Most people do not obtain their beliefs through study. And a belief can't be changed with a message board post.
Well so far I have learned that 2-3% of society is gay-not 10% the media talks about. The only gayness in animals linked on this site seems to be the gayness exhibited in prison culture, which must be how the males assert their dominace in ape culture. That does not really seem to be the kind of gayness that argues for gay marriages. We have seen nothing that proves people are born gay. Lets see some of the pro gay facts supporting the concept that people are born gay or that it is not a learned behavior. That animals have a signicant gay poplulation. Personally, I have nothing against gays. When I lived in D.C., I had gay friends. But, I am not sure I want to see gay marriages, I'd perfer that gays didn't teach gay stuff (any sexuality teaching should come from the home until at least 10-12 in my opinion) to my young children, and I do not believe a great deal of the B.S. we have heard from the gay rights militants. But I am willing to read facts and change my attitude. Because I do seperate my religious beliefs from how I think government should work. And I do think that if I were gay. I would want to see some changes. So lets put some facts out there. If you want to change at least one mind. But when I see people say "trust me" or "I will bury you", or they make a lot of noise, I conclude they have no facts.
I'm hardly a spokesman for the gay culture, but you make some interesting assumptions that I'm not sure have anything to do with the issue of gay marriage. One has to do with the frequency of gays in society. This implies that one's group must cross some threshhold of frequency in order to marry. If, for example, the percentage of Latvians in America is less than some percentage, should they be refused permission to marry? You also seem to equate love with sex, then apply your beliefs to animal populations. Is there evidence that animals love each other?
No, a post on a message board is qualitatively different from written material anywhere else, right db? Yeah. Riiight. Well, db, I don't know about you, but I've spent my fair share of time discussing and studying gay issues, so it's not a knee jerk reaction you're getting from me. I'd love to hear you prove to me how "wrong" my views are, but I suspect that if you had any such compelling arguments you'd have offered them by now. To Cubano, You're right, I can't provide you any links, in the moment, to prove, or substantiate my views on the benefits of raring children in male-female, two parent households. I have done reading on it, and I'm not just arguing out of my ass, or cos I don't like gays (I don't, but that has no bearing on whether raising kids with gay parents is a "good" idea or not). I'm not going to ask you take my word for it. If you're really interested though, why don't you do some of your own reading. I'm pretty sure even liberals these days acknowledge the benefits of wholesome family environments.
Numbers don't have to be the be all end all, but only an idiot would pretend that they don't matter. And, no, I don't see any reason why homosexuality can't be treated on its own merits without having to draw parallels to other groups in which numbers might be applied. Unless someone wants to pretend that gay marriages, over time, wouldn't have a significant influence on the kind of society we live in, then it's quite obvious to me we need to treat gay marriage as a separate issue, and not draw too many inferences from parallels (which are really not much more than invitation to liberals to dodge the ball with fancy footwork and ignore the real issues.) The sex/love spinoff is just dodgeball. Nobody's trying to prevent gays fucking each other. I'm neither married, nor in love, but it seems to me only a fool would ignore the added significance that love and sex take on when procreation is involved.
Of course it is, unless by "written material" you're referring to flyers handed out on street corners. I didn't say you were wrong. I said that a belief can't be changed by something as mundane as a message board post. As for studying gay issues, what studies have you done that have led you to adopt the beliefs that you have? Confused here. You can't provide any information to substantiate your views, but you expect this sort of substantiation from those who disagree with you. As for male-female, two-parent households, I can't see that they're doing such a great job of raising children.
Yeah, a funny thing happens in prisons Jem. All these guys that all along had been thinking they're straight, magically "discover" that they're really gay afterall.
Glad to see you're elevating the level of discussion. You don't see any reason and it's quite obvious to you, and for you all of that is real. But it is not necessarily real to everyone. If you're going to argue on the basis of belief, then no argument is possible. I wouldn't call it dodgeball. Perhaps if straights had a clearer understanding of the difference, the American family wouldn't be in so much trouble.
What studies? Hmm, debating with faggots for hours and hours on end, reading the material they link me to, doing my own research by reading the material gay sites provide. I'd say that counts for something. I'm sure if there was any knock-me-dead argument that could be made I would have heard it by now. In the end, it's an absolute fact that I find homosexuality disgusting -- you can trust me to understand my own phsyical revulsion to having a guy's cock up my ass can't you? -- and I don't see anything wrong, from a logical standpoint, with being "anti-gay" -- especially on the issue of gay marriage -- on the basis that I'm revolted by it and that I've been provided with no compelling argument to accept promotion of gay culture into wider society. Gee, I think that's pretty reasonable. I didn't say I can't ever provide substantiation, I just said I can't provide it right now. No drama. I can guarantee you there's a million things written about it, very little hassle for me to dig up something. I can do it later. And if you can't see that two parent, male/female households are doing such a great job, well, is that supposed to impress me or something? In any case, I never said that they were a magic elixir to cure the ills of society, I'm simply claiming that the evidence suggest they produce "better" kinds than sole parent families. As for what kind of a job gay couples would do, my objections are based more on the implications their very existence would have for society, as opposed to how well they'd raise kids -- although common sense would suggest that they wouldn't do nearly as well as male female couples.
Woody Allen said.... "Being bisexual doubles your chances of a date on a Saturday night." All you guys who are dateless might think about that! Hey, it takes all kinds to make a world. It would be damn boring without the homosexuals. Cathy only. (Bob however is Neanderthal.)