11 states vote on gay marriage

[BVS]

I wonder too?


And why are there so many more Negroes and other minorities than there were 50 years ago.

Look at all the old movies, and early t v shows and your parents school class pictures if you don't believe me.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Why must we always compare the gay movement to the black movement? In a way, I find it degrading to blacks.

 

[BVS]

Why must we always compare the gay movement to the black movement? In a way, I find it degrading to blacks.

How so?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Homosexuality is not something that every gay person is born with. Our teen girls for example choose to experiment with the same sex out of peer pressure. Being black is something that you should be proud of, although every black was born that way, not EVERY gay, bi, transgender, etc.

 

[BVS]

Homosexuality is not something that every gay person is born with. Our teen girls for example choose to experiment with the same sex out of peer pressure. Being black is something that you should be proud of, although every black was born that way, not EVERY gay, bi, transgender, etc.

Ok yes there may be a few that are "experimenters", but that's a very small percentage. It doesn't make their plight for equal rights any less. No it's not the same thing. But it's very similar. And the point being made earlier, in a very sarcastic tongue in cheek way, is that just because you haven't been exposed to it doesn't mean it hasn't existed.

Your theory that kids "turn gay" out of peer preasure and what not is just completely unfounded and laughable.

Tell me this; given what you know about how homosexuals are treated would you make that choice? Probably not. I'm sure you wouldn't choose the life that made you walk in fear in some parts of the country, the life that didn't allow you equal rights, the life where people judged you solely on who's hand you were holding.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Ok yes there may be a few that are "experimenters", but that's a very small percentage. It doesn't make their plight for equal rights any less. No it's not the same thing. But it's very similar. And the point being made earlier, in a very sarcastic tongue in cheek way, is that just because you haven't been exposed to it doesn't mean it hasn't existed.

Your theory that kids "turn gay" out of peer preasure and what not is just completely unfounded and laughable.

Tell me this; given what you know about how homosexuals are treated would you make that choice? Probably not. I'm sure you wouldn't choose the life that made you walk in fear in some parts of the country, the life that didn't allow you equal rights, the life where people judged you solely on who's hand you were holding.

Unfounded and laughable? When condoms came out, did people not buy them? When the sexual revolution hit us, was it a conspiracy?

In a way I agree that some are born troubled, and even born attracted to their same gender. Instead of promoting this alternative lifestyle every chance we have, we should offer counseling and research ways to treat them, since SCIENCE is so great anyways. Speaking of great things about this SCIENCE religion, why haven't we found a cure for the common cold? Science is no contest to God's law. I do hope we find a cure for AIDS in my lifetime, but until then, let's not promote the cause of the disease.

You may think I've never met a homosexual, and as a matter of fact I know one personally. He's a nice guy, and he doesn't fit society's perception that gays want intimacy from everyone from their own gender. However, he dreams of having a natural family one day, and he knows what he has to do in order to achieve that dream. I pray for him, and hope that he longs for that dream so much, that it turns his life around.

 

[Renne]

Look at what happened to Sodom and Gommorrah. (Genesis 17)

Now, I don't claim to be any kind of an expert on the Bible, indeed, the only thing I believe about it is that it's the greatest book of short stories ever published, but still...

Wasn't Genesis 17 actually about Abraham becoming really fertile at 99, and the covenant between him and God that he and all his male descendents, their slaves, et al should all be circumcised?

So tell me...

What does that have to do with Sodom and Gommorrah again?

Instead of promoting this alternative lifestyle every chance we have, we should offer counseling and research ways to treat them, since SCIENCE is so great anyways. Speaking of great things about this SCIENCE religion, why haven't we found a cure for the common cold? Science is no contest to God's law. I do hope we find a cure for AIDS in my lifetime, but until then, let's not promote the cause of the disease.

Homosexuality is not the cause of AIDs.

Straight people can get AIDs just as easily as gay people. It's a blood-born disease, which means it can be spread through sharing needles, unsanitary needles, and unprotected sex. Not unprotected gay sex, but unprotected sex, which means that straight people as well as gay people are equally at risk if they persist in promiscuous unsafe sexual practices.

Also:

Homosexuality is not an illness.

People who are homosexual do not need to be counselled out of it, or "treated" like it could be "cured" with a few round of antibiotics.

You may think I've never met a homosexual, and as a matter of fact I know one personally.

Congratulations. Do you've think you've immediately validated all your arguments just because you know someone who's gay? Guess what? Everyone knows someone who is gay. So flashing your "queer cred" like that is completely redundant.


Question: Do you see people who are gay as the "other"? ...because your use of language certainly implies this is so.

 

[blueyedpoet]

we do realize that AIDS was created by the CIA right?

 

[blueyedpoet]

http://www.whale.to/m/scott7.html.....i thought my last claim might need a little back-up....the whole thing is documented.....very interesting read

 

[Dutch Partygirl]

Macfistowannabee: Treat homosexuals??? People are BORN that way, it's not something they become. And believe me, there are lots of gays who (because of the way they are treated) would like to see it otherwise.

And what Renne said: I absolutely agree with you! These days, more straight people get HIV positive than gay people. Just look at Africa for instance. It's not a gay disease.

he doesn't fit society's perception that gays want intimacy from everyone from their own gender

Not the whole society thinks that, at least not in my country. It's such an old fashioned statement that gays want to be with everybody else from their own gender. It's the same with gays as it is with straight people: I don't fancy every guy around, and it's the same with gays. Most of them (well, I even dare to say all of them) don't fancy EVERYONE of their own gender.

 

[A_Wanderer]

In a way I agree that some are born troubled, and even born attracted to their same gender. Instead of promoting this alternative lifestyle every chance we have, we should offer counseling and research ways to treat them, since SCIENCE is so great anyways. Speaking of great things about this SCIENCE religion, why haven't we found a cure for the common cold? Science is no contest to God's law. I do hope we find a cure for AIDS in my lifetime, but until then, let's not promote the cause of the disease.

It is hardly the realm of science to become involved in a social engineering experiment to control behaviour of all citizens. There are gay people, there are religious people as long as neither group desires to force belief and agenda upon the rest then there is no problem.

we do realize that AIDS was created by the CIA right?

No, the idea that the CIA is some sort of omnipotent superstructure is laughable. I think that we can say with a high confidence level that the CIA is not behind HIV. That sort of thing is techno-myth.

 

[Dutch Partygirl]

You are so right on the gay-religious thing A_Wanderer!

 

[pax]

Although the Patient Zero for HIV is (I believe--correct me if I'm wrong here) a West African man who died in 1959, scientists believe that strains similar enough to contemporary HIV may have existed in Africa as early as the 1920s.

Shoots the CIA theory to hell, I think.

 

[BVS]

Unfounded and laughable? When condoms came out, did people not buy them? When the sexual revolution hit us, was it a conspiracy?

What does this mean? Condoms promote sex? Do fire extinguishers promote arson? Come on and get out of the dark ages.

In a way I agree that some are born troubled, and even born attracted to their same gender. Instead of promoting this alternative lifestyle every chance we have, we should offer counseling and research ways to treat them, since SCIENCE is so great anyways. Speaking of great things about this SCIENCE religion, why haven't we found a cure for the common cold? Science is no contest to God's law. I do hope we find a cure for AIDS in my lifetime, but until then, let's not promote the cause of the disease.[/B]

This is just discusting and I won't even touch it, but if you think homosexuality caused AIDS then you really have no clue what you are talking about.

You may think I've never met a homosexual, and as a matter of fact I know one personally. He's a nice guy, and he doesn't fit society's perception that gays want intimacy from everyone from their own gender. [/B]

Wait you mean the stereotypes aren't true? Does this mean that black people can be educated or that Jewish people aren't tightwads...or are those stereotypes still true?

 

[verte76]

Unfounded and laughable? When condoms came out, did people not buy them? When the sexual revolution hit us, was it a conspiracy?

In a way I agree that some are born troubled, and even born attracted to their same gender. Instead of promoting this alternative lifestyle every chance we have, we should offer counseling and research ways to treat them, since SCIENCE is so great anyways. Speaking of great things about this SCIENCE religion, why haven't we found a cure for the common cold? Science is no contest to God's law. I do hope we find a cure for AIDS in my lifetime, but until then, let's not promote the cause of the disease.

You may think I've never met a homosexual, and as a matter of fact I know one personally. He's a nice guy, and he doesn't fit society's perception that gays want intimacy from everyone from their own gender. However, he dreams of having a natural family one day, and he knows what he has to do in order to achieve that dream. I pray for him, and hope that he longs for that dream so much, that it turns his life around.

At one point, a few decades ago, being gay landed you in a psychiatric hospital. This is no longer true. Why? The APA dropped homosexuality from the mental illness list, I think in the '70's. I don't know when but it's definitely not in DSM IV, (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition) which is the authoritative book on psychiatric diagnoses. If something isn't even in the damn text of mental illnesses, they're not going to "treat" it. You don't have to take my word for it, call up any medical school or psychology department at a university. They'll tell you that they do not treat homosexuality as it is not an illness.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

You may think I've never met a homosexual, and as a matter of fact I know one personally. He's a nice guy, and he doesn't fit society's perception that gays want intimacy from everyone from their own gender. However, he dreams of having a natural family one day, and he knows what he has to do in order to achieve that dream. I pray for him, and hope that he longs for that dream so much, that it turns his life around.

Does "society" really have that perception anymore? That is just a stereotype-there are just as many heterosexuals who want intimacy from everyone of the opposite gender, most likely far more.

By "natural family, what he has to do" do you mean he should marry a woman and have children, denying his preference? That would lead to quite a bit of pain for a woman and any children they might have. I also meant to say that that would be painful for him as well. There would be ways for him to have a family that I consider "natural" (whatever that means) with a man that he loved. There's also adoption, and there's nothing "unnatural" about that.

Maybe you could just pray for your friend to be happy and have inner peace, maybe that's all he wants from you.

 

[BVS]

Does "society" really have that perception anymore? That is just a stereotype-there are just as many heterosexuals who want intimacy from everyone of the opposite gender, most likely far more.

By "natural family, what he has to do" do you mean he should marry a woman and have children, denying his preference? That would lead to quite a bit of pain for a woman and any children they might have. There would be ways for him to have a family that I consider "natural" (whatever that means) with a man that he loved. There's also adoption, and there's nothing "unnatural" about that.

Maybe you could just pray for your friend to be happy and have inner peace, maybe that's all he wants from you.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

At one point, a few decades ago, being gay landed you in a psychiatric hospital. This is no longer true. Why? The APA dropped homosexuality from the mental illness list, I think in the '70's. I don't know when but it's definitely not in DSM IV, (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fourth Edition) which is the authoritative book on psychiatric diagnoses. If something isn't even in the damn text of mental illnesses, they're not going to "treat" it. You don't have to take my word for it, call up any medical school or psychology department at a university. They'll tell you that they do not treat homosexuality as it is not an illness.

So society has changed, because we let special interest groups have the final word. Bad move. Does that make it right? Does it change what it is?

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Congratulations. Do you've think you've immediately validated all your arguments just because you know someone who's gay? Guess what? Everyone knows someone who is gay. So flashing your "queer cred" like that is completely redundant.

Queer cred? And no, not everyone knows someone personally who's gay. Many of my friends haven't met a single gay man or woman. And what I said about this gay individual that I met had little basis for an argument. I plainly said that he doesn't meet a lot of people's perceptions of gays. However, just because I revealed his dream to have a naturally born family does not give any of you the basis for an argument.

 

[Dutch Partygirl]

However, just because I revealed his dream to have a naturally born family does not give any of you the basis for an argument.

That's true, but you followed it with a little sentence saying 'what he has to do' and that's what the argument is about. This person doesn't HAVE to do anything like that at all. It's his choice if he wants to deny his preference.

 

[Irvine511]

Queer cred? And no, not everyone knows someone personally who's gay. Many of my friends haven't met a single gay man or woman. And what I said about this gay individual that I met had little basis for an argument. I plainly said that he doesn't meet a lot of people's perceptions of gays. However, just because I revealed his dream to have a naturally born family does not give any of you the basis for an argument.

i bet you they do know gay people, they just don't know it, because most gay people feel the need to step back into the closet among the devoutly religious. not defending that instinct, but you can see where it comes from.

i, too, dream of a naturally born family. but i suppose i'd imagine that too if i were straight and sterile or my wife were infertile. there are lots of people who are unable to have naturally born families, and they're not all gay.

instead, once my life is sufficiently stable and i've partnered up for life, i'm planning on adopting.

 

[adam's_mistress]

So society has changed, because we let special interest groups have the final word. Bad move. Does that make it right? Does it change what it is?

That's offensive. Why is it a bad move that being gay is no longer considered a mental illness? Was there any solid proof that being gay was a mental illness in the first place, or was this simply a religious assertion?

What special interests groups are you referring to?

 

[verte76]

So society has changed, because we let special interest groups have the final word. Bad move. Does that make it right? Does it change what it is?

No, it's not changes in society, it's changes in *science*. Modern psychiatry is based on experimental science, not morality. It's a healthy move in the right direction. Slapping someone in a psychiatric ward based on sexual preference isn't where it's at. They used to have a more subjective definition of "not fitting in with society". They've dropped this, and I'm glad. It's too vague, and unless there's a concrete way to "treat" this, with a specific therapy technique, to heck with it. Morality is for the churches and other religious institutions, not for science.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

No, it's not changes in society, it's changes in *science*. Modern psychiatry is based on experimental science, not morality. It's a healthy move in the right direction. Slapping someone in a psychiatric ward based on sexual preference isn't where it's at. They used to have a more subjective definition of "not fitting in with society". They've dropped this, and I'm glad. It's too vague, and unless there's a concrete way to "treat" this, with a specific therapy technique, to heck with it. Morality is for the churches and other religious institutions, not for science.

Neither science or religion can compare to God's design. He created us differently, but we were created so that we can serve him. For any of you who were offended by my stance on society, I apologize, but I think we owe the gay community the love that Jesus would give them, but love without truth isn't really love at all.

 

[verte76]

Scientists don't pretend to understand God's designs. But the whole faith thing is a matter of faith, not science. You can't talk about "treatment" of homosexuality. When you do, you're dragging scientists into the morality business where they don't belong. I agree that science can't penetrate God's business, but ultimately, can any human being? I say no. God has to be the judge here, not any of us.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Scientists don't pretend to understand God's designs. But the whole faith thing is a matter of faith, not science. You can't talk about "treatment" of homosexuality. When you do, you're dragging scientists into the morality business where they don't belong. I agree that science can't penetrate God's business, but ultimately, can any human being? I say no. God has to be the judge here, not any of us.

I don't believe in science playing God.

 

[verte76]

I don't believe in science playing God.

Neither do I. That's exactly why scientists don't treat gays. If you did, you'd be allowing them to play God.

 

[nbcrusader]

No, it's not changes in society, it's changes in *science*.

I think we are fooling ourselves if we believe that societal influences play no part in science or in what science will say or is allowed to say.

 

[Macfistowannabe]

Neither do I. That's exactly why scientists don't treat gays. If you did, you'd be allowing them to play God.

Interesting perspective. We will probably never know how to define homosexuality, since it is such a partisan issue.

 

[Irvine511]

I think we are fooling ourselves if we believe that societal influences play no part in science or in what science will say or is allowed to say.

absolutely.

and we are fooling ourselves if we believe that society influences play no part in the interpretation of Scripture, or in how it was written down in the first place.