*rc 1223* Posted April 4, 2007 Report Posted April 4, 2007 The amendment to ban gay marriage failed in a senate tally 49-48. For this to proceed, they needed a 2/3 favorable vote. What are everyone's thoughts on the subject? My view is that this kind of thing has no business being in the Cons!@#$%^&*ution. I do not agree with gay marriage or the homosexual lifestyle, but I disagree with putting it in there. I think this should be left to the states to decide, not to the federal government. Most of the states (45 I think?) have state cons!@#$%^&*ution amendments or statutes or have them coming up for vote that restrict or ban gay marriage. I've liked John McCain for a long time because I think he's more of a moderate who doesn't just toe the party line. The fact that he didn't support this amendment makes me respect him even more. McCain for President in 2008!!!! (as long as the !@#$%^&* extreme evangelical conservatives pull their heads out of their !@#$%^&*es) i say ppl should be able to do what they wanna do i dont really care its not like it bothers me
Aileron Posted April 4, 2007 Report Posted April 4, 2007 I'd consider it a problem. Not necessarily one that the state should solve, but generally I think that most homosexuality is a result of many emotional problems. Our society is such that people don't really talk to each other as much as we should, and in my opinion homosexual desires must stem from people who lack a proper social life. The person who engages in the activity is the victim of that act in this case, much like most cases of drug abuse. The state has limited right to deal with the problem, but the source is that some people's life sucks so bad that they resort to such behavior.
Drake7707 Posted April 4, 2007 Report Posted April 4, 2007 gay marriage is allowed in belgium . They learned to shake off the stupid christian bull!@#$%^&* from politics (less than 4% visits church nowadays lol)
Wild Luck Posted April 5, 2007 Report Posted April 5, 2007 (edited) Did you pull this statistic out of your !@#$%^&* or a conservative mouthpiece that also says evolution has no evidence?no it was actually out of yours. I not going into details but sexual orientation its !@#$%^&*ociated with certain hormones male: testoterone and females: progesteron, some males that are born this way might have low testosterone wich may cause them to be homosexual, as i said before only 1-10% have this problems, 90% of all homosexual have no genetic problem they are just corrupted people. note that there are many discrepancies on this. Anyway There is also the social and psychological factors, but if someone becomes gay by a social or psychological factor then it was not born gay. See the perspective? newbGG ownedenjoy! Edited April 5, 2007 by Wild Luck
AstroProdigy Posted April 5, 2007 Report Posted April 5, 2007 (edited) Wild Luck:I'm sorry, but I don't see where I put out a website on statistics here, can you please provide one? Aileron:Homosexuality is neither a disease nor an addiction. Being gay isn't like doing drugs and as long as a lot of people in this country keep being told that it is then it will always be an issue used by conservative politicians to allow them to do whatever they want the way Bush did. Do you honestly believe people simply turn gay because they have crappy lives? HUGE misconception you have there. Edited April 5, 2007 by AstroProdigy
Wild Luck Posted April 6, 2007 Report Posted April 6, 2007 Wild Luck:I'm sorry, but I don't see where I put out a website on statistics here, can you please provide one? Aileron:Homosexuality is neither a disease nor an addiction. Being gay isn't like doing drugs and as long as a lot of people in this country keep being told that it is then it will always be an issue used by conservative politicians to allow them to do whatever they want the way Bush did. Do you honestly believe people simply turn gay because they have crappy lives? HUGE misconception you have there.here is one, of course i am latino so its on spanish, i wont take more of my time looking for one in english just for someone so annoying as you.it explains many of the things that can cause homosexuality.http://www.monografias.com/trabajos12/laho.../lahomosx.shtml
Wild Luck Posted April 6, 2007 Report Posted April 6, 2007 I'd consider it a problem. Not necessarily one that the state should solve, but generally I think that most homosexuality is a result of many emotional problems. Our society is such that people don't really talk to each other as much as we should, and in my opinion homosexual desires must stem from people who lack a proper social life. The person who engages in the activity is the victim of that act in this case, much like most cases of drug abuse. The state has limited right to deal with the problem, but the source is that some people's life sucks so bad that they resort to such behavior.canabis has been !@#$%^&*osiated with homosexuality behaviour u are right on that part
AstroProdigy Posted April 6, 2007 Report Posted April 6, 2007 Wild Luck:Why is it that conservatives who probably never talk to gay people and if they do it's to p!@#$%^&* judgement and not hear anything they say are taken seriously on this issue? But hey I'm annoying no need to provide a website we can even read. You throw a few big words and a few numbers and then back it up with something I can't check up on. CONGRATULATIONS! Yes I'm sure cannabis causes homosexuality and I also think I read off a website somewhere that you can overdose on cannabis. That's also a completely irrational load of crap with no credible basis. Congratulations. You're honestly sitting here saying they found a gay gene? Are YOU on cannabis? Maybe that'l make you be gay since thats what your website said. Again; congratulations for wasting my time with your ignorance.
Aileron Posted April 6, 2007 Report Posted April 6, 2007 It was an analogy, not a relationship. I could have said overeating or watching too much TV. Its caused by people with problems that they can't solve on their own, but because our society has put up so many social barriers, these people have to generate a subs!@#$%^&*ute for an actual social life. Each behavior has little things that cause it to be the addiction of choice over the others. The quirck with homosexuals is a lack of healthy relationships with people of the other gender. The crude example is when there are no people of the opposite sex, such as in prisons or some of the armies of antiquity. Most cases however, are more subtle, likely resulting from years of unhealthy relationships, so that it goes far back that the person doesn't know otherwise, and !@#$%^&*umes he or she was born that way. Hence why many gay men obsess about their mother, because their relationship with their mother was unhealthy. That also explains why this is a relatively modern occurrance. Yes, it's not an exclusively modern occurance, it probably existed a little bit in all of history. However, in the last 50 years, it has become very difficult to socialize. How many of us actually know our neighbors or meet with the community on a regular basis, outside of a few friends? Under such cir!@#$%^&*stances, the average person's range of social contacts is limited, which decreases the chance of forming any sort of healthy relationship. Ofcourse, you won't find an expert who agrees with me, because all the experts are sociologists taught by university professors that the homosexual agenda is something that should be pushed. I stopped taking their word for it on this issue when whatever university claimed that 25% of people "have potential" to be homosexual. That is a clear case of generating a statistic that could go up and down based upon the subjective defintion of "having potential to be homosexual". I have a career in the natural sciences. I do not respect the opinion of these psuedo-scientific fools. I could explain why, but it is long and irrelevent to the topic. Suffice to say, the work of these people is just there to provide a smokescreen for their opinion. Ofcourse, if biologists and geneticists ever found a "gay gene", I would have to respect their statements. However, that wouldn't change my overall opinion though, because it would change it from a psychological disease to a genetic defect, like cancer. Gay Marriage crosses a line that Gay Sex doesn't. The homosexual movement loves the arguement that the state doesn't have a right to tell them how to live. Gay Marriage however goes further than that. It would mean the state would have to force the populace to have a certain amount of tolerance for homosexual behavior. I don't think its an alternative lifestyle, I think its a condition that is to be cured. If the government passed an amendment in favor of gay marriage, I would not be allowed to have that opinion. It would force me to treat it as an alternative lifestyle in all my professional dealings. The current arguement that "They do no harm and society shouldn't tell them how to live their lives." does not justify going this far. In order to p!@#$%^&* into the realm of gay marriage, you would have to provide an arguement which actually shows a benefit to the society great enough to justify forcing an opinion upon 300 million people.
NBVegita Posted April 6, 2007 Report Posted April 6, 2007 I agree that I don't believe people are born gay. I believe people become gay due to envirionmental factors. Possibly having a low testosterone count might make them more susceptible to having homosexual tendencies, but I don't think you can blame it on someone being gay. People love to make excuses for their actions instead of taking responsibility.
Wild Luck Posted April 6, 2007 Report Posted April 6, 2007 (edited) Wild Luck:Why is it that conservatives who probably never talk to gay people and if they do it's to p!@#$%^&* judgement and not hear anything they say are taken seriously on this issue? But hey I'm annoying no need to provide a website we can even read. You throw a few big words and a few numbers and then back it up with something I can't check up on. CONGRATULATIONS! Yes I'm sure cannabis causes homosexuality and I also think I read off a website somewhere that you can overdose on cannabis. That's also a completely irrational load of crap with no credible basis. Congratulations. You're honestly sitting here saying they found a gay gene? Are YOU on cannabis? Maybe that'l make you be gay since thats what your website said. Again; congratulations for wasting my time with your ignorance.i never said they found a gay gene, and keep speaking more the way you are so everyone can see how stupid you are. And i said cannabis is !@#$%^&*ociated with homosexuality not that it causes it, if you dont know the meaning of this maybe you should go back to school, did you dropped on 7th grade? Edited April 6, 2007 by Wild Luck
AstroProdigy Posted April 7, 2007 Report Posted April 7, 2007 (edited) Wild Luck:You have no evidence to back your very specific claims and a website I can't read isn't going to do it. The way you think of homosexuals as a "corrupted people" shows an agenda you're trying to push here. Little is known about what causes homosexuality, so what you put as facts here is just speculation. Aileron:Sociologists play their part too. There is no universal "liberal agenda" or "gay agenda". I would say homosexuals have an even healthier relationship with the other gender than straight men if you ever hang out with them. Gay men obsessing about their mother is a stereotype and if it was true then it simply means unlike straight men gay men don't get embar!@#$%^&*ed about their mother unlike straight men because their more comfortable with women (no sex drive towards women develops). It is ABSOLUTELY not a modern occurance. When 150 years ago homosexuality could still be punished with death scores of gay people hid their preferences. Today we have freedom and most gay people are willing to come out. Homosexuality isn't a socializing problem. I don't think the federal government should p!@#$%^&* any amendment concerning gay marriage; I think it should be left up to the states, but when I hear conservative politicians toting a ban on gay marriage to get some extra votes it disgusts me. Btw when atmospheric SCIENTISTS said global warming was very likely happening and it was our fault that was also called a smokescreen for their opinions; just an interesting point. Edited April 7, 2007 by AstroProdigy
Recommended Posts