More than $83 million spent on Prop 8

reply to post by dooper


So two people that love each other for not even properly understood reasons are just dirty, evil and like engaging in "aberrant, deviant sexual behavior" just because they choose to be gay? You don't choose to be gay, your not strait and then just say "Hey I want to start fooling around with men/women because I feel like it!" We don't even understand homosexuality fully, but I can sure as hell assure you it's just not some fetish trend that's become popular. Ya know, I really think that homosexuality should start being taught in Sex Ed classes as normal human behavior, and start breaking down the barriers so that two gay guys kissing in public wouldn't be seen a mortal sin; And warrent a "shield you eyes from the Devils grasp!!!" Responce. "Aberrant, deviant sexual behavior" my arse, a married couple that's arguing in public about their stupid inconsiquential differences because they hate each other is 1000x worse than watching two people that love each other express themselves.

reply to post by Common Good


Curious, you claim not to care, but yet judging by your posts, it tells me different. If you don't care no matter what the opinions are, then why even post in this thread? You keep asking the same question, it is answered, but you don't accept the answers given. You are stuck on your own opinion, so why ask questions, if you aren't even interested in the answers and know your opinion won't change.

Oh, one more thing, what's with the elementary school attitude? "You lost, get over it." . Why would gays stop fighting for their rights in this free country? Blacks didn't quit in their fight to get equal rights, even if they lost countless court cases. Women didn't give up their fight. List goes on. Yes, I know, gays aren't going through what blacks did, but regardless, they are still facing heavy discrimination and their civil rights are being violated. There are gay people in the world, and will always be, no matter how bad you don't want there to be. Accept it, or in your words, get over it.

reply to post by 29083010384959


Homosexuality is sexually deviant behavior, based on statistical data alone. Not even counting historical, cultural and religious bias.

So no, homosexuality should not be taught in sex-ed as a normal sexual behavior, as it's not normal sexual behavior.

Deviant, aberrant, is deviant and aberrant. If I were deviant and aberrant, I too, would think I'm "normal."

And I grow weary from the "love" aspect. I know how this works. If it's "love" then nothing can be wrong with it.

BS.

Just like heterosexual "love," it's also based on sexuality.

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by 29083010384959

 

Homosexuality is sexually deviant behavior, based on statistical data alone.

To quote the poster plucky noonez: "you got my attention, sweet sunshine."

Originally posted by dooper

Homosexuality is sexually deviant behavior, based on statistical data alone. Not even counting historical, cultural and religious bias.

So no, homosexuality should not be taught in sex-ed as a normal sexual behavior, as it's not normal sexual behavior.

Deviant, aberrant, is deviant and aberrant. If I were deviant and aberrant, I too, would think I'm "normal."

And I grow weary from the "love" aspect. I know how this works. If it's "love" then nothing can be wrong with it.

BS.

Just like heterosexual "love," it's also based on sexuality.

Based on statistical data? Do you have anything to back up that claim?

What you're spewing just sounds like bigotry and ignorance from where I'm standing.

Look, as a straight male, I also am a bit repulsed by homosexual behavior. Most straight men are a bit homophobic. It's natural. But to make your dislike of something into a law is absurd and just childish. And as for "abhorrent, deviant sexual behavior" : that's just fluff with no substance. You mentioned earlier that you don't want your kids "seeing that crap". Well, I'm sorry to tell you, but kids are being exposed to much worst crap nowadays.

reply to post by dooper


Well it really is all pretty much summed up in your posts, you've done a better job of giving me insight into "the other side" than most, I appreciate that.


I know it's kinda ridiculous to site a cartoon in this thread, but I really liked what Big Gay Al said on South Park, and I feel like it applies here too:
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by dooper
I'm asked who am I to judge aberrant behavior? I'm me. And there's a lot out there just like me, and we have our opinions too.


Just another method of legitimizing, and thus easing the guilt of an aberrant, deviant sexual behavior.

Yeah what gays really want is to make sexual preferance (isn't it always about sex with these morons) a "Class distinction". In other words they want to predicate their argument and make justifiable what they themselves have trouble dealing with and that is to legitimize their own issues with why they are gay by forcing US to accept them and their sexual practices. That uis NONE of my business and the argument that this is anywhere near that of civil rights concerning race is MOOT.

Race is something you ARE not something you have sex about. Race is what you are not what you do. When we make what we do a class distinction whether it is sex or spitting on the sidewalk, establishing this kind of precedent for case law under the auspices of equal rights creates a slippery slope indeed. They say it won’t happen when it already has and many in the State of Massachusetts regret ever allowing this asinine movement to bastardize the institution of marriage between a man and a woman. Once they have established as legitimate the Governments approval of such a bill it doesn’t stop there. No now they have actually been teaching gay love behind the guise of tolerance when this isn’t about sex education and the ramifications of teen pregnancy, it is about imposing their repulsive ideology and repugnant personal indulgence on our children and THAT is why we drew the line on prop 8.

The fact is Gay’s equal rights are NOT being violated; Gay men are perfectly within their rights to find and marry any woman that will have them just like the rest of us.

What they want is what always whine and bitch about and that is about getting “special rights”. Lets face it, we let open pandoras box once before and it cost many of us taxpaying straights billions in treating HIV AIDS victims. NONE of the arguments they make have a leg to stand on when you look at the facts of this issue.

Marriage? Back OFF! They may say they don’t mind us being Christians as long as we are gagged mindless opinions kept to ourselves kept out of the process of Government while in the same voice they are espousing equal rights and tolerance.

They are as guilty of proselytizing their agenda as the most extreme fundamentalist Christian and just as judgmental if not worse.

While they insult and castigate the Church and its many million members, they fail to realize how we see that and how it turns even more of us against them. I was once in favor of gay marriage, after they acted like complete jack asses about it afterward coming up with all kinds of excuses the Church doesn't have a right to spend millions to keep what is important to us sacred, they fail to understand that money is representative for just how important it is. What THEY think would be better spent on this or that is about as seriously taken as it is lacking from any monies THEY never invested in those same causes. They have been pushing bills in state legislatures to fund tax subsidized transsexual surgery for kids as young as 4 years of age in Mass. All this has been well documented and anyone can see it at the states Gov website for Mass.

It makes one wonder when transgendered people won’t want their special class distinction also. Well they have already been busy at that too.

I do not care if marriage is a failed concept to them but it sure makes me wonder why it does not stop them from wanting to be a part of too. They use ridicule and zealotry that is only surpassed by their bibliobigotry and intolerance for my right to vote my religious motivated conscience. While they are still busy researching evidence for the so called Gay Gene, the moment they find it to excuse themselves as not being able to help themselves, is the day they accuse us of hating gays where we now have the same asinine excuse in saying to them, “I can’t help it, I was born this way”

They talk about US not being tolerant. Let me tell you something,,

all society has ever done,,

is tolerate them.



[edit on 3-2-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by GeeGee


Look, as a straight male, I also am a bit repulsed by homosexual behavior. Most straight men are a bit homophobic. It's natural. But to make your dislike of something into a law is absurd and just childish. And as for "abhorrent, deviant sexual behavior" : that's just fluff with no substance. .

wanna bet,
Of homosexuals questioned in one study reports that 43% admit to 500 or more partners in a lifetime, 28% admit to 1000 or more in a lifetime, and of these people, 79% say that half of those partners are total strangers, and 70% of those sexual contacts are one night stands (or, as one homosexual admits in the film "The Castro", one minute stands). Also, it is a favorite past-time of many homosexuals to go to "cruisy areas" and have anonymous sex

One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year. The average heterosexual has 8 partners in a lifetime.

* Many homosexual sexual encounters occur while drunk, high on drugs, or in an orgy setting.

* Many homosexuals don't pay heed to warnings of their lifestyles: "Knowledge of health guidelines was quite high, but this knowledge had no relation to sexual behavior".

* Homosexuals got homosexuality removed from the list of mental illnesses in the early 70s by storming the annual American Psychiatric Association (APA) conference on successive years.

* Homosexuals account for 3-4% of all gonorrhea cases, 60% of all syphilis cases, and 17% of all hospital admissions (other than for STDs) in the United States. They make up only 1-2% of the population.

* Homosexuals live unhealthy lifestyles, and have historically accounted for the bulk of syphilis, gonorrhea, Hepatitis B, the "gay bowel syndrome" (which attacks the intestinal tract), tuberculosis and cytomegalovirus.

*the Los Angeles Police says, "30,000 sexually abused children in Los Angeles were victims of homosexuals".

* It takes approximately $300,000 to take care of each AIDS victim, so thanks to the promiscuous lifestyle of homosexuals, medical insurance rates have been skyrocketing for all of us

* Homosexuals account for a disproportionate number of hepatitis cases: 70-80% in San Francisco, 29% in Denver, 66% in New York City, 56% in Toronto, 42% in Montreal, and 26% in Melbourne.

* 37% of homosexuals engage in sadomasochism, which accounts for many accidental deaths. In San Francisco, classes were held to teach homosexuals how to not kill their partners during sadomasochism.

* 41% of homosexuals say they have had sex with strangers in public restrooms, 60% say they have had sex with strangers in bathhouses, and 64% of these encounters have involved the use of illegal drugs.

* The median age of death of homosexuals is 42 (only 9% live past age 65). This drops to 39 if the cause of death is AIDS. The median age of death of a married heterosexual man is 75.

* Homosexuals commit more than 33% of all reported child molestations in the United States, which, assuming homosexuals make up 2% of the population, means that 1 in 20 homosexuals is a child molestor, while 1 in 490 heterosexuals is a child molestor.

* 73% of all homosexuals have had sex with boys under 19 years of age.

Many homosexuals admit that they are pedophiles: "The love between men and boys is at the foundation of homosexuality".
www.massresistance.org...

While many of them like to blame religion for the reasons their hated or disliked, feared, discriminated against etc. NONE of them will bother to take a damn look at their vulgar repugnant and disgusting life style ( as if it had any style at all)

Even the bashing they blame redneck for or macho straights, is not entirely true either, you see gays lie about that too

* 50% of the calls to a hotline to report "queer bashing" involved domestic violence (i.e., homosexuals beating up other homosexuals)

Their arguments for marriage are all a logical fallacy , baseless and ridiculous.


Bad argument No. 1
"Gay marriage is a basic human right."
There are huge differences between constitutional rights with few restrictions (such as the rights to life or free speech) and other rights with important restrictions, which do not carry the right of universal access. We already recognize that not everyone has the right to enlist in the army, but that one must be of the proper age, physical condition, citizenship, and philosophy—anarchists and pacifists need not apply. We also agree that certain persons do not have the right to marriage—children, multiple partners, family members, and those already married.

Bad argument No. 2
"Gay marriage is a civil right."
This is based on the false assumption that homosexuality is the same sort of human difference as race. But while the difference between sexual orientations is profound (one desires the opposite sex and procreates while the other does neither), racial difference has no intrinsic bearing on love and marriage. This is why philosophically opposed African American leaders such as Shelby Steele and Jesse Jackson agree that "gay marriage is simply not a civil rights issue."

Bad argument No. 3
"Opposition to gay marriage is discrimination."
Let's not mistake rational restriction for unconstitutional discrimination. Just as we rightly restrict marriage against polygamists, there is no constitutional reason why we cannot continue to restrict marriage to what all civilizations have defined for millennia: the union of a man and woman. This does not deny anyone the "equal protection of the laws," since this restriction applies equally to every individual.

Bad argument No. 4
"Marriage has changed through the centuries, so gay marriage would be just another development in its ever-changing definition."
True, our understandings of sex and the role of women in marriage have grown. While these changes are important, they are trivial when compared to the agreement across time and from East to West that the social institution of marriage is about the union of sexual opposites for, primarily, the procreation of children, as well as intimate companionship.

Bad argument No. 5
"Opposition to gay marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state."
It is true that Western marriage and family law stem in part from the Judeo-Christian tradition, as do many of our other laws. But the separation of church and state (assured by constitutional law) is different from the enforced separation of religion and politics, which is forbidden by the First Amendment.

Bad argument No. 6
"Marriage is necessary for gays to gain important legal benefits."
Homosexuals don't need marriage to gain most significant legal benefits. For example, hospital visitation depends on the wishes of the patient. If families disagree about medical treatment, even marriage won't solve the problem, as the Terry Schiavo case has demonstrated. The answer is medical power of attorney, which is open to anyone regardless of sexual orientation. Another example is Social Security benefits. Children's benefits are not dependent on the marital status of their parents, and the only certain benefit is a one-time death benefit of $255. A wife can access her deceased husband's Social Security, but if she has had her own work history, her Social Security benefit would usually be higher than the survivor's benefit—and she must choose one or the other. Most other benefits are based on work history.

Bad argument No. 7
"There is no proof that gay marriage would change the marriages of heterosexuals."
If marriage is all about fulfilling human desires and not parenting (as many proponents of gay marriage argue), it makes sense to dissolve marriages that don't seem fulfilling. Recent experience in Scandinavia suggests that when a society reduces marriage to this minimalist definition, families dissolve more quickly. British demographer Kathleen Kiernan has shown that since gay marriage came to Scandinavia in the early '90s, the out-of-wedlock birthrate has leaped significantly, and the family dissolution rate has risen. Only where the gay marriage movement had little success has the out-of-wedlock birthrate remained low. Marriage has virtually disappeared in the most gay-friendly districts of Norway, formerly the most conservative of the Nordic countries.

Bad argument No. 8
"Social science shows that gay parenting is no different from heterosexual parenting."
Many studies have claimed this, but, according to University of Chicago's emeritus professor of ethics and social sciences Don Browning, none of these studies was rigorous or large-scale. Stephen Nock, scholar of marriage at the University of Virginia, writes that every study on the subject of gay parenting "contained at least one fatal flaw," and "not a single one was conducted according to generally accepted standards of scientific research." Other studies show that children raised by homosexuals were more dissatisfied with their own gender, had homosexual experiences more frequently, and suffered a greater rate of molestation by members of their families (Adolescence, 1996; Archives of Sexual Behavior, 1986; American Sociological Review, 2001).

Bad argument No. 9
"The fact that many married couples do not have children proves that marriage is not intrinsically related to procreation."
Yet the fact remains that most married couples either have had or will have children. The exceptions prove the rule: Being married tends to prevent a person from having a child with someone other than his or her spouse. In all cultures, even if some couples are childless, marriage as an institution is principally concerned with children and, therefore, society's future.

Bad argument No. 10
"Heterosexuals have done a terrible job at marriage. Who are they to speak?"
It is true that half of all new heterosexual marriages end in divorce. But far more than half have succeeded, if you count marriages established before the divorce boom of the '70s and '80s. Yet the point is not how many are successful, but what marriage means. To accommodate gays, marriage would have to change into something it has never been: an institution for same-sex love without the biological possibility for children. It will probably not require sexual fidelity, which even the majority of unfaithful heterosexuals have conceded is the ideal. Some of the most prominent proponents of gay marriage, such as Andrew Sullivan, say the ideal needs to change, since gay understanding of fidelity includes other sexual liaisons.

Bad argument No. 11
"The resistance to gay marriage is motivated by fear and loathing for homosexuals."
While no large group is free of hate-mongers, the vast majority resist because they strongly believe in the positive features of traditional marriage. They have experienced the benefits of the lifelong union of two persons who are complementary in many important ways—biological, psychological, temperamental, and spiritual—and who, because of this complementarity, have a unique capacity to bear and nurture children. It is appreciation for the unparalleled success of this complementarity—not fear or hatred for gays—that motivates most Americans to oppose gay marriage.

Bad argument No. 12
"Those who resist gay marriage are irrational, Neanderthal, and bigoted."
The gay marriage movement is only a few decades old. Could it be that billions of people who for millennia upheld traditional marriage were really irrational and bigoted? On the contrary, we would argue that a common-sense understanding of life leads in the direction we have argued. Further, it seems clear that reason without religious vision misses the depth dimension of human life. It tends to dissolve basic human institutions into contracts between persons who make whatever they want of them, to the detriment of children and society.

Bad argument No. 13
"The legal issue of gay marriage ought to be left up to the states."
Quite the opposite, we need a national definition of marriage. Without a public definition embodied in a constitutional amendment, activist judges at various levels will undo the conviction of the vast majority of Americans. Some already have, in defiance of state defense-of-marriage acts. Precedent for a national definition is ample—the federal government outlawed polygamy in the 19th century and the Supreme Court has ruled in the 20th century on many cases regarding marriage.

In sum, there are many bad reasons for supporting gay marriage. In contrast, there are many good reasons for protecting historic understandings of marriage, a public institution whose fate will determine the future of our society.

reply to post by Aermacchi


Okay so your source is from a pro-family website. Can you get these statistics from real crime websites that show actual data?

It looks very probable that data was manipulated to fit the agenda.

I'm a Christian, so I'm going to chime in, first I MUST say, I'm tired of the mods not doing there job, this has been a Christian bashing thread from the start and I'm SICK OF IT! Seriously mods, you let people bash the Christian minority on here way too much, I could understand if this was a thread who's subject was to bash on Christians, but it's not, it's about two different views spending money on a bill, not about how evil Christians are. First thing I'd like to know, does it actually say how much money came from churches? I don't think so, so you can't blame the church for this one guys, people other than Christians are against gay marriage, I bet there are some gasp... Atheist against it too!

Of course there is no Civility & Decorum expected in this thread, this thread is probably approved by the mods since it bashes on Christians, just like every other Christian bashing thread, if you're listening mods...
DO YOUR DAMN JOB AND MOD THREADS THAT JUST HATE ON OTHER GROUPS HERE ESPECIALLY IF THAT'S NOT EVEN THE TOPIC!

Now that I'm done reminding the mods what they need to do (and if you people even dare remove my post, you are in for an earful), I'll give my opinion on the whole gay marriage thing, ya ready for it? I bet you're thinking you know what it is right?

Well you don't, I'm all for gay marriage, it doesn't matter to me, I could care less if gays get married or not, let them marry if they want, they're not doing anything illegal by it right? They're not hurting anyone by it right? So from a secular political viewpoint I see nothing wrong with it, now from a personal moral viewpoint, I think that homosexuality is wrong, why? Well there's a whole lot of reasons why, but that's for another thread at a different time.

(also, way back in the day slavery was the norm Christians aren't supposed to be militarized, so there was no fighting against it, the Christians who were slaves were to show love to there master, despite there condition, just like Christians today are supposed to show love to there oppressors.)

So, let the gays marry, what's the big deal?

-Lahara

[edit on 3-2-2009 by TheRandom1]

[edit on 3-2-2009 by TheRandom1]

I'm going to chime in here, I'm totally strait, but I really don't have a problem with gayness. In my opinion you should be able to do as you please as long as you don't hurt anyone else.


That said, I don't think you all are going to have to worry about the oppressive laws in Candycornia, because I don't think it is going to survive much longer. There will probably be a "refresh" or "reset" pretty soon given their dire financial situation.

Originally posted by Dances With Angels


So think about it, 83 million dollars to stop two consenting adults who love each other from getting married. Think about all that money these so called "christian" churches could have used to stop poverty and help depressed people around the world. But NO! Gay marriage killed the dinosaurs so we can't let it happen, EVER! (Sarcasm)

Let's report this fairly.

Your own quote of the article says the money was spent by both sides of the issue. And it doesn't say who spent what, so it could easily have been the pro-prop 8 people spent $3 million while the anti-prop 8 people spent $80 million. What would that do to your argument?

With CA out of money, people loosing jobs and their homes, the countless that go hungry around the world this kind of money spent on hate and trying to combat hate.

I asked a couple of anti gay marriage people "tell me, just how does a same sex marriage effect your relationship with your wife?"................... they can't answer that............. usually it turned to God says or the bible says.... blah blah blah, the same stuff I used to spout the last time this issue came up in CA, then I finally started to grow up.

And to think churches spent money on politics. They could have stayed in their place and helped feed and clothe needy people. Don't they have faith in their god to make things right?

Originally posted by Dances With Angels
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

It looks very probable that data was manipulated to fit the agenda.

Let's pretend that your data wasn't.

It appears that you purposely twisted the meaning of the OP to fit your agenda.

Try to have an open mind on this, OK?

[edit on 2/3/2009 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by drwizardphd

Originally posted by dooper


One minority wants to impose their will on a majority?

Whine, whine.

Nice try, but in this case its simply the majority imposing its will on the minority.

Ever take a government class, or is that not until senior year?

But that's exactly how our system of government works. People vote their opinions on laws and issues and the majority wins and decides. At least it's supposed to be that way. Reality is that PC and liberal activist judges are making a mockery out of the process given to us by the founders.

[edit on 2/3/2009 by centurion1211]

Originally posted by dooper
reply to post by 29083010384959

 

Homosexuality is sexually deviant behavior, based on statistical data alone. Not even counting historical, cultural and religious bias.

So no, homosexuality should not be taught in sex-ed as a normal sexual behavior, as it's not normal sexual behavior.

Deviant, aberrant, is deviant and aberrant. If I were deviant and aberrant, I too, would think I'm "normal."

And I grow weary from the "love" aspect. I know how this works. If it's "love" then nothing can be wrong with it.

BS.

Just like heterosexual "love," it's also based on sexuality.

The scope of Human sexual behavior is -huge-and to point to the sexual relations between Homosexuals and say "deviant" or "aberrant" is honestly laughable. There is nothing that occurs in the Homosexual bed that has not occured in the Heterosexual bed since animals figured out what feels good.

I have never molested a boy, I have had 5 sexual partners in my lifetime, I don't have any std's or aids, Im not into harming my boyfriend, I am also gay. I have morals and I am a human being who certainly did not CHOOSE to be gay. Marriage is NOT A CHRISTIAN CEREMONY SPECIFICALLY and there are several religions that accept gay marriage though they be much fewer in numbers. Marriage is recognized by our government as a LEGAL contract. Most of your so called "statistics" were outdated or complete crap. I love my boyfriend enough to die for him and there are over 200 legal rights associated with marriage, we just want equality.

reply to post by GeeGee


First of all, gays are not a minority anything, they are not a seperate race of people, they are human, therefore there is no discrimination based on anything except the way in which they perform sex.

I think gays are going about this all the wrong way. If you want minority status and rights as gays, then have yourselves declared mutations from human beings, thus forming your own race. You say its genetic already, in nature gayness happens when there are mutant genes that express themselves. If you are gay, you are in effect a mutant.

The way you have sex doesnt make a group of minorities, but being a mutant would. Mutations happen in nature all the time, usually those mutations never get passed on because nature eliminates most mutations from the gene pool by the very nature of the mutation.

So go before congress with the signatures of every single gay person and demand your new rights as mutants, you already have your own flag, why you had to ruin the rainbow is beyond me. I could think of some symbols that are alot more fitting, but I will get another warning from the mods.

reply to post by dooper


I am glad you have kids, great to see what their mirror genes are picking up and what type of role they will one day play in this society. Hopefully one day they will grow up to have gay friends and give you an ear full about your own ignorance.

Btw you have probably engaged in more sexually deviant behavior than what I have. I don't have sex what does that make me? Have you seen porn lately, heterosexual porn? He can put a can where?

And I like how you see similarities between gays and pedophiles. Most pedophiles are the fathers of the children themselves. Liking the same sex - liking children.

Your posts are just the same things over and over again, with no substance.

As for the topic of the post, The religious groups, and gay marriage supporters/opposers, should've spent their money on their states economy, this is disgraceful, No one should be having a debate like this, the worlds economy is something that deserves more of our time and money (finding the bastards responsible!!).

reply to post by 1xion325alpha


Actually, most pedophiles are gay unmarried men and woman teachers.