7 states pass marriage amendments

[CivilLiberty]

I think whats interesting here is Arizona is the First state to oppose the Constitutional Ban on same sex marriage.

It was very close, and im honestly very surprised Arizona is the first state. My question is this because the tides are turning on the gay marriage initiatives or is it because Conservatives didnt show up to the poll.

You know, Arizona is a funny state - I've never been able to really pin them to any specific definition. It like you never know what they're going to do next.

CL

 

[Gunny]

Whoa bubba, I wasn't talking to you, Hick.

Yeah, just keep ignoring the facts, goob in favor of using a term you think offends me. Sorry, but no sale. I'm a redneck, not a hick, and I'm damned proud of it.

I know you well, sport. Marines tend to spend a lot fo time in rural North and South Carolina. Small-town self-proclaimed "sophisticates." Have they paved the road up to your trailer park and put a stoplight in yet?

 

[red states rule]

With so many members of the Gay Community killed off by AIDS we need to find a way of replenishing the species so we can continue to enjoy a wide variety of fabulously decorated park restrooms.

 

[roadhouse158]

Ok....How can people like me, and many, many more in America say that we are not discriminating against homosexuals when people have to resort to calling them queers? I imagine that most of the people against homosexual marriage are Christians. Some are not, but a majority are. It's not my place to make fun of gay people. It's my job to protect what I think is the foundation of Marriage from a religious standpoint since this is where marriage was founded. This doesn't mean I hate gay people. Not at all. This is also why this isn't discrimination. I've said it on here before and i'll say it again. Homosexuals have every right, and in some cases more rights than every American. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Sorry..That's the way it is. It's not my fault: And since their opinion is that being gay is not a choice, then I will say that it's also not your fault your gay. This is life. I can't get some of the benefits that business owners get because I am not a business owner...Just the way it is. It is completely ridiculous to me that the homosexual movememt is being compared to the civil rights movement. Gays can vote, eat in the same restaraunts, go to the same schools, and get the same jobs as anyone else. This wasn't the case for black people. Not even close. I also think some need a history lesson. It was said on here about the majority not always being right because look at how blacks were treated during the civil rights movement. The MAJORITY wasn't treating them this way. It was a law, so people followed the law. About segregation I mean. Personally the MAJORITY of white people didn't agree with this. I think someone has watched Mississippi Burning too much. I know racism went on....I am not arguing that it didn't; But there was a reason it changed. Laws don't change peoples hearts. People were willing to accept blacks, that's why things have improved. Not because Congress passed a law saying they had to. If the "Homosexual Movement" really wants to succeed, then I would suggest you look at what your saying. Discrimination is a very dirty word in this country. It's a very dirty part of our RECENT history. All you are acclompishing is pushing people into hating anything that remotely reflects homosexual justification. In our opinion, you have no argument. One reason like I said....Your argument is WAY off course.

 

[CockySOB]

Yeah, b/c one day people someone can just choose to be homosexual. Do you believe being heterosexual is a behavior or a state of being?

Until it is proven that homosexuality is a genetic/inherited trait, homosexuality must be considered to be a choice. We've danced this dance before, so I expect you remember the steps.

 

[MissileMan]

Until it is proven that homosexuality is a genetic/inherited trait, homosexuality must be considered to be a choice. We've danced this dance before, so I expect you remember the steps.

Did they pass some law that says this or did you pull it out of a hat?

 

[CockySOB]

Did they pass some law that says this or did you pull it out of a hat?

Go back to the thread titled "The definitive word on 'gay' marriage"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=483749&postcount=88

Seems you made the assertion that homosexuality is a genetic or inherited trait, yet you failed to provide any scientific evidence (as in genetic evidence) to support your assertion.

The burden of proof lies with those who want to declare homosexual preference to be a genetic trait, since all that would be required is to scientifically document which are the homosexual genes. And did the human genome project find anything to support your assertion? I think not.

I am willing to consider the possibility that homosexual preference is genetic, but only when evidence supporting that theory is presented. Until then, it remains a choice, or a learned behavior.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Huh? I'm a resident of a VERY liberal city, Charleston SC. You live in Texas, Hick.

sounds like you discriminate against people from texas.

Oh, by the way, blacks HATE it when people compare racism to homosexuals wanting same sex marriage.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

People will discriminate for a variety of reasons (good and bad reasons). I discriminated against redheads when I was dating. I prefer brunettes. I discriminate against talkative people. Yes. People discriminate against people when people think that a behavior is abhorrent. Abhorrent is relative. What is very abhorrent to one person might be just a tinny bit abhorrent to another and not at all abhorrent to a third person. Additionally, just because most people think that a behavior is wrong does not mean that the behavior is wrong. Majorities have been wrong about things before. A majority of those who voted in the presidential election of 1992, little more than 42 percent of the popular vote went to Clinton and little more than 37 percent of the popular vote went to Bush. Were the people right in voting for Clinton?

Thats a stupid example. One cant be right or wrong about voting for a person, its not a MORAL QUESTION. Some behaviors can be immoral and/or distructive to individuals or society as a whole.

You brain dead, guilt ridden liberals need to wake up. Our current society as a whole does not support institutional discrimination unless its for a valid reason. In fact, if anything, we cater to make sure persons arent discriminated against. That being the case, and since that same society is still overwhelmingly rejecting same sex marriage, that must be telling you its based on sound reasons other than just emotional reactions, such as racism is.

Just as some "rights" are inherently obvious, so are some behaviors inherently immoral and destructive. Can you tell me why you would think practicing beastiality is not healthy for someone? Or do your instincts just strongly tell you there is something wrong with it?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

GunnyL –

Your blatant hypocrisy is laughable. Okay. You were not speaking to CharlestonChad. Perhaps it was wrong for him to but in. Yet, I was not speaking to you. I was speaking to glockmail.

Anyway, educate yourself and read about the bandwagon fallacy. See:
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/bandwagn.html
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/bandwagon.html
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/bandwagon.html

My reasoning is perfectly sound. The popularity of something does not make that thing right or wrong. It only makes that thing popular. It is as simple as that. In the election of 1992 Clinton received more votes than did Bush. Clinton won the election. Since, based on the number of votes, people thought that he would be right for America and (by your reasoning) he was right for America.

Even late into his administration, Clinton's approval rating reached its highest point at 73 percent approval in the aftermath of the impeachment proceedings in 1998 and 1999.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

Since Clinton received more votes and since people approved of Clinton, it can be concluded that Clinton was the right person to lead America (at least accroding to GunnyL).

I dont recall anyone saying the PROOF that same sex marriage is wrong is that the majority opposes it. I do recall some of us bringing up the fact that marriage should remain between a man and a woman, legally, because thats what the majority wants.

Our laws are not based solely on the idea of right and wrong, but also on what is or isnt good for society at large, and if that goodness or badness is sufficient enough to overide areas of personal freedom. Its always a balancing act, and for you to make the statement that "majority isnt always right" is like saying "red isnt always a bad color",, so what???? I think you just like saying things that are meaningless but sound good cuz you think it makes you sound intelligent, but guess what, it doesnt.

 

[Gunny]

Ok....How can people like me, and many, many more in America say that we are not discriminating against homosexuals when people have to resort to calling them queers?

Call it what you will, and use whichever label you like, but you ARE discriminating; regardless, your justification for doing so. "Discrimination" and "hate" are not mutually-inclusive terms.

You are going to be labelled a "hater" by the pro-gay types whether or not you are one simply because you oppose what they want. In turn, they miss no opportunity attempting to villify you.

I imagine that most of the people against homosexual marriage are Christians. Some are not, but a majority are. It's not my place to make fun of gay people. It's my job to protect what I think is the foundation of Marriage from a religious standpoint since this is where marriage was founded. This doesn't mean I hate gay people. Not at all. This is also why this isn't discrimination.

Again, it may not be hate, but it IS discrimination. People who do not/cannot discriminate are incapable of making a decision. Personal/societal discrimination does not equate to legal discrimination. Legal discrminiation against homosexuals is a myth.

I've said it on here before and i'll say it again. Homosexuals have every right, and in some cases more rights than every American. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Sorry..That's the way it is. It's not my fault: And since their opinion is that being gay is not a choice, then I will say that it's also not your fault your gay. This is life. I can't get some of the benefits that business owners get because I am not a business owner...Just the way it is.

From the beginning of mankind, societies have ALWAYS chosen what they are willing to accept as normal and not accept as abnormal. Regardless the stupid relativist and literalist arguments otherwise, there is nothing normal about homosexual behavior and society judges it accordingly.

And I will refer you to CockySOB's post regarding whether or not it is a choice. In the absence of scientific evidence to prove otherwise, current evidence dictates that it is a behavior. And choice or no, it STILL is abnormal behavior.

It is completely ridiculous to me that the homosexual movememt is being compared to the civil rights movement. Gays can vote, eat in the same restaraunts, go to the same schools, and get the same jobs as anyone else. This wasn't the case for black people. Not even close.

ITA.

I also think some need a history lesson. It was said on here about the majority not always being right because look at how blacks were treated during the civil rights movement. The MAJORITY wasn't treating them this way. It was a law, so people followed the law. About segregation I mean. Personally the MAJORITY of white people didn't agree with this. I think someone has watched Mississippi Burning too much. I know racism went on....I am not arguing that it didn't; But there was a reason it changed. Laws don't change peoples hearts. People were willing to accept blacks, that's why things have improved. Not because Congress passed a law saying they had to. If the "Homosexual Movement" really wants to succeed, then I would suggest you look at what your saying. Discrimination is a very dirty word in this country. It's a very dirty part of our RECENT history. All you are acclompishing is pushing people into hating anything that remotely reflects homosexual justification. In our opinion, you have no argument. One reason like I said....Your argument is WAY off course.

You lost me here. You're whitewashing a pretty ugly part of US history and blaming it on the law. And no, I haven't watched "Mississippi Burning" too many times. I'm a Southerner old enough to remember segregation. That's not saying I remember the PC, apologista revision of history because they're about full of it. However, you are oversimplifying the fact that we as a society legally discriminated against a people and considered them inferior based on their skin color.

Laws may not change the hearts of the first generation of people the law affects, but it does those who are born and raised knowing nothing else.

I DO however agree with your point that comparing ethnicity to abnormal behavior is BS.

 

[MissileMan]

Go back to the thread titled "The definitive word on 'gay' marriage"
http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showpost.php?p=483749&postcount=88

Seems you made the assertion that homosexuality is a genetic or inherited trait, yet you failed to provide any scientific evidence (as in genetic evidence) to support your assertion.

I am willing to consider the possibility that homosexual preference is genetic, but only when evidence supporting that theory is presented. Until then, it remains a choice, or a learned behavior.

I do believe that homosexuality is something innate, though not necessarily genetic or hereditary. As I've stated, IMO, it's more probably a miswiring in the brain that occurs during fetal development. And at this time, you are absolutely correct...the cause of homosexuality has not been proven. That doesn't mean however, that in the absence of proof you get to decide what the cause is.

I formed my opinion that it's not a choice on the basis that I could never, nor would ever, make that choice. The thought makes my skin crawl. I'll bet the thought is equally repulsive to you, yet you insist that there are millions who've made such a choice for no reason. THAT doesn't make sense. In my experience, if it doesn't make sense, in most instances it isn't true.

The burden of proof lies with those who want to declare homosexual preference to be a genetic trait, since all that would be required is to scientifically document which are the homosexual genes. And did the human genome project find anything to support your assertion? I think not.

Is this your idea of a smoking gun?

The human genome is the genome of Homo sapiens, which is composed of 24 distinct chromosomes with a total of approximately 3 billion DNA base pairs containing an estimated 20,000-25,000 genes.

Currently around 4,000 genetic disorders are known; new ones are constantly being discovered.

The functions are unknown for over 50% of discovered genes.

 

[MissileMan]

current evidence dictates that it is a behavior

Please post some of it, or links to it. I'm willing to examine any "evidence" on the subject. Who knows...I might even change my opinion on the matter.

 

[Gunny]

I do believe that homosexuality is something innate, though not necessarily genetic or hereditary. As I've stated, IMO, it's more probably a miswiring in the brain that occurs during fetal development. And at this time, you are absolutely correct...the cause of homosexuality has not been proven. That doesn't mean however, that in the absence of proof you get to decide what the cause is.

I agree with Cocky on this one/am of the same opinion. Evidence to date is that homosexuality is behavioral. That doesn't mean anyone's mind is closed to new evidence to the contrary.

The only problem with that is there doesn't appear to be an objective, nonpartisan folks doing any of the research. Research groups are either funded to prove homosexuality is genetic, or disprove it.

It's the same as the smoke and mirrors used whenever homosexuality and pedophilia are brought up. Homosexuals are so desperate to distance themselves from pedophiles that they refuse to acknowledge the existence of homosexual pedophiles. On the other hand you have those that believe one leads to the other. All facts and research are skewed by one side or the other.

Some actual fact would be a refreshing change.

I formed my opinion that it's not a choice on the basis that I could never, nor would ever, make that choice. The thought makes my skin crawl. I'll bet the thought is equally repulsive to you, yet you insist that there are millions who've made such a choice for no reason. THAT doesn't make sense. In my experience, if it doesn't make sense, in most instances it isn't true.

Okay, so YOU would not make the choice. How many people everyday do you see making choices you wouldn't? While I'm quite sure no one wakes up in the morning and say," Gee, I think I'll turn into a homo today," that is oversimplification of "choice."


Is this your idea of a smoking gun?

Doesn't have to be. There's no way to disprove an arbitrary assertion; even though, a common tactic is for someone to try and trap another into doing so.

Your links only provide speculation as to how many genes are undiscovered. They do not provide any basis for the arbitrary assertion that homosexuality is genetic. They provide only a possibility that it could be.

If and when REAL evidence is provided that proves homosexuality is hereditary, I am more than willing to adjust my opinion on the matter in the light of new evidence.

That however, will STILL not make homosexuality normal behavior.

 

[Gunny]

Please post some of it, or links to it. I'm willing to examine any "evidence" on the subject. Who knows...I might even change my opinion on the matter.

Nothing to post. Engaging in homosexual acts is behavioral. It is evidence in and of itself. No other evidence exists to support anything otherwise.

 

[CockySOB]

MissileMan,

I'd think it is your position which needs a smoking gun to vindicate itself. After all, it is your opinion that homosexuality is something that would NEVER be chosen, right? So in your opinion, homosexuality must be some form of hereditary condition, right? Opinions which you seem to have formed without ANY scientific fact. And yet you question my right to believe that homosexuality IS a choice as long as there is no scientific evidence to support the idea of homosexuality being genetically linked?

Even if homosexuality might be linked to genetic factors and hereditary conditions, it still remains that acting on such tendencies is to abdicate one's own free will (are you wanting to say that those with homosexual tendencies are simply instinctual animals?). And if you are correct that homosexuality is not a choice a sane person would make (correct me if I misunderstood your statement on this), then it should be treated as an aberrant mental state and treated accordingly (as a disease).

As we ended our prior debate, I will wait and see. I acknowledge the possibility that homosexual tendencies are linked to our biochemistry and genetics. But lacking evidence to support that possibility, I prefer to view homosexuality as a choice. And even entertaining such possibility, the fact that one acts on such impulses is still a choice.

ADDED: What is ironic MissileMan, is that your adherence to your opinion is akin to the adherence to religious doctrine many here cite against homosexuality. It is your right of course, just as it is their right, to believe what you want. But it might be worth re-evaluating your stance simply to eliminate the parallels between your argument and that of the religious right.

 

[MissileMan]

Nothing to post. Engaging in homosexual acts is behavioral. It is evidence in and of itself. No other evidence exists to support anything otherwise.

Nice cop out!

 

[Gunny]

Nice cop out!

It isn't a copout at all, and you know it. As it stands, homsexuality is only evidenced through homosexual behavior. Fact. No other evidence exists to prove otherwise.

I expected better from you than a deflective insult. You usually put forth a better effort.

 

[MissileMan]

MissileMan,

I'd think it is your position which needs a smoking gun to vindicate itself. After all, it is your opinion that homosexuality is something that would NEVER be chosen, right? So in your opinion, homosexuality must be some form of hereditary condition, right? Opinions which you seem to have formed without ANY scientific fact. And yet you question my right to believe that homosexuality IS a choice as long as there is no scientific evidence to support the idea of homosexuality being genetically linked?

Where did I say that you don't have a right to have an opinion? As for the bolded part, that knife cuts both ways...you have none to back up your opinion either. I am quite content to call my opinions on the matter just that, my opinions. You, however, like to claim your opinions as the absolute truth.

Even if homosexuality might be linked to genetic factors and hereditary conditions, it still remains that acting on such tendencies is to abdicate one's own free will (are you wanting to say that those with homosexual tendencies are simply instinctual animals?). And if you are correct that homosexuality is not a choice a sane person would make (correct me if I misunderstood your statement on this), then it should be treated as an aberrant mental state and treated accordingly (as a disease).

To correct you, what I said was that homosexuality isn't a choice a heterosexual would make. I don't think sanity/insanity has anything to do with it.

As we ended our prior debate, I will wait and see. I acknowledge the possibility that homosexual tendencies are linked to our biochemistry and genetics. But lacking evidence to support that possibility, I prefer to view homosexuality as a choice. And even entertaining such possibility, the fact that one acts on such impulses is still a choice.

In other words, if evidence IS found, you will consider homosexuals to be vile, repulsive, perverted, disgusting, sick sub-humans who were born that way.

ADDED: What is ironic MissileMan, is that your adherence to your opinion is akin to the adherence to religious doctrine many here cite against homosexuality. It is your right of course, just as it is their right, to believe what you want. But it might be worth re-evaluating your stance simply to eliminate the parallels between your argument and that of the religious right.

:rotflmao:

Thanks for the laugh! I base my arguments on common sense. There is very little religious doctrine that makes sense, common or otherwise.

 

[MissileMan]

It isn't a copout at all, and you know it. As it stands, homsexuality is only evidenced through homosexual behavior. Fact. No other evidence exists to prove otherwise.

I expected better from you than a deflective insult. You usually put forth a better effort.

Even the Catholic church is struggling with the question of ordaining celibate men with homosexual tendencies as priests. The Vatican put forth policies that disagree with your position that it's only about behavior.