two consenting adults having sex regardless of their gender is not wrong, don't be so dramatic. Homosexuality is acceptable in America, except for people like you who cannot get past it.

Yes, America was founded on Christianity, however America is supposed to be a land of the free. This war on terrorism that you seem to support is supposed to be for freedom and yet you try to stop it from happening. Why should everyone in America be forced to live to the code of the Religion that you choose follow? I think you need to wake up and see that homosexuality has been around for thousands of years and will not go away however much it is dismissed and outcasted by Bible bashing folks like yourself.

Stay with the tour, ET. Homosexuality has not always been anywhere near acceptable, but it has obviously been around for thousands of years. The issue at hand is forcing the public to accept it and give it the facade of being as morally correct by allowing them to marry. As far as your opinion that cild-sex will not be acceptable, may I remind you that LAMBLA is out in the open and they are not being rounded up and placed in confined areas so as to protect the innocent? May I also remind you that at one time the national United Way even considered them a charitable group?
As far as following the religion I chose, you again are missing the point. Christianity is the dominant religion of this nation, is the religion upon which the nation was based. It is the foundation of our moral fiber, and as Ben Franklin pointed out, is the system of ethics and principle upon which this experiment in society will succeed. You do not have to accept Christ, you have that God-given right to deny Him. But this is the standard of morals and ethics by which we are based. If you want to lay up with Steve, nobody is going to break your door down and drag you out to the squad car. However, that does not mean that we have any desire for our children to be taught immorality is alternative, nor do we want our institution of marriage to be redefined.
As I said, this is as this nation is, and as James Madison made clear, Christianity is the belief upon which this nation was founded. Again, maybe you might find a nation whose moral base is founded upon a system of beliefs that is different, with a citizenry that is more of your liking. Just as people immigrate to this nation because they find it favorable to their dreams, people may immigrate from here to other societies that suit their desires.

I already provided proof for that 'gem'. The American Psychiatric Society removed homosexuality from the list of diseases over 30 years ago.

The extreme degree of your flawed logic is disturbing. Tell me then, if it is a learned behavior, how did the first gay person ever come about? If no one was ever gay, how did anyone else become gay? Perhaps they were BORN that way? Unless your going to tell me one person was born gay and the rest learned...

If it is a learned behavior how are children living with heterosexual parents and being gay as well? Sure you could banter about how society exposes them to it, but does that make sense? What about children never exposed to this, how do they become gay? If it is so easy to become gay then why are so few people homosexual? By your logic at least 50% of the population should be homosexual by now.

And, you think that makes him stupid because.....?

So it's okay for Bush to define marriage but not these "activist judges?" You don't see a problem with that? And I'm not talking about Gay Marriages... I'm talking about our freedom. Or, shall I say, what is left of it.

Originally posted by QuestForSafety
I already provided proof for that 'gem'. The American Psychiatric Society removed homosexuality from the list of diseases over 30 years ago.

Of course, because it is not a disease or syndrome. There are quite a number of American phycological studies that show to the contrart of what you say that I did not post due to the fact that you were speaking of gene study. While I think that it may in some cases be a learned thing, I think that there are some who are predisposed to be gay. Much like there is some who are predisposed to be alcoholics. But having the "alcoholic" gene so to speak, does not mean that they are one. It is a product of environment and personality.

The extreme degree of your flawed logic is disturbing. Tell me then, if it is a learned behavior, how did the first gay person ever come about?

How could we know? So much is not known about science and the human brain, is it not possible that it is not a "gene" thing? Yes.

If no one was ever gay, how did anyone else become gay? Perhaps they were BORN that way? Unless your going to tell me one person was born gay and the rest learned...

I did not say it was a totally learned thing. Is it learned? Yes, no one is born with the gay lisp are they? Not in the sense that I mean no.

If it is a learned behavior how are children living with heterosexual parents and being gay as well? Sure you could banter about how society exposes them to it, but does that make sense? What about children never exposed to this, how do they become gay? If it is so easy to become gay then why are so few people homosexual? By your logic at least 50% of the population should be homosexual by now.

Originally posted by tacitblue

And, you think that makes him stupid because.....?

So it's okay for Bush to define marriage but not these "activist judges?" You don't see a problem with that? And I'm not talking about Gay Marriages... I'm talking about our freedom. Or, shall I say, what is left of it.

Yes, you got it right. It is not the place of judges to write law, but rather to enforce and interpret existing law. That is their function.

Though you failed to reply to the final important comment, at least your arguements this time are more reasonable than before.

As for the gay lisp you mention...of course that is a learned behavior, but not all gay people do this. Just the ones they show on mainstream TV. In reality most gay people are actually quite normal, they can have stable relationships just like anyone else, views on political issues that are quite simillar to heterosexual people as well. They can also talk like anyone else, I think you are really stereotyping them perhaps through a few bad experiences, or some stimuli like television. Not that talking with a different accent is wrong, it is perfectly fine, but to assume that all homosexual have this is improper. I really should not be so angry with you, I mean at least you are not yelling out they should all be burned at the stake, as some lunatics would be.

Originally posted by QuestForSafety
Though you failed to reply to the final important comment, at least your arguements this time are more reasonable than before.

As for the gay lisp you mention...of course that is a learned behavior, but not all gay people do this. Just the ones they show on mainstream TV.

I know, just an example

In reality most gay people are actually quite normal, they can have stable relationships just like anyone else, views on political issues that are quite simillar to heterosexual people as well.

Again, I know. I've known quite a few gay people. They're pretty nice.

They can also talk like anyone else, I think you are really stereotyping them perhaps through a few bad experiences, or some stimuli like television. Not that talking with a different accent is wrong, it is perfectly fine, but to assume that all homosexual have this is improper.

I agree, there is usually not much that separates them from us. Usually it is only sex.

I really should not be so angry with you, I mean at least you are not yelling out they should all be burned at the stake, as some lunatics would be.

Nor would I. I don't hate them, hell, I don't even dislike them. I loath people who do that, because it cuts my arguement. People tend to lump me in with them, which is not so. I harbor no ill-will towards them, I just feel that the best action for all people is to give the rights associated with marriage without the word. It's a semantics arguement for the most part, but one that could serve to further divide our country. Something I am looking not to do.

The beginnings of this nation may be attributed to protestantism, but the government certainly was not. The founding fathers were deists in the purest sense, not fundamentalist christians. Thomas Jefferson and his comrades had the foresight to provide the environment for the separation of church and state. Anyone who argues for the legislation for or against gay marriage can not use religion or belief systems in their debate without sacrificing credibility.

anyone considered the fact that Bush is a closet homo?

Well, first, not gay. Second, someone hit it on the head, this debate is over rights, legal rights, not religon. So, if you are going to argue, leave all mighty powerful insivable people out of it. And I haven't seen to many poor black jewish gay republicans, so I assume most republicans are rich white christian republicans.

Anyways, again, can't use religon, the whole seperation of church and state. And no, I don't have ADD, but good way of dodging the question you can't answer without bsing or lieing.

So, without religon, any legal excuse? Hell legally they can, Article 4, have to treat citizens equally! I guess rich white heterosexual christian males are above the law.

Originally posted by tacitblue

And, you think that makes him stupid because.....?

So it's okay for Bush to define marriage but not these "activist judges?" You don't see a problem with that? And I'm not talking about Gay Marriages... I'm talking about our freedom. Or, shall I say, what is left of it.

Bush is not defining marriage. Marriage has been deffined for thousands of years, and Bush is not attempting to redefine it. Don't try and play cute. Your strategery is shallow. (Sorry, I saw an opportunity to use a Bushism and took it!)