Man, I step out for two hours and this thread goes batshit crazy!
-=d=- said:
You don't agree that a homosexual lifestyle is more destructive?
No, I don't. Not all gay people have AIDS or other diseases, not all gay people are mentally unbalanced (well, that's a whole other argument, but not to a destructive level, I mean). I assume you're referring to anal sex, which is disgusting, but not limited to the gay community.
-=d=- said:
I don't want anyone to be killed for the choices they make regarding the gender of the person they like having sex with.
But health issues are not debatable. Homosexual lifestyles tend to be more violent, have more illness (including mental?), and otherwise are detrimental to the participants.
No, I know you don't, I was making a generalization. But, I think that a major problem we as a country have with most,if not all issues, not just this one, is that we look at numbers and make judgements based on them. I can almost guarantee that for any statistic you find, I can find one that says the exact opposite of it. Could you expand on 'violent', because I know a HELL of a lot more violent heteros than homos.
JOKER96BRAVO said:
If you honestly want me to answer without being a smartass I will.
I think they would vote for the straight guy. Main reason being
the same reason we don't vote for someone who worships satan,
This country was based on religion and is still a HUGE factor in who
we want to represent. Sad but true.
This is one of the smartest things I've read in this thread. Though they'll never admit to it, fact is that most people are put off by homosexuality because the Bible says they should be.
Comrade said:
That's the point I was making. If the term 'marriage' is not supposed to be sacred then why do Gays demand it for their union?
Like I said they can enter a civil union which legally does the same thing.
But very few churches would define their union as a marriage. Gays are demanding legal 'marriage' only for the term itself. And that seems like it's being foisted on American society without explanation why.
This is fair. I think for them, they see their not being able to get married as a form of discrimination, which I sort of agree with. I am willing to bet, though, that the average gay couple couldn't care less about whether they're deemed "married" or just "civilly united" (or whatever you would call that

), in the same way the average black person doesn't give a crap about affirmative action.
Comrade said:
Is this a backdoor to getting gays back in Church?
Well, you know how they like the backdoor. ZING! Sorry, I probably just blew my entire argument there.
Anyway, I'm not sure what you're saying. Are you saying there was a conscious removal of gays from Church? I know a gay guy who is very christian, goes to church all the time, and it is definitely a conflict for him. But, I honestly don't think there are any churchgoers who are actively trying to get gay people to attend.
...I shouldn't say that, that's really stereotyping. None of the churchgoers that I PERSONALLY have met are anxious to get any gays into church.
gop_jeff said:
Political science... you mean you spell this atrociously and you made it into college?!?
Now, now, Jeff. I can think of many people on this board who were bitched out for claiming the president was stupid because he can't speak well. Let's not have double standards on the new girl.
gop_jeff said:
Your question is ridiculously biased. First, Kerry is not gay. Second, Bush is not drug-addicted, as much as everyone at the Democratic Underground would love to think so. Third, I am voting for Bush not because I am a die-hard Republican, but because I think Bush is the only candidate with the balls to continue to fight terrorism.
This is all true. But, here's a scenario. It's been pretty much widely-accepted that for a time when he was younger Bush was definitely heavy into partying, correct? Say a candidate who admitted to experimenting with another man in college but wanted to continue to fight the war was up against a candidate (not Bush) who was drug-addicted in his past but wanted to leave Iraq?
To address your larger point, you have fallen for the common fallacy that people's sexual orientation is 1) the most defining aspect of the person, and 2) permanent. Homosexuality is neither a permanent condition nor the definig factor in who a person is.
I agree, I admit that I am annoyed by gay people who must have everything in their lives be about the fact that they're gay. I don't base every single aspect on my life on banging chicks.