Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

Re: Happy Giraffe

ok, i mean at least 95% of child molesters are straight - to the point that if more than 5% were gay, i would begin to question my existence.

Although, i will continue to assert that there are extremely few homosexual child molesters - if any.

 

Re: Happy Giraffe

OK, would you like a rope or something?... because shit man that's some hole you've dug for yourself.

 

Re: Happy Giraffe

No thanks, I still believe the number of homosexual child molesters is incredibly small, if you'd like to provide proof otherwise - please do.

 

Re: Happy Giraffe

If you are a dude and you molest a boy then you are pretty gay dude.

Also good news on the advancements in gay rights...I didn't read the whole thing cause man that's a lot but it sounds good.

 

Re: Happy Giraffe

[ QUOTE ]
No thanks, I still believe the number of homosexual child molesters is incredibly small, if you'd like to provide proof otherwise - please do.

[/ QUOTE ]

please read this and post ur reply on what you think of this:

http://traditionalvalues.org/urban/one.php

http://sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?ID=11002

www.homosexuellt.com/infosida/show_article.asp?Idnr=204

www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/040428c.html

this is what i could find in ten mins on google. if you only read one of them please read the lifesite.net one.

 

Re: Happy Giraffe

see, what Vanity is trying to get across and what he's actually saying are at odds with each other. I believe he thinks that sexual inteference/child molesting etc isn't about gender preference. I agree.

However, I don't think that the two are mutually exclusive. You can be homosexual and still be unable to properly interface with adults or think that children are an appropriate sexual vent. Being screwed up emotionaly/mentally/sexually isn't an indicator of homosexuality and neither is the reverse true.

GE

 

Re: Happy Giraffe

The lifesite article is essentially a rebuttle from a group of radical feminists - and the article itself is a "rebuttle" to an actual organization's findings.

I mean, to even believe that this statement could possibly be true is outlandish.

"5. Greater Risk of Sexual Involvement with Parents

According to a study published in Adolescence, 29% of the adult children of homosexual parents have been specifically subjected to sexual molestation as a child by a homosexual parent, compared to only 0.6 percent of adult children of heterosexual parents.

These findings were confirmed in a study published in the American Sociological Review."

They are suggesting that close to 1/3 of all people who are raised by homosexual couples are molested. Not only is this blatantly inaccurate, but offensive.

I mean really, it's nothing more than an essay.

And well, the other 3 sites are quite clearly radical groups - just by the name of url.

For more information on the subject, I suggest you get all the facts from your side.

http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1052/1052_01.asp

 

Re: Happy Giraffe

meh this doesnt really bother me. believe what you will.............

 

Re: Happy Giraffe

All of those websites that kingsouther linked to are wacky batshit biblethumper/conservative sites.

The genders in cases of pedophilia are irrelevant. Nutcases on the right try to entwine pedophilia with homosexuality in attempt to smear homosexuals with guilt by association. This a disgusting and contemptable tactic and thus not surprising coming from the far right.

 

Re: Happy Giraffe

i did say that i found them under ten mins. jeez, give me a day and ill find you some stuff..............

 

Simple Truths

Men and women are different.

If a man has sex with another male, then he is gay, whether that other male is 4 or 40 or 400.

Homosexual marriage is not about homosexuals being together. It is about getting society to accept their behavior as legitimate.

Because men and women are different, couples composed of two men, couples of two women, and couples composed of one man and one woman, are three (3) different things. No matter how much legislate, these couple could not possibly produce the same result, unless of course they all produce nothing.

This issue goes to something so basic and instinctual that it won't become common even if every state makes it legal.

Being gay is not the same thing as being born of a particular race. We have all heard of people going to jail living a gay life in jail, and then returning to a perfectly heterosexual life when they get our of jail. We have heard of gay people having children in a very heterosexual manner. None of us has heard of a person changing his race by intent or by accident; although Michael Jackson came close.

A not-so-simple truth: What this judge is most likely to accomplish is giving California to the Republican party in the next election.

 

[ QUOTE ]
If a man has sex with another male, then he is gay, whether that other male is 4 or 40 or 400.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree and according to what you mention below about prison sex, I think you do to. Performing a sexual act is simply that - performing an act. It doesn't define.

[ QUOTE ]
Homosexual marriage is not about homosexuals being together. It is about getting society to accept their behavior as legitimate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say it's not ONLY about any of the things you mentioned. It think it's a combination of a lot of things (including the stuff you mention). For me it boils down to gays wanting to adhere to all the tenents of marriage and being awarded the same rights that heterosexual receive. I see no reason why that shouldn't happen.

[ QUOTE ]
This issue goes to something so basic and instinctual that it won't become common even if every state makes it legal.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you mean by "it" becoming common. If you mean gay marriage, I just hope that it becomes not a big deal - that it's treated just like any other marriage.

[ QUOTE ]
Being gay is not the same thing as being born of a particular race. We have all heard of people going to jail living a gay life in jail, and then returning to a perfectly heterosexual life when they get our of jail. We have heard of gay people having children in a very heterosexual manner. None of us has heard of a person changing his race by intent or by accident; although Michael Jackson came close.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think being gay is extremely similar to being born of a race. I think it's genetic and it's not something to be chosen or changed. The prison sex thing is a choice "do I just jack-off or should I fuck some other guys, too." By having children, I think you mean "a child conceived between a lesbian and a straight/gay man or a straight woman impregnated by a gay man." I agree that happens. Also, I've never heard of a person deciding to become gay or become straight. Sure, they could start taking on behaviors, but so what? Doesn't mean they've changed. I think homosexuality is the carnal desire of the same sex. I didn't choose to like women and I've never talked to a gay man who's chosen to desire men.

[ QUOTE ]
A not-so-simple truth: What this judge is most likely to accomplish is giving California to the Republican party in the next election.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not going to vote Republican because of it. Here's something I find interesting about red vs. blue states. I don't want it to derail this thread - but I don't think Republicans are going to get any more mobilized than they were in the 2004 election. To those that are, I say people's sexual desires are not your business. Why the hell do you care if gay people marry?

 

Gay Marriage is not likely to dominate Cali politics, because there is less religious extremism in the state.

In an interesting political move, the GOP is trying to use gay-bashing as a strategy to chip away at the Democratic advantage among African Americans.

The irony here reels one's mind. This is basically the "Southern Strategy" redux. The "Southern Strategy" was and is the GOP tactic of using coded racist references to rile up Southern Whites against the Democratic party. Words like "Quotas" and "States Rights" were really thinly veiled appealls to to racism that the GOP could disavow when campaigning to suburban whites who didn't want to acknowledge that they were supporting a racist party.

Now the GOP is attempting to fracture the group that was (and is) its electoral whipping boy, by capitalizing on African-Americans often less than enlightened views on homosexuality. In effect, the GOP is inviting African-Americans to be the bigots themselves. Now that's Progress!

 

i think we need to get back to playing and discussing about virtua fighter.......

 

[ QUOTE ]
If a man has sex with another male, then he is gay, whether that other male is 4 or 40 or 400.

[/ QUOTE ] My point here is that if a man has sex with a 4 year-old boy he is gay and a pedophile, not just a pedophile. And I did mean what I said.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say it's not ONLY about any of the things you mentioned. It think it's a combination of a lot of things (including the stuff you mention). For me it boils down to gays wanting to adhere to all the tenents of marriage and being awarded the same rights that heterosexual receive. I see no reason why that shouldn't happen.

[/ QUOTE ] The tenents of marriage as decided by whom? The law? The church? Or do they simply want to do what they want to do? Obviously gay people who are determined to get married don't care to adhere to the tenets of marriage as set out by the law or by religion. They have their very own definition of how marriage should be and they are determined to live it. And as far as benefits, marriage only has a few non-personal benefits.

1. Generally accepted legitimacy of your relationship.
2. Presumption of paternity.
3. Implied co-ownership of assets (not truly a benefit as it cuts both ways)
4. Insurance discounts

#3 can be obtained short of marriage. #2 Can never exist in a union between two individuals of the same sex. By the way, that is the main reason why gay marriage is an impossibility. Even if it is legislated it is still fundamentally different from a heterosexual marriage. So that leaves #1 and #4. I am betting that this struggle is over #1.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure what you mean by "it" becoming common. If you mean gay marriage, I just hope that it becomes not a big deal - that it's treated just like any other marriage. (emphasis added)

[/ QUOTE ] Obviously, I mean gay marriage. That is what we have been talking about all along. The part of your statement that is in bold is what the opponents of the issue fear. They fear that if gay unions are allowed to use the term 'marriage' that homosexuality will no longer be seen as taboo but as a common and acceptable practice. They want it to remain something that people look down upon and thus refrain from. I know enough to know that making gay marriage legal is not going to drive people to homosexuality in droves although it will cause a slight increase in homosexual behavior. Sexual orientation of the masses is somewhat fluid. Most conservative opponents, however, don't share my security in this regard. [ QUOTE ]
I think being gay is extremely similar to being born of a race. I think it's genetic and it's not something to be chosen or changed. The prison sex thing is a choice "do I just jack-off or should I fuck some other guys, too." By having children, I think you mean "a child conceived between a lesbian and a straight/gay man or a straight woman impregnated by a gay man." I agree that happens. Also, I've never heard of a person deciding to become gay or become straight. Sure, they could start taking on behaviors, but so what? Doesn't mean they've changed. I think homosexuality is the carnal desire of the same sex. I didn't choose to like women and I've never talked to a gay man who's chosen to desire men.

[/ QUOTE ] Just because something is genetic (a point which I am NOT conceding BTW) doesn't make it similar to race or even healthy. Homosexuality is neither predictable nor hereditary. Race is more predictable than gender.

I know people who were heterosexual while in society and only became gay upon being incarcerated. My point is that while we don't know that homosexuality is not genetic for all gay people, we know that is not genetic for some gay people. That means choice does come into play at least sometime. Choice never comes into play with race.
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to vote Republican because of it. Here's something I find interesting about red vs. blue states. I don't want it to derail this thread - but I don't think Republicans are going to get any more mobilized than they were in the 2004 election. To those that are, I say people's sexual desires are not your business. Why the hell do you care if gay people marry?

[/ QUOTE ] With elections it doesn't matter why they care, all that matters is that they do care. And people do care. All this does is give conservatives something to get emotional about and motivate people who otherwise would not vote to come to the polls and vote for the constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. While they are there they may as well vote for the Republican Presidential candidate.

Supporters of gay marriage are hurting their own cause by supporting this with such zeal and creating a powerful backlash. Civil unions are already unconstitutional in several states where there was no push to even make them legal. Come the next election there will be gay marriage amendments in several more states, and that will help several more politicians who are not sympathetic to their cause.

 

Choice?

You are right to point out that there is more going on than genetic predispositons toward homosexuality. You are wrong to place importance on "choice."

The modern scientific debate regarding the origins of homosexuality is divided between camps of nature vs. nurture (or genetic vs. environmental) and combinations of the two.

Talking about "choice" in regards to homosexuality is absurd. Obviously the degree to which homosexuals (especially males) are castigated, belittled, intimidated, and physically abused make homosexuality a puzzling "choice." Add to that the fact that "choice" is missing completely from the terms of the scientific debate regarding the origins of homosexuality; arguing for "choice" as the cause of homosexuality becomes an uphill battle.

Please do not provide links to The Upstanding Southern Baptists' Brigade.com to refute my argument.

 

[ QUOTE ]
My point here is that if a man has sex with a 4 year-old boy he is gay and a pedophile, not just a pedophile.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think that's true. The act does not define the person. I can put my dick in my hand and stroke it - I'm still straight. I can put my dick in a guy's ass - I'm still straight. I can put my dick in a little boy's ass - I'm still straight and not a pedophile. Homosexuality is an innate desire for the same sex. That's all.

Leave out the pedophelia when talking about homosexuality. I'm sure there are homosexual pedophiles. The two desires are unrelated.

[ QUOTE ]
And as far as benefits, marriage only has a few non-personal benefits.

1. Generally accepted legitimacy of your relationship.
2. Presumption of paternity.
3. Implied co-ownership of assets (not truly a benefit as it cuts both ways)
4. Insurance discounts

... I am betting that this struggle is over #1.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because something is genetic (a point which I am NOT conceding BTW) doesn't make it similar to race or even healthy. Homosexuality is neither predictable nor hereditary. Race is more predictable than gender.

[/ QUOTE ]

The similarity to race is as such: say 50% of people were born with 12 fingers instead of 10. I could say there was a race of 12 fingered people and I don't think I'd be corrected about that - it's not race defined by skin color - but so what? People are born with both sex organs or none at all - I'd say that was genetic. I think the same applies to sexual desire. If I'm not born to like women when I come of age, that means I have to make a choice somewhere. I have no recollection of that choice. I know the gene that defines homosexuality has not been found. I feel confident that it will be found.

[ QUOTE ]
I know people who were heterosexual while in society and only became gay upon being incarcerated. My point is that while we don't know that homosexuality is not genetic for all gay people, we know that is not genetic for some gay people. That means choice does come into play at least sometime. Choice never comes into play with race.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, please do not confuse acts with innate desire. Guys fuck guys in prison because there are no women around and they want to fuck something. That's all.

[ QUOTE ]
Supporters of gay marriage are hurting their own cause by supporting this with such zeal and creating a powerful backlash. Civil unions are already unconstitutional in several states where there was no push to even make them legal. Come the next election there will be gay marriage amendments in several more states, and that will help several more politicians who are not sympathetic to their cause.

[/ QUOTE ]

If I want something to happen, I do something about it. That probably goes for lots of people. Sitting around and wishing for something doesn't accomplish much. Once there were slaves, people got upset, slavery ended. Once the was no interracial marriage , people got upset, now whites and blacks can marry. Right now gays want to marry, people are telling them no, they are upset, gay marriage will become legal and accepted. Equal protection, man.

 

Re: Happy Giraffe

http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/html/facts_molestation.html

Conclusion

The empirical research does not show that gay or bisexual men are any more likely than heterosexual men to molest children. This is not to argue that homosexual and bisexual men never molest children. But there is no scientific basis for asserting that they are more likely than heterosexual men to do so. And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

 

Re: Happy Giraffe

[ QUOTE ]
And, as explained above, many child molesters cannot be characterized as having an adult sexual orientation at all; they are fixated on children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo

 

[ QUOTE ]


I don't think that's true. The act does not define the person. I can put my dick in my hand and stroke it - I'm still straight. I can put my dick in a guy's ass - I'm still straight. I can put my dick in a little boy's ass - I'm still straight and not a pedophile. Homosexuality is an innate desire for the same sex. That's all.



[/ QUOTE ] No, pedophilia and homosexuality are very different things.

Affirming yourself as being gay is coming to the conclusion that you prefer the sexual company of men over women. You can have had sex with men, and still be "straight", and have had sex with women, and still be gay. This of course you and I agree on.

However, pedophilia is a very different story. You can fantasize about having sex with children, but this does not make you a pedophile. However, the moment you do make sexual contact with one, you ARE a pedophile - no questions asked.

And well, I'd say that being a pedophile is a choice. You can CHOOSE not to act on your desires - and therefore not be a pedophile. Homosexuality is not a choice. You can still CHOOSE to not have sex with any men, but it doesn't change the fact that you prefer the sexual company of men - and that's really all that makes one gay.