Same-sex marriage: 7 states OK ban -- but it trails in Arizona

[jallman]

How strange....I've never met a gay person so opposed to the idea that some people choose to be gay.

I'm not sure what your looking for.....me to convince you?

So odd...I don't recall saying that I was opposed to the idea of people choosing to be gay. I asserted that evidence suggests otherwise and asked for hard fact to disprove. You gave me anecdotes which do not constitute legitimate evidence. The problem is with your choice of source, not my choice of position.

The testimony I gave you is at least as good as what you say about yourself, so by the same measure that you can represent the facts about your sexual orientation, so can the sources I gave.

Except that I don't use myself as a source. I know better.

I mean, what, you want to go into the problems apparent in studies from Simon LeVay, Michael Bailey & Richard Pillard, and Dean Hamer?

If there is real evidence to discuss there, sure, why not?

Haven't we been involved in to many of those convoluted threads already?

But to no real conclusion, obviously. LOL

Do I really need to start posting things like: In Gender Shock, writer and lesbian woman Phyllis Burke, quoting Dr. Paul Billings, an internist and human geneticist, calls the born gay idea "a new fish story." A gay publication, "The Guide," writes Hamer's story under the title "Gene Scam?"

If you wish...

The notion that sexual preference is totally uncontrollable is not established. This is why the strongest GM legal argument surrounds gender and not sexual orientation.

I was just responding to a post..

Are you a hetero. tying to convince me that your not? I don't believe that that is the case. IMO all things considered humans may very well be bisexual, and you are likely one individual who falls on one side of the scale.

I don't doubt that for a minute.

 

[Jerry]

So odd...I don't recall saying that I was opposed to the idea of people choosing to be gay. I asserted that evidence suggests otherwise and asked for hard fact to disprove. You gave me anecdotes which do not constitute legitimate evidence. The problem is with your choice of source, not my choice of position.

Have there ever been twin or hormone studies of people who claim to be born hetero. and choose to be gay? I know of none.

I call doubt to various studies and show the possibility for truth in those who claim that they choose to be gay.

Since the notion that gay people are only born gay is not established, there is no ground to dismiss choice.

Gah...I have a source or 2 I would like to include in this post but I'm at school, so I don't have access to the list of sources on my computer.

Oh well, I'll have to wait.

 

[jallman]

Have there ever been twin or hormone studies of people who claim to be born hetero. and choose to be gay? I know of none.

I call doubt to various studies and show the possibility for truth in those who claim that they choose to be gay.

Since the notion that gay people are only born gay is not established, there is no ground to dismiss choice.

Gah...I have a source or 2 I would like to include in this post but I'm at school, so I don't have access to the list of sources on my computer.

Oh well, I'll have to wait.

It's not problem, bud. I am at work myself right now so I am in no hurry.

 

[Deegan]

My question about this idea that people are "born gay" is this, if you are born gay, which to me means you are more female, then you are male, then wouldn't the other partner in the relationship also be seeking another male? How can two males, with female characteristics, be searching for the same partner, are they not just two lesbians at the end of the day?

This does get confusing.:lol:

 

[jallman]

My question about this idea that people are "born gay" is this, if you are born gay, which to me means you are more female, then you are male, then wouldn't the other partner in the relationship also be seeking another male? How can two males, with female characteristics, be searching for the same partner, are they not just two lesbians at the end of the day?

This does get confusing.:lol:

Deeg, don't take this with any offense...but you really don't know the first thing about gay people if that is what you believe.

 

[talloulou]

My question about this idea that people are "born gay" is this, if you are born gay, which to me means you are more female, then you are male, then wouldn't the other partner in the relationship also be seeking another male? How can two males, with female characteristics, be searching for the same partner, are they not just two lesbians at the end of the day?

This does get confusing.:lol:

I don't know I saw a couple on TV the other day where the man was getting a sex change to be a woman and his girlfriend of course was a woman. So after his sex change is she a lesbian? :roll: And then there are bisexuals which make everything all the more confusing as they just fall in love with "people" and gender doesn't make much of a difference. With all the gay couples I've known personally with the men there tends to be one partner who is obviously almost stereotypically gay while the other partner is someone that you wouldn't even know they were gay if they didn't make a point of letting you know. I haven't personally known any lesbian couples very well so I'm not sure if they have a similar thing.

 

[talloulou]

Deeg, don't take this with any offense...but you really don't know the first thing about gay people if that is what you believe.

Oh come on Jallman it was a fair question and it is confusing. I know a gay man who gets furious with his partner if he thinks his partner is acting too gay! :shock: :mrgreen: He tells his partner to "turn it down" and he can't stand transvestites....they piss him off. You would think he would be open minded but he finds "giddyness" in general offensive :rofl

 

[Deegan]

Deeg, don't take this with any offense...but you really don't know the first thing about gay people if that is what you believe.

Well you got me there, I don't know anything, I guess that is what I'm trying to learn. Is one member just the "gay person" and the other is born more female? Or are both born "gay" and there is some chromosome that makes you attracted to male genitalia? Or are some just born that way, and others are just pretending to be, and if all are born that way, should we be concerned that this trait will spread?

I'm half kidding of course, but I still just don't buy the whole "born gay" I do acknowledge that some folks are born with more X or Y chromosomes, but not the "gay" assumption.

 

[Deegan]

I don't know I saw a couple on TV the other day where the man was getting a sex change to be a woman and his girlfriend of course was a woman. So after his sex change is she a lesbian? :roll: And then there are bisexuals which make everything all the more confusing as they just fall in love with "people" and gender doesn't make much of a difference. With all the gay couples I've known personally with the men there tends to be one partner who is obviously almost stereotypically gay while the other partner is someone that you wouldn't even know they were gay if they didn't make a point of letting you know. I haven't personally known any lesbian couples very well so I'm not sure if they have a similar thing.

I happen to think it's natural to have these questions, I know I did, when I was young, I had those uncomfortable experiences, and I think some just act on those, and some don't. In my opinion, we are all born gay then, because everyone goes through this, if you're honest with yourself, and everyone here, we have all asked ourselves this sexual question. I think it's as simple as that, and this whole "born gay" idea is all about justifying this decision, when there is no need for that today, but I certainly see how it could have been the case in the past.

 

[Navy Pride]

You "formed or passed an opinion". That, according to my dictionary, is judging.
You have also judged my posts to be "radical". Your process of judgement seems
to be very simple: anyone who disagrees with your position on homosexuality
must be labelled "left wing" and "radical".

Just so you don't have to do any more judging, I am neither left wing nor radical.
If forced to label myself, I would use "open-minded Conservative". I follow no
dogma, but try to use facts rather than unsubstantiated belief to form my opinions.

Unlike you, I see no reason for pride (or shame) in any of these labels.

I just calls em as I sees em.........And if your ashamed of being a flaming liberal so be it..........

As far as anyone disagreeing with me on homosexuality wrong again.......Jallman and Galen disagree with me and they are both Moderate to Conservative.........

Try again my Liberal friend........

 

[Navy Pride]

Much like allowing inter-faith and inter-racial marriage changed the tradition of marriage. Change is often a good thing, especially when it allows more inclusion.

And ProudAmerican, some of your comments here cross the line of Rule 18. Consider this a polite notice.

I am a Catholic and as far as I can remember the Catholic church was never against inter-racial marriage.......

Sorry but when it comes to marriage the majority of Americans disagree with you...........

 

[Jerry]

I don't care to get into a "nature of homosexuality" discussion, so I'll give you this link and leave that issue to those with allot of time to waste.

 

[ProudAmerican]

Much like allowing inter-faith and inter-racial marriage changed the tradition of marriage. Change is often a good thing, especially when it allows more inclusion.

And ProudAmerican, some of your comments here cross the line of Rule 18. Consider this a polite notice.

I gotta tell ya, with some of the nonsense thats been going on around this site lately, the fact that you would claim I have crossed the line is pretty commical.

consider that a polite response to your polite notice.

 

[jallman]

I gotta tell ya, with some of the nonsense thats been going on around this site lately, the fact that you would claim I have crossed the line is pretty commical.

consider that a polite response to your polite notice.

Get him kelzie...get him good.

 

[saggyjones]

The changing of traditions is what the GM movement is accomplishing.

In order to see error in changing a tradition, you would have to first hold the existing tradition as true and correct. If you do not hold the current tradition as true and correct, then you would not see anything wrong with changing it.

In this case, changing the tradition violates the tenants of that tradition, which is what is seen as wrong.

It's not like it would take any rights away from straight people. It's like an amendment to the current tradition, not a complete transformation.

 

[saggyjones]

Marriage is defined by the state, a privilege granted by the state, and an insitution created by state law.

You cannot have marriage at all unless the government is involved.

Exactly, so why is religion involved in marriage now?

 

[saggyjones]

I haven't personally known any lesbian couples very well so I'm not sure if they have a similar thing.

My mom knows two lesbian couples and one takes a more feminine role and the other has a masculine one. It all varies though, just like in marriages between straight people.

 

[saggyjones]

I am a Catholic and as far as I can remember the Catholic church was never against inter-racial marriage.......

Sorry but when it comes to marriage the majority of Americans disagree with you...........

Do you have any statistics to back that up?

 

[Thinker]

I just calls em as I sees em.........

... and without any thought process being involved, it seems.

And if your ashamed of being a flaming liberal so be it..........

Did you actually read my post and understand it? Do you know what
"Unlike you, I see no reason for pride (or shame) in any of these labels." means?

 

[Goobieman]

Exactly, so why is religion involved in marriage now?

Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for time untold.

If that defintion is based on religion, how can you argue that religion is involved in marriage "now"?

 

[Hatuey]

Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for time untold.

If that defintion is based on religion, how can you argue that religion is involved in marriage "now"?

I doubt gay people want to get married through religion. They want to be recognized as being married by law.

 

[Goobieman]

I doubt gay people want to get married through religion. They want to be recognized as being married by law.

That's right. I think you need to read the post I responded to.

Me:
Marriage is defined by the state, a privilege granted by the state, and an insitution created by state law.
You cannot have marriage at all unless the government is involved.

Him:
Exactly, so why is religion involved in marriage now?

Me:
Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for time untold. If that defintion is/was based on religion, how can you argue that religion is involved in marriage "now"?

 

[Goobieman]

Do you have any statistics to back that up?

According to these polls, only 25-35% of Americans think gays should be allowed to marry.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

 

[jfuh]

According to these polls, only 25-35% of Americans think gays should be allowed to marry.

http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm

According to stats of the 50's and 60's a dominant majority of whites saw colored ppl as inferior, so what's your point?

 

[jallman]

That's right. I think you need to read the post I responded to.

I think you need to read history and legal code before you take that tone with anyone else:

Me:
Marriage is defined by the state, a privilege granted by the state, and an insitution created by state law.
You cannot have marriage at all unless the government is involved.

FALSE

The state does not have to be involved in marriage. Marriage is a sacrament granted by the church. The institution of state marriage law is not a necessity at all in order to have marriage. However, it is instituted into state law and so must be applied with equality.

Me:
Marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman for time untold. If that defintion is/was based on religion, how can you argue that religion is involved in marriage "now"?

FALSE

Marriage has been defined and redefined for time untold. The definition has NEVER been static and has always been molded to fit the social climate. The definition has always been derived from religious sacraments and rites. Religion has always been involved in marriage, even now.