quote: yea but if we burn her at the stake we can have marshmallows and rejoice, that another debil spirit has bit the dust.
The community aspect was one I hadn't really considered. Since it will be the social event of the season, I wonder what Martha Stewart would recommend? Perhaps, hors d'oevures of "devil"ed eggs, a main course of Szechuan chicken with wasabi sauce. And to round out the festivities, the dessert, of course, will be "Devil's" food cake.
The only trouble will be choosing the wine for the event. Is 14 year old considered white or red meat? Would this be based on exterior complexion, or the internal organs? Perhaps Oenophile could help with this since I am not a connoiseur of that end of the alcoholic spectrum.
"Queer" is a term that some gay people have seized upon in order to turn what was a term of abuse into a term of affirmation and pride - ie that the word is no longer hurtful.
"Sodomite" is technically incorrect as the sin of Sodom was inhospitality. It is further incorrect in that what is tehcnically called "Sodomy" is not practiced by many gay people and it is also a heterosexual practice.
Whatever term is used we are still people and human beings. Words no longer have the power to hurt that they once did.
I must admit there JL, that for such a laid back island guy as yourself, one who has spent a veritable fortune in cattle... that you seem awfully "LCMish" about this... just observing... you've really taken me by surprise on this one...
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Well Tom I'm sorry if I seem this way. I have enjoyed your laid back posts, and your humor too. It's just that well, I have posted here before under another name, and taken the very laid back tolerant politically correct attitude, and I swear, everybody loved me! And I'm not kidding. But when I decide to post my true feelings, then I am "hater", or a "homophobe". Yet, if you will look at a number of my other posts, you will see that I mentioned that I had worked with some gay chicks aboard ship, and had gotten along with them quite well, and that even one of them was a very good friend! I stated that I believe that gay people should be treated with the love of God and that because of this age of grace, Levitical solutions are OUT and that the sin of "homoness" or whatever the hell we should call it is really the same as "drinkin too much, bein a mean and ornery sumbitch, or when you are married, boinkin some other woman or a married woman" is not right and is the same sin, but that we are to "walk in love" but not put a stamp of approval on something that God says is wrong. No hate here.
But no one seems to take note of that. Even though I disagree with the lifestyle, I cannot agree with it because of what the Scripture says. I bring up Leviticus, not to say that "we should kill all fags" or whatever, but rather to illustrate to Mark and Avoid that he is not in "Bad Company" for having a negative attitude toward homosexuals, because at the very leat, God's attitude towards it is negative too. But instead of people seeing the purpose of my bringing up that verse of scripture, which I carefully stated, I am seen as a hater or a homophobe.
And so, f***** it, I give up... :)-->
[This message was edited by Jonny Lingo on February 12, 2004 at 17:08.]
oh... don't give up (unless you want to)... and I don't think you're really a 'hater'... I was just surprised the island boy took off like this... and when I said "LCMish" I guess it was just me envisioning your blood pressure rising on some of these... but, hey, if it's your belief and feeling, it's yours... I'm not here to try and tame it, I just thought it wasn't the island boy I knew (or have come to know)... but then, we all have hot buttons of one type or another...
you can still enjoy my "laid back posts" and my "humor"... and I'll enjoy yours...
and I'm by no means P.C. (just ask my wife about that one!)... I'm just trying to keep on keepin' on...
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
I am opposed to same-sex marriages, but I do not hate homosexuals.
I am opposed to racism, does that mean I hate the Klan?
Gay marriage is anethema to civilization. If we allow it, what will stop the legalization of a man and two or more women, three men a baby? A man and a boy? A woman and herself?
Really, what justification would you have to disallow this?
Statistically, gay men are more likely to be promiscuous, depressed, drug addicted, alcoholic and carry an STD.
Marriage is going to cure this?
In the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, the average marriage for two men is about 1.5 years.
And the number of men who one partner in that relationship will have sex with in a year is 8!
We are being asked to flaunt millenia of evidence to the contrary for the sake of a minuscule number of people.
Trust me its not hate that motivates me. On the contrary. It is compassion for gays and the rest of society.
Statistically, gay men are more likely to be promiscuous, depressed, drug addicted, alcoholic and carry an STD.
I have heard this as well, but one has to wonder as to the root cause of this. Does being homosexual lead one to all of these problems, or are they a result of society's negative reaction to homosexuality and they end up dealing with it the wrong way?
It's also a fact that a much higher percentage of black people are addicted to smoking crack than the percentage of white people. Is this because there is inherently something wrong with being black, or is there something wrong culturally or with something else that causes this?
That's a good question Mosh. I don't know the answer to it.
And Tom, thank bro..I'll try to be nicer. I'm not that much of a cave man when it comes to how I deal with all kinds of people in everyday life. But I do have my views I spose...
Sexual orientation refers to the emotional, romantic, sexual and affectional attraction of an individual to a particular gender. The term orientation is generally used by professionals and researchers in human sexuality, as opposed to earlier formulations such as “sexual preference.” In general, human beings have one of three sexual orientations: attraction to individuals of the other gender is described as heterosexual; attraction to individuals of one’s own gender is described as homosexual; attraction to either gender is described as bisexual.
Along with biological sex (gender), gender identity (the psychological sense of being female or male) and social sex roles (cultural norms for masculine or feminine behavior), sexual orientation is one of the primary and enduring components of sexual identity. It should be noted that transgenderism--the sense that one’s biological sex and gender identity are not congruent--is a separate matter from sexual orientation. It should be further noted that research in recent years has revealed sexuality as much more complex than most laypersons imagine. Even biological sex is not a simple, either-or, male-or-female phenomenon, but exists along a continuum.
Sexual behavior is not always congruent with sexual orientation. That is, persons who are primarily heterosexual may engage in sexual experimentation with someone of the same gender (for example, during adolescence), or may engage in repeated activity when no other outlet is available (e.g., in prison). Similarly, homosexually oriented persons may engage in heterosexual acts, marry, become parents. In neither case does the behavior define the person’s enduring emotional, affectional and sexual attraction.
Sexual orientation is a modern concept. The term “homosexual,” for instance, was unknown in ancient times, and was first used in private correspondence in 1868 by Karoly Kertbeny. It first appeared publicly in two anonymous German pamphlets published in 1869 that opposed extending a Prussian anti-sodomy law to all of the German Confederation. The term “heterosexual” is of even more recent origin.
The American Psychiatric Association [[1]] has, since 1973, regarded sexual orientation as a matter of human variation, not mental illness. The American Psychological Association [2] adopted a similar position in 1975. In both instances, the decisions to declassify homosexuality were based upon research that indicated no differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals in social or emotional problems or in level of functioning. The following is taken from the American Psychological Association statement on homosexuality that was released in July 1994:
The research on homosexuality is very clear. Homosexuality is neither mental illness nor moral depravity. It is simply the way a minority of our population expresses human love and sexuality. Study after study documents the mental health of gay men and lesbians. Studies of judgment, stability, reliability, and social and vocational adaptiveness all show that gay men and lesbians function every bit as well as heterosexuals. Nor is homosexuality a matter of individual choice. Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture. Contrary to what some imply, the incidence of homosexuality in a population does not appear to change with new moral codes or social mores. Research findings suggest that efforts to repair homosexuals are nothing more than social prejudice garbed in psychological accouterments.
Some conservative religious groups and some psychoanalysts have continued to attempt to modify or change individual’s sexual orientation. Some homosexually-oriented persons have essentially renounced all sexual behavior as a result of such efforts; some are able to function sexually with someone of the other gender. In no case has research proven that these interventions have reoriented someone’s sexual orientation from homosexual to heterosexual.[3]
In the last quarter of the 20th century, religious and social conservatives have often voiced concern that lesbian and gay persons are more likely to sexually abuse children. A study published by the American Academy of Pediatrics[4] in July, 1994, researched 249 cases of child sexual abuse and found only 2 instances where the perpetrator was identified as gay or lesbian. In that sample, the child’s risk of being molested by the heterosexual partner of a relative was more than 100 times as great. This is consistent with statistical reports that more than 98% of sexual abuse in childhood is perpetrated by male adults upon female children.
The origins of human sexual orientation remain incompletely understood. If there is a consensus among researchers at present, it is that sexual orientation has it’s origins in genetics and inborn hormonal conditions, and possibly life experiences of early childhood. Sexual orientation is not a choice in the way that the term is customarily used. One does not choose to be heterosexual, bisexual or gay or lesbian. While sexual orientation often emerges during adolescence, along with the first sexual feelings, many individuals are aware of their sexual orientation long before their first sexual experiences--often as early as 3-5 years of age.
Research by Simon LeVay and others have indicated neurochemical and neurophysiological differences between individuals of different sexual orientations. (It should be noted that most research has been limited to male subjects.) LeVay, a neuroanatomist at the Salk Institute examined the hypothalamus of deceased men and found a difference in size between heterosexuals and homosexuals, suggesting a biological mechanism involved in sexual orientation[5]. Studies conducted at Northwestern University and Boston University found that if one sibling is homosexual, the chance of another sibling being homosexual is as follows:
52% for an identical twin
22% for a fraternal (non-identical) twin
10% for adopted or non-twin genetic siblings.
The results suggest a strong genetic component for sexual orientation[6]
Statistics regarding the numerical distribution of sexual orientations within the population are somewhat inconsistent due to the inherent difficulty in asking individuals to identify information which could subject them to homophobia and prejudice. Various studies have estimated that 3-10% or more of the population in the United States is homosexually-oriented. A common estimate is that 6% of adult males are exclusively homosexually-oriented. Somewhat fewer women than men share a same-gender sexual orientation; estimates are often 3-5% of the female population.[7] Less research and information is available about bisexuality.
What then, finally, can be said about sexual orientation? As research into human sexuality increases our base of knowledge, patterns are emerging:
Bisexual, homosexual and heterosexual orientations have been found throughout human history and human cultures
Sexual orientation appears primarily biogenetic in origin and is discovered rather than chosen;
Sexual orientation is not a predictor of social or emotional functioning--it is not a mental illness;
Efforts to alter sexual orientation through behavior therapy, psychoactive drugs, prayer, etc., have not affected primary sexual orientation.
[1] American Psychiatric Association, 1400 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005.
[2] American Psychological Association, Office of Public Affairs, 750 First St., NE, Washington, DC 20002-4242.
[3] Stein, T.S., Cohen, C.J., eds. Contemporary perspectives on psychotherapy with lesbians and gay men. New York: Plenum Medical Book Co., 1986.
[4] Pediatrics, The American Academy of Pediatrics, 1994 July 96:7.
[5] LeVay, S. The Sexual Brain. New York: Bradford Books, 1994.
[6] Bailey, J.M., Pillard, R.C., Archives of General Psychiatry, 1991 48:1089-1096.
[7] Stein, T.S., Cohen, C.J., eds. Contemporary perspectives on psychotherapy with lesbians and gay men. New York: Plenum Medical Book Co., 1986: 132, 99.
John R. Ballew, M.S., is a licensed professional counselor in private practice in Atlanta. He has a Master of Science degree in Clinical Psychology from Purdue University and is a member of the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality. He can be reached at www.bodymindsoul.org or (404) 874-8536.
BOSTON — Massachusetts reconvened its constitutional convention for a second day today, after defeating a constitutional amendment that would have defined marriage as between a man and woman but would have allowed same-sex civil unions.
In their frantic attempt to solve the state's crisis over gay and lesbian marriage, the legislators Wednesday also narrowly rejected a second amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage altogether.
Outside the Statehouse, demonstrators on both sides of the issue gathered for a second day on the narrow streets and sidewalks. Many came from out of state, a reflection of how divisive the issue has become — not just in Massachusetts but nationwide.
At the annual joint session of the Legislature, lawmakers are set to consider at least two other proposals to change the Massachusetts Constitution in the wake of a state court decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
Lawmakers said they hoped to reach an agreement.
"Things break down in this building by the minute, but it's going to be interesting," said Senate Minority Leader Brian Lees, a Republican. "I'm cautiously optimistic."
Lees, co-author of the defeated civil union amendment, said that a nearly identical bill would be introduced today under the sponsorship of House Speaker Thomas Finneran, a Democrat. Lees said he expected Finneran's bill to pass because state representatives outnumber their Senate counterparts and are more likely to endorse a bill supported by their leadership.
The legislators Wednesday voted 104 to 94 against the civil union amendment and defeated the same-sex marriage ban by just two votes.
The civil union measure was one of a series of hastily crafted proposals designed to negate the court ruling, which beginning in May would make Massachusetts the first state to allow gays and lesbians to marry.
A Supreme Judicial Court advisory opinion last week decreed that civil unions would not satisfy the court's requirements. That prompted fast action from lawmakers anxious to prevent Massachusetts from becoming a mecca for gay marriage.
Changing the Constitution — the oldest in America — requires legislators first to approve an amendment by a majority vote. One year after that vote, the Legislature must again vote its approval. Then the matter must be taken to residents as a referendum.
If legislators approve an amendment in the constitutional convention, the general population would not be able to vote on it until November 2006. Under the civil union amendment defeated Wednesday night, same-sex couples who married from May until the November 2006 election would have had their status converted to civil union.
Seeking to "minimize disruption of the commonwealth," Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican, said Wednesday that he opposed codifying civil union as part of the state constitution.
His preference, Romney said, was "as narrow a definition as possible — defining marriage only as a union between a man and a woman."
Only Belgium, the Netherlands and two provinces in Canada permit gays and lesbians to marry. Thirty-eight U.S. states have adopted defense of marriage laws.
The last paragraph is not completely correct. In addition, Norway, Sweden and Denmark also allow marriage as a specific term and various other countries allow civil registrations akin to marriage.
"Statistically, gay men are more likely to be promiscuous, depressed, drug addicted, alcoholic and carry an STD."
I agree with Mr. Mosh, has our society somehow so abused the homosexual population that they must self medicate themselves with drugs, alcohol, or premiscuous sex??
For many years I worked in HUD and tax credit properties (also known as low income housing). The incidences of drugs, alcohol, violence and sexual permissiveness reigns in these types of communities. And 99.9 percent of the population of these communities are heterosexual. So if we follow this line of logic, the poor population must also be included in the above statement. You haven't seen nothing until you have seen one of these locations on a hot summer night.
Is it the poverty that causes them to abuse themselves and one another?
Sorry folks this ain't church, this is America. Homosexuality is not illegal as far as I know and they should be able to live without fear in this country. You can call them fudge packers, turd burglers, or *** pirates if you want but they still have a right to live freely.
Marriage? No way!...civil unions are fine,but to allow them to "invade" the sanctity of marriage is a departure from TOLERANCE into the category of ACCEPTANCE. In effect they are requiring you, legally, to acknowledge homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality.
Perhaps they should be thankful that they are not being chased down the street like the torch carrying villagers after Karlof. The spirit of tolerance points to civil unions while the spirit of acceptance points to marriage. I say no to marriage!
Don't say that I'm discriminating, because we are dealing with a behavioral activity. Acceptance of a questionable behavioral activity should never be forced upon the people by any means. Tolerance, however, is in keeping with the idea that consulting adults can live as they please in the privacy of their homes...just don't try to shove it down people's throats. (pun intended)
I almost agree with you, Groucho, except that it's not in the category of acceptance, but of legally declaring a homosexual union to be a PREFERRED state, in the same way that heterosexual marriage is. It is declaring a homosexual union to be legally identical to a heterosexual marriage.
I have no problem with homosexuality. I flat don't care what consenting people do, or how they live, as long as they are competent to give consent and don't harm others. Heck, they can eat sushi, raise cats, or even "speak in tongues" together, for all I care!
My thoughts are not based on religious beliefs (I have none) or on thinking disparagingly of homosexuals. They are based entirely on the right of society to recognize and offer incentives and protections for a preferred state.
This is not opinion, but fact: A homosexual union and a heterosexual union are not the same. The difference is that the vast majority of heterosexual couples (of childbearing age) are capable of producing offspring, with no special procedures and no participation by anyone outside the couple. In fact, most heterosexual couples need special devices or procedures to keep that from happening. Normal interaction of normal heterosexual couples will normally result in children. No matter how normal homosexual interaction may be, homosexual sexual acts cannot result in children.
Conception and birth can surely happen outside of civil marriage or any sort of committed relationship, but most people, including single parents, believe that the ideal is that children be conceived, born, and raised by two married parents. Other situations are tolerated by society, and even accepted by society, but they are not PREFERRED by society, which is why civil marriage is a societally sanctioned, PREFERRED state.
quote:If "traditional" families provide stability to society (and I agree that they do), but if same-sex marriages don't jeopardize those "traditional" families, how would they contribute to the instability of society? That's what I'm trying to get at.
Linda: I apologize for taking so long to answer. I think same-sex marriages would jeopardize "traditional" families, because it would force a redefinition of a woman's status in a marriage. Right now, the way I see it, women benefit more from marriage than do men, and women have fared better in cultures which only allow for what we're now calling a "traditional marriage". This isn't to say that women have never been abused, used, exploited, and the rest of it, but I don't think marriage itself is to blame. I think there are inherent inequalities between men and women, whether rooted in culture or biology, which tend to give the advantage to men. In recent history, marriage laws have favored women, which is (obviously) to their benefit. Same-sex marriages would immediately redefine the roles in a marriage, giving each partner equal status. On the surface, that may appear to be a good thing, if equality is considered a societal virtue, but in reality, it would put women at a further disadvantage. Divorce and children would complicate things further, and limit the number of options a woman has. I don't see how marriage would increase the status of homosexuals. I think it would only decrease the status of women.
I don't think the status quo is worth preserving for the sake of the status quo. But in this case, I think women stand to lose a lot, more so than men. And for what? What is being gained?
quote:Is it not more moral to believe that if people are going to do something that you disapprove of that they are encouraged to do it more safely? Is it not better to encourage an ethos of relationships rather than just of sex? Is it not better to offer responsibility and commitment than to deny it?
Trefor: Rather than looking to the institution of marriage or to heterosexual couples for those answers, ask your Lesbian sisters, because they seem to have figured out how to remain monogamous (87% of Lesbian unions are monogamous, I read somewhere), plus their vulnerability to sexually transmitted diseases is very low, plus their relationships tend to be very child-centered, where children are involved. And all of this without the "benefit" of marriage. No one seems to be preventing them from the faithfulness, commitment, and responsibility you think can only come with a legally recognized union. My best guess is that the answer lies somewhere in the mystery of female sexuality.
I think you're a very likable person, but so far I've been offended by most of the editorials you have posted. Some of the claims are downright ridiculous. I'm also suspicious about this call for solidarity between all those who are now or have ever been oppressed by the American government (heterosexual males?), which includes gays, women, and blacks. I think the pleas for equality are manipulative, and the analogies misleading. If your interest is in preserving a loving union, answers to how to accomplish that are already out there. Unless there is another agenda. Is there?
Long Gone...you make some excellant points. The very nature of the man/woman relationship which often results in reproduction cannot and should not be classified the same as a same sex relationship, which is different in nature.
From a social perspective, government should never impose upon the people an "edict" that would so drastically alter the definition of such an institution as marriage.
However, I don't think that Bush's idea of a constituional amendment is a very good idea either. Maybe some sort of bill that would provide for a civil union but would clearly disqualify gays from being married. Just my thoughts...
I also think you really hit a nerve with this whole issue when you describe marriage as the preferred state. Everything I know tells me that this is right and proper.
The gay movement recognizes this also and is striving to change the preferred state. I doubt seriously that this will happen any time soon. Many folks who are tolerant and even those who are accepting are getting their hackles up over this one.
All I have seen with posts from groucho, laleo and long gone is the same old rehash of stuff. Similar arguments regarding other problems within US society have been made in the past about what should not be imposed as an edict.
Is there such a major difference between toleration and acceptance? Toleration is the acceptance of the fact that something exists and putting up with that fact, irrespective of whether one agrees or not. Toleration requires that arrangements need to be made to address the legitimate aspirations of a group of people to address a long standing problem.
There is nothing sacred about a civil marriage per se and this is what has been the topic of discussion.
I have declared previously that I have no major interest in what you call it, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. If a couple can be united in a civil and legal arrangement if they choose to call it marriage it does not bind anybody else to do so.
Just as heterosexual marriage does not bind the couple to have children simply because they can. I do not need to point out how casually heterosexual marriage is treated by some people but perhaps I need to reiterate how seriously gay people wish to take gay marriage or whatever terminology people wish to use.
The editorials that I posted were not designed to offend but to inform. I am happy to indicate in future those points that I might disagree with but not to quote the entire article would lead to charges of my being selective.
I do not see any politicians providing alternative proposals. I am glad that some people here are prepared to consider them. That is progress of a kind.
All I have seen with posts from groucho, laleo and long gone is the same old rehash of stuff. Similar arguments regarding other problems within US society have been made in the past about what should not be imposed as an edict.
Like that old "No taxation without representation" thing? Look, I'm about tired of your presumptiousness, carrying on about "problems within US society." You worry about your own society. I don't carry on about your damn fool (from my point of view) system of government or your society, which is way too socialistic for my taste. If it suits you, it's fine by me.
I happen to think very highly of our system of government and our society. I won't lightly support a change to either. If, however, during a public debate among Americans, a convincing argument is presented to support a change that I think will be for the better, I will support it.
quote:I have declared previously that I have no major interest in what you call it...
You have no interest in this at all, as far as I can see. We're not talking about your country, your laws, or your society. We're talking about ours.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
61
69
130
71
Popular Days
Feb 6
106
Feb 5
68
Feb 7
68
Feb 16
51
Top Posters In This Topic
mj412 61 posts
LG 69 posts
Trefor Heywood 130 posts
J0nny Ling0 71 posts
Popular Days
Feb 6 2004
106 posts
Feb 5 2004
68 posts
Feb 7 2004
68 posts
Feb 16 2004
51 posts
Popular Posts
Trefor Heywood
Mark: Federalism has met problems before and had to deal with them. The original framers could not cross every i nor dot every t nor foresee how things would develop in the future. It created prob
Zixar
Here's a link to an article by Card on the problem with courts legislating by decision: Cool New Rights Are Fine, But What About Democracy?
J0nny Ling0
Ok. Apparently Massachusetts is poised to move on with same sex marriage. First of all, and it may not surprise some of you, I am opposed to this. Since I don't live in Mass, however, it doesn't real
TheManOfa Thousand ScreenNames
The community aspect was one I hadn't really considered. Since it will be the social event of the season, I wonder what Martha Stewart would recommend? Perhaps, hors d'oevures of "devil"ed eggs, a main course of Szechuan chicken with wasabi sauce. And to round out the festivities, the dessert, of course, will be "Devil's" food cake.
The only trouble will be choosing the wine for the event. Is 14 year old considered white or red meat? Would this be based on exterior complexion, or the internal organs? Perhaps Oenophile could help with this since I am not a connoiseur of that end of the alcoholic spectrum.
The lessons repeat until they are learned.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
"Queer" is a term that some gay people have seized upon in order to turn what was a term of abuse into a term of affirmation and pride - ie that the word is no longer hurtful.
"Sodomite" is technically incorrect as the sin of Sodom was inhospitality. It is further incorrect in that what is tehcnically called "Sodomy" is not practiced by many gay people and it is also a heterosexual practice.
Whatever term is used we are still people and human beings. Words no longer have the power to hurt that they once did.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
Well names,
First we will have to see if Martha is available. She's been a little tied up lately you know.
But I had considered having Johnny Lingo over and he can cast the first stone....er, uh, uh, I mean cast the first match.
"Queer sort of fellow" isn't he, what with all the hate that is in his heart for others. Makes a person go hmmmmm and wonder what he is so afraid of.
outofdafog
Thats my story and I'm sticking to it
:D-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Hate? Hardly...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I must admit there JL, that for such a laid back island guy as yourself, one who has spent a veritable fortune in cattle... that you seem awfully "LCMish" about this... just observing... you've really taken me by surprise on this one...
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Well Tom I'm sorry if I seem this way. I have enjoyed your laid back posts, and your humor too. It's just that well, I have posted here before under another name, and taken the very laid back tolerant politically correct attitude, and I swear, everybody loved me! And I'm not kidding. But when I decide to post my true feelings, then I am "hater", or a "homophobe". Yet, if you will look at a number of my other posts, you will see that I mentioned that I had worked with some gay chicks aboard ship, and had gotten along with them quite well, and that even one of them was a very good friend! I stated that I believe that gay people should be treated with the love of God and that because of this age of grace, Levitical solutions are OUT and that the sin of "homoness" or whatever the hell we should call it is really the same as "drinkin too much, bein a mean and ornery sumbitch, or when you are married, boinkin some other woman or a married woman" is not right and is the same sin, but that we are to "walk in love" but not put a stamp of approval on something that God says is wrong. No hate here.
But no one seems to take note of that. Even though I disagree with the lifestyle, I cannot agree with it because of what the Scripture says. I bring up Leviticus, not to say that "we should kill all fags" or whatever, but rather to illustrate to Mark and Avoid that he is not in "Bad Company" for having a negative attitude toward homosexuals, because at the very leat, God's attitude towards it is negative too. But instead of people seeing the purpose of my bringing up that verse of scripture, which I carefully stated, I am seen as a hater or a homophobe.
And so, f***** it, I give up...
:)-->
[This message was edited by Jonny Lingo on February 12, 2004 at 17:08.]
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
oh... don't give up (unless you want to)... and I don't think you're really a 'hater'... I was just surprised the island boy took off like this... and when I said "LCMish" I guess it was just me envisioning your blood pressure rising on some of these... but, hey, if it's your belief and feeling, it's yours... I'm not here to try and tame it, I just thought it wasn't the island boy I knew (or have come to know)... but then, we all have hot buttons of one type or another...
you can still enjoy my "laid back posts" and my "humor"... and I'll enjoy yours...
and I'm by no means P.C. (just ask my wife about that one!)... I'm just trying to keep on keepin' on...
I'm on the outside, looking inside, what do I see? Much confusion, disillusion, all around me.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
def59
I am opposed to same-sex marriages, but I do not hate homosexuals.
I am opposed to racism, does that mean I hate the Klan?
Gay marriage is anethema to civilization. If we allow it, what will stop the legalization of a man and two or more women, three men a baby? A man and a boy? A woman and herself?
Really, what justification would you have to disallow this?
Statistically, gay men are more likely to be promiscuous, depressed, drug addicted, alcoholic and carry an STD.
Marriage is going to cure this?
In the Netherlands, where gay marriage is legal, the average marriage for two men is about 1.5 years.
And the number of men who one partner in that relationship will have sex with in a year is 8!
We are being asked to flaunt millenia of evidence to the contrary for the sake of a minuscule number of people.
Trust me its not hate that motivates me. On the contrary. It is compassion for gays and the rest of society.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
I am sometimes amazed about how people will claim that their opposition is logical and not biased and that is based upon love and compassion.
They extend "logic" to ludicrous lenghts and introduce all kinds of ludicrous material to obscure the issue which is actually being talked about.
It's almost like an attempt at fillibustering.
No matter how many times these ludicrous assertions are countered they are raised time and again.
When people are opposing they should at least try to find something original to say!
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mister P-Mosh
I have heard this as well, but one has to wonder as to the root cause of this. Does being homosexual lead one to all of these problems, or are they a result of society's negative reaction to homosexuality and they end up dealing with it the wrong way?
It's also a fact that a much higher percentage of black people are addicted to smoking crack than the percentage of white people. Is this because there is inherently something wrong with being black, or is there something wrong culturally or with something else that causes this?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
That's a good question Mosh. I don't know the answer to it.
And Tom, thank bro..I'll try to be nicer. I'm not that much of a cave man when it comes to how I deal with all kinds of people in everyday life. But I do have my views I spose...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Taking issue with someone or being angry, sometimes is understandable. What we do about it can be another thing.
It demonstrates your humanity, Jonny, that you can recognize it and adjust. Thank you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
The last paragraph is not completely correct. In addition, Norway, Sweden and Denmark also allow marriage as a specific term and various other countries allow civil registrations akin to marriage.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
mj412
crack is cheaper than cocain .
and many other reasons is right Mr. Mosh .
Link to comment
Share on other sites
outofdafog
"Statistically, gay men are more likely to be promiscuous, depressed, drug addicted, alcoholic and carry an STD."
I agree with Mr. Mosh, has our society somehow so abused the homosexual population that they must self medicate themselves with drugs, alcohol, or premiscuous sex??
For many years I worked in HUD and tax credit properties (also known as low income housing). The incidences of drugs, alcohol, violence and sexual permissiveness reigns in these types of communities. And 99.9 percent of the population of these communities are heterosexual. So if we follow this line of logic, the poor population must also be included in the above statement. You haven't seen nothing until you have seen one of these locations on a hot summer night.
Is it the poverty that causes them to abuse themselves and one another?
outofdafog
Thats my story and I am sticking to it
:D-->
Good question Mr. M.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Groucho
Sorry folks this ain't church, this is America. Homosexuality is not illegal as far as I know and they should be able to live without fear in this country. You can call them fudge packers, turd burglers, or *** pirates if you want but they still have a right to live freely.
Marriage? No way!...civil unions are fine,but to allow them to "invade" the sanctity of marriage is a departure from TOLERANCE into the category of ACCEPTANCE. In effect they are requiring you, legally, to acknowledge homosexuality as being equal to heterosexuality.
Perhaps they should be thankful that they are not being chased down the street like the torch carrying villagers after Karlof. The spirit of tolerance points to civil unions while the spirit of acceptance points to marriage. I say no to marriage!
Don't say that I'm discriminating, because we are dealing with a behavioral activity. Acceptance of a questionable behavioral activity should never be forced upon the people by any means. Tolerance, however, is in keeping with the idea that consulting adults can live as they please in the privacy of their homes...just don't try to shove it down people's throats. (pun intended)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I almost agree with you, Groucho, except that it's not in the category of acceptance, but of legally declaring a homosexual union to be a PREFERRED state, in the same way that heterosexual marriage is. It is declaring a homosexual union to be legally identical to a heterosexual marriage.
I have no problem with homosexuality. I flat don't care what consenting people do, or how they live, as long as they are competent to give consent and don't harm others. Heck, they can eat sushi, raise cats, or even "speak in tongues" together, for all I care!
My thoughts are not based on religious beliefs (I have none) or on thinking disparagingly of homosexuals. They are based entirely on the right of society to recognize and offer incentives and protections for a preferred state.
This is not opinion, but fact: A homosexual union and a heterosexual union are not the same. The difference is that the vast majority of heterosexual couples (of childbearing age) are capable of producing offspring, with no special procedures and no participation by anyone outside the couple. In fact, most heterosexual couples need special devices or procedures to keep that from happening. Normal interaction of normal heterosexual couples will normally result in children. No matter how normal homosexual interaction may be, homosexual sexual acts cannot result in children.
Conception and birth can surely happen outside of civil marriage or any sort of committed relationship, but most people, including single parents, believe that the ideal is that children be conceived, born, and raised by two married parents. Other situations are tolerated by society, and even accepted by society, but they are not PREFERRED by society, which is why civil marriage is a societally sanctioned, PREFERRED state.
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Linda: I apologize for taking so long to answer. I think same-sex marriages would jeopardize "traditional" families, because it would force a redefinition of a woman's status in a marriage. Right now, the way I see it, women benefit more from marriage than do men, and women have fared better in cultures which only allow for what we're now calling a "traditional marriage". This isn't to say that women have never been abused, used, exploited, and the rest of it, but I don't think marriage itself is to blame. I think there are inherent inequalities between men and women, whether rooted in culture or biology, which tend to give the advantage to men. In recent history, marriage laws have favored women, which is (obviously) to their benefit. Same-sex marriages would immediately redefine the roles in a marriage, giving each partner equal status. On the surface, that may appear to be a good thing, if equality is considered a societal virtue, but in reality, it would put women at a further disadvantage. Divorce and children would complicate things further, and limit the number of options a woman has. I don't see how marriage would increase the status of homosexuals. I think it would only decrease the status of women.
I don't think the status quo is worth preserving for the sake of the status quo. But in this case, I think women stand to lose a lot, more so than men. And for what? What is being gained?
Edited by GuestLink to comment
Share on other sites
laleo
Trefor: Rather than looking to the institution of marriage or to heterosexual couples for those answers, ask your Lesbian sisters, because they seem to have figured out how to remain monogamous (87% of Lesbian unions are monogamous, I read somewhere), plus their vulnerability to sexually transmitted diseases is very low, plus their relationships tend to be very child-centered, where children are involved. And all of this without the "benefit" of marriage. No one seems to be preventing them from the faithfulness, commitment, and responsibility you think can only come with a legally recognized union. My best guess is that the answer lies somewhere in the mystery of female sexuality.
I think you're a very likable person, but so far I've been offended by most of the editorials you have posted. Some of the claims are downright ridiculous. I'm also suspicious about this call for solidarity between all those who are now or have ever been oppressed by the American government (heterosexual males?), which includes gays, women, and blacks. I think the pleas for equality are manipulative, and the analogies misleading. If your interest is in preserving a loving union, answers to how to accomplish that are already out there. Unless there is another agenda. Is there?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Groucho
Long Gone...you make some excellant points. The very nature of the man/woman relationship which often results in reproduction cannot and should not be classified the same as a same sex relationship, which is different in nature.
From a social perspective, government should never impose upon the people an "edict" that would so drastically alter the definition of such an institution as marriage.
However, I don't think that Bush's idea of a constituional amendment is a very good idea either. Maybe some sort of bill that would provide for a civil union but would clearly disqualify gays from being married. Just my thoughts...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Groucho
I also think you really hit a nerve with this whole issue when you describe marriage as the preferred state. Everything I know tells me that this is right and proper.
The gay movement recognizes this also and is striving to change the preferred state. I doubt seriously that this will happen any time soon. Many folks who are tolerant and even those who are accepting are getting their hackles up over this one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Trefor Heywood
All I have seen with posts from groucho, laleo and long gone is the same old rehash of stuff. Similar arguments regarding other problems within US society have been made in the past about what should not be imposed as an edict.
Is there such a major difference between toleration and acceptance? Toleration is the acceptance of the fact that something exists and putting up with that fact, irrespective of whether one agrees or not. Toleration requires that arrangements need to be made to address the legitimate aspirations of a group of people to address a long standing problem.
There is nothing sacred about a civil marriage per se and this is what has been the topic of discussion.
I have declared previously that I have no major interest in what you call it, a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. If a couple can be united in a civil and legal arrangement if they choose to call it marriage it does not bind anybody else to do so.
Just as heterosexual marriage does not bind the couple to have children simply because they can. I do not need to point out how casually heterosexual marriage is treated by some people but perhaps I need to reiterate how seriously gay people wish to take gay marriage or whatever terminology people wish to use.
The editorials that I posted were not designed to offend but to inform. I am happy to indicate in future those points that I might disagree with but not to quote the entire article would lead to charges of my being selective.
I do not see any politicians providing alternative proposals. I am glad that some people here are prepared to consider them. That is progress of a kind.
Trefor Heywood
"Cymru Am Byth!"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I happen to think very highly of our system of government and our society. I won't lightly support a change to either. If, however, during a public debate among Americans, a convincing argument is presented to support a change that I think will be for the better, I will support it.
You have no interest in this at all, as far as I can see. We're not talking about your country, your laws, or your society. We're talking about ours.Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.