Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Gay Marriage To Be Officially Part Of Democrat Party Platform

page: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
How are you making the distinction between experimenting and sexual attraction?

The report that we are all discussing makes the distinction and separates them out.

Gay = 1-2%
Bisexual and transgender = 2%
Have experimented or felt a SSA at some point but are not gay = 6%

Having experimented doesn't make someone gay.
Gay is gay. Not gay is not gay. That's just the way it is.



edit on 8/1/2012 by FlyersFan because: fixed words




posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 07:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


You ignored my question. I was not expecting that. I will isolate it..

Do you believe those people that experimented with same-sex completely ceased to ever have same-sex sexual attraction after experimenting?


Gay is gay. Not gay is not gay. That's just the way it is.


Thank you for elucidating to a bisexual how it works. Clears up a few things for me.

I am okay with your matter of fact'ness, I just don't see (again) how you are making such an absolute distinction between 'just experimenting' and sexual attraction (orientation).

What makes someone gay, straight, or bisexual is a continual or reoccurring sexual attraction to said gender(s). Hence my wondering about the distinction being made. I know you want to make it black and white but bisexual people exist too, and some of these experimenters could be one and thus raise these statistics.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
You ignored my question.

I didn't 'ignore' it. I thought I answered it. But whatever ... .

Do you believe those people that experimented with same-sex completely ceased to ever have same-sex sexual attraction after experimenting?

The report says that 6% experimented. You'll have to contact those who did the study to see if people had same sex attraction or not after that. I have no idea. But the fact is .. we can't interject assumptions that they somehow turned gay just because of a sexual experimentation.


I just don't see (again) how you are making such an absolute distinction between 'just experimenting' and sexual attraction (orientation).

What's not to understand. Sexual orientation is all encompasing. Just experimenting once or twice is just that .. experimentation .. and not an orientation.


I know you want to make it black and white but bisexual people exist too, and some of these experimenters could be one and thus raise these statistics.

The study accounts for bi-sexual people. It says 2% of the population is bi-sexual. That is a larger percentage of the population than is homosexual - which is 1-2%. If anything, in my mind the 6% experimenters may be closet bisexual but since they went back to 'straight sex' .. they wouldn't be homosexual.

edit on 8/1/2012 by FlyersFan because: fixed quote



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

I didn't 'ignore' it. I thought I answered it. But whatever ...


Well you redirected me to the survey. It's an answer sure



The report says that 6% experimented. You'll have to contact those who did the study to see if people had same sex attraction or not after that. I have no idea.


But in fact you do have an idea. You're using the assumption they did not. As is clear below.


But the fact is .. we can't interject assumptions that they somehow turned gay just because of a sexual experimentation.


I completely agree. We can't make that assumption.

However when you accept the 6% as nothing BUT "experimenting" than you are interjecting the assumption that they did not continue to have same-sex sexual attraction afterwards.

So I agree we can't make these assumptions.


What's not to understand. Sexual orientation is all encompasing. Just experimenting once or twice is just that .. experimentation .. and not an orientation.


You missed my point. It is connected to the one I just made though. Right here again is the interjection of assumption same-sex sexual attraction ceased after the 'experimenting'.


If anything, in my mind the 6% experimenters may be closet bisexual

That is was I was insinuating. Based on myself and my experiences I feel I can safely make the conservative assertion that half of them continued to have same-sex sexual attraction. Which, in the event of them being with opposite-sex partners, would make them bisexual. I don't know, just as you don't know, but I think it's rational to think some of them are and thus increasing the statistics towards more LGBT


but since they went back to 'straight sex' .. they wouldn't be homosexual.


That's simply not the way modern psychology understands and defines sexual orientation.

It's not the act of sex.

Is a heterosexual virgin not a heterosexual until he or she has sex?



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I say let the gays have marriage. They think it is sooo very easy. Well let them have it. They will learn..This is just a tactical move and very cynical.



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I suspect its only a few years until the GOP adopt the platform as well

www.abovetopsecret.com...

extra DIV



posted on Aug, 1 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
I never have understood the fuss about this. If you don't gay marriage, just don't get gay married. Otherwise, I don't see why you should be stopping someone from doing that. It doesn't hurt anyone and it's not fair they don't get the same rights as straight couples.

Of course, the other argument is to remove the legal benefits of marriage and I'm ok with that too, however, I doubt most married straight americans will be ok with that. In a few years Gay Marriage will be legal and the worst thing that will happen is Perez Hilton will get married with a live streaming webcam



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
en.wikipedia.org...
My wife is brunette. If they passed a law that said that men are only allowed to marry blondes I would protest intensely. Why this fascination with genitalia from the anti-gay crowd? ( actually, I know the answer en.wikipedia.org... They hate themselves) Marriage is supposed to be about love, not physical characteristics.* Also, I’m against the state telling me when and what kind of contract I can sign with another person. Please, a contract hit is not what I am talking about. I am talking about a contract that hurts no one.

* Please, none of this nonsense about that meaning that I am in favor of man-dog marriage. Dogs do not have the ability of informed consent. Also, that is a different type of love, it isn’t romantic.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
I still find it absurd that black voters would move away from a democrat party because of it's move towards more equal social standards, when the black americans birthed the whole civil rights movement,

Ahhhh ... but it's true.
Black Pastors Lay Down Gauntlet To Obama Over Same Sex Marriage


"More than anything, this is an issue of biblical principles and President Obama is carrying our nation down a dangerous road. Many African Americans were once proud of our president but now many are ashamed of his actions." Owens said the group hasn't received a response from the White House and they are growing frustrated with each passing day.

"We can't compete with the Hollywood folks who are raising the big bucks for the president," Owens said. "But it was black folks who rallied around him in 2008 and for him to ignore our request with a group of clergy who represents tens of thousands of black Christians of many denominations is an insult."


Black evangelical pastors aren't happy with the move toward legalizing gay marriage. It's against their religion. The White House is asking them to ignore it.
Riiiight. Religion trumps skin color and civil rights issues ..


and I do believe this is about civil rights.

Ditto. Me too.


And all those people wrapped around Chick Fila restaurants will be wrapped around the

voting booths on November 6, 2012.

I think the GOP /Tea Party just picked up 3 more seats in the US Senate.



posted on Aug, 2 2012 @ 12:49 PM
link   
My daughter is gay. Anyone that calls her subhuman , well I will not be my usual polite self in my next post!!!!
www.youtube.com...
edit on 2-8-2012 by wittgenstein because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
You're using the assumption they did not.

Unless they say they did .. you have to assume they didn't.
Otherwise, it's just interjecting. Right?


Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
That's simply not the way modern psychology understands and defines sexual orientation.
It's not the act of sex.

My degree is in psychology so I know that the act of sex doesn't define sexual orientation.
Therefore .. engaging in experimental same-sex sex doesn't make someone gay.
Being gay makes someone gay.

reply to post by wittgenstein
 

Odd. No one is talking about gay people being sub-human. Why did you even say that?


Anyways ... it's now part of the official democrat party platform.
It will cause evangelical black voters to leave the party - IMHO.



posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


The DNC has a NEW Poster Boy! His name is Adam Smith. He is the former CFO

of Vante, Inc. He has 1 message: -- Intolerance --




posted on Aug, 3 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

My degree is in psychology so I know that the act of sex doesn't define sexual orientation.
Therefore .. engaging in experimental same-sex sex doesn't make someone gay.


Right


Being gay makes someone gay.

And being bisexual makes someone bisexual.

I don't see what you're driving at...

but since they went back to 'straight sex' .. they wouldn't be homosexual.


...other than alluding that these 'experimenters' only have heterosexual orientation.

So forget what the survey directly says. The knowledge your degree gave you aided your thought that they (some of) are probably closet bisexuals, no? So is it not fair to say you're in agreement with me that the % is higher for LGBT population than stated?



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by FlyersFan
It's a whole-country thing.


Sounds unconstitutional to me. Unless it's left to the states. With the Dem's in any given state saying, "Yup, this is it."


Technically interracial marriage was purely a state issue, until Loving V. Virginia. However the decision to change this was made through the supreme court, so I think this needs to be put through the supreme court. If those individuals concerned wish to make a change, they should get this heard through the supreme court. If they can demonstrate that their constitutional rights are being hindered, that they are being discrimminated against, through bans on homosexual marriage, then they'll have a case.

There's also the aspect of the Full Faith and credit clause to think of.... whether the marriage of gays in other States will have to be recognized in other states. There are alot of factors.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Southern Guardian
If those individuals concerned wish to make a change, they should get this heard through the supreme court. If they can demonstrate that their constitutional rights are being hindered, that they are being discrimminated against, through bans on homosexual marriage, then they'll have a case.


That is exactly what is going on.

Its a slow process.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:15 PM
link   
"This will alienate evangelical black voters away from the democrat party."

Real integrity means doing what's right regardless of what others will think. (Of course the decision is a political calculation, but my point still stands.)

Strip it down to simple terms and all it means is that Democrats are taking a vocal position saying the rights of EVERYONE matter.

At this point, it seems to me, if you are:

black
brown
Hispanic
Latino
a woman
a college student
a member (or once were) of the middle class
a public servant
a homosexual

...you'd have to be completely either insane, blind and/or stone age ignorant to vote for a Republican.
edit on 4-8-2012 by pajoly because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Annee
 



I found that the average across all surveys is 3.8 percent of adults self-identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.


Source used in article


Of course, that leaves out the throngs of evangelical pastors and right wing politicians who are closet gays, their own confusion and self-loathing explains their hate. Seems we learn about one of these every week.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by phishyblankwaters
reply to post by FlyersFan
 





- This will alienate evangelical black voters away from the democrat party.


While I believe that to be true, I still find it absurd that black voters would move away from a democrat party because of it's move towards more equal social standards, when the black americans birthed the whole civil rights movement, and I do believe this is about civil rights.

Anyways, good luck with your thread, we both know where it's going.


That's because gays are the new "blacks" of today. Black voters are trying to distance themselves from the horrors of their race. It doesn't surprise me that black americans would move in this direction. In another twenty years in this country the bigots will find someone else to discriminate against.
edit on 4-8-2012 by Cosmic911 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:30 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I'm so late to this thread but see it since its been bumped. Lol

I completely agree with where you're coming from. They're pandering.

For instance I'm a woman, Christian, conservative, white, southerner and whatever little label I can be stuck with. But I try to tell the difference between politicians truly trying to stick up for me vs. those who are just trying to appease my interests.

For instance I'm a devout Christian and my faith is so sacred and precious to me but I resent the heck out of politicians exploiting it to get a vote.

So I see what you're saying.



posted on Aug, 4 2012 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pajoly

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Annee
 



I found that the average across all surveys is 3.8 percent of adults self-identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender.


Source used in article


Of course, that leaves out the throngs of evangelical pastors and right wing politicians who are closet gays, their own confusion and self-loathing explains their hate. Seems we learn about one of these every week.


The 3.8 clearly states that percentage is those who self-identify. Meaning if you directly ask someone if they are gay and they say yes.

Who did he ask? The population of Los Angeles alone is 3,819,702. Did he ask all those people?

IMO - - it is flat out ridiculous to choose to hang on to this percentage as an even remotely factual percentage of gays.

What does it really say about the person - - - who continues to present this low percentage of gays as accurate?

I know the standard 10% comes from Kinsey. I'm gonna stay with Kinsey until there is a real study.






top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join