According to Gallup, for the first time, the majority of Americans favor gay marriage:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/147662/First … riage.aspx
The increase in Democrats' and Independents' support pushed it over the 50% mark.
Other interesting points:
This issue is highly divisive between left and right: 78% of liberals support gay marriage in 2011, and only 28% of conservatives do.
And a whopping 70% of people aged 18 to 34 support legal gay marriage.
Gay marriage, or something very close to it, is looking more and more inevitable in the US.
I also believe that another reason for the increase in support is Repubs are starting to change their minds. One by one they are defecting the party stance and speaking on their own.
I m also agreee that ur......comments......
It absolutely is inevitable, because the younger you poll, the more the percent of those in favor rises, regardless of political affiliation. Those who continue to oppose same sex marriage will one day be looked back on in the same we we now look back on those who opposed civil rights.
The rate of support for gay marriage is even fairly high among young conservative Christians. With homosexuality being more accepted by mainstream society, a lot more of them will have met somebody who's gay or lesbian at some point, and it's much harder to look Tom or Sarah in the eyes and say, no, you can't have equal rights, than it is to deny them to an anonymous crowd of sodomists.
I still think marriage is something the government should have no power over. The love based binding of people is something that is based on ones own belief structure. "Be it gay straight or bi" (why did I quote a song?) or if a dozen people all want to marry each other, that is something for those individuals to decide. Making it a legal institution means it gets controlled by those who are not a part of the union. I say throw the whole structure out of legal precedence and let love be love.
I think the whole concept of government-recognized "marriage" should be abolished and simply replaced with private contracts. Then people could establish a particular kind of contract with whomever they wanted--an opposite sex person, a same sex person, multiple people, or whatever.
The government should concern itself with contractual agreements. It has no business governing people's love lives or their feelings.
Indeed. But since the government does recognize (and give special rights and privileges to) married couples, it is wrong (discriminatory) for the government to deny those rights and privileges to certain married couples, and not to others. Either the government must stop extending special rights and privileges to straight married couples, or it must start extending them to gay ones as well.
You know, speaking of which, there is a tiny community of "singlist" activists out there who complain about the government's special treatment of married couples. It makes sense in a way, when you consider all of the many benefits that married people, or couples in general, receive, compared to single people.
It will take very long time for everyone to gain equality, and even then, there will be some who are more equal than others. It is human nature. The idea that a family unit of a married mother and a father with 2.4 children is already very outdated, yet society is still structured around this concept.
I am theoretically in favor of having government civil unions only, and marriage being a religious or personal non-religious ceremony. However, there is no way that would ever happen. People's heads would explode.
The government affords legal protection to marriage for good reason: It is the legal way to make a non-blood relation your next of kin. This has enormous value to society and to the individuals. From health care proxy to home purchasing, a legal next-of-kin arrangement is really important, which is why same sex couples want and need it. Contracts that same sex couples draw up to approximate marriage don't give *all* the rights of marriage and are expensive and complicated. So the government machinery of marriage works.
However, government should have no say on religious issues. If certain religions choose not to sanctify certain marriages (as is ALREADY the case) then that's fine, but it shouldn't impact the government-provided contract.
agree. To me it is not a political issue. if two people whish to be togeather, then so be it.
It does not affect world affairs, monitary problems, the state of the union.....
It is simply two folks who love each other. What in the H...l is wrong with that?
The Pope is at it again! Speaking against the disintegration of the traditional family and against gay marriage and whatnot.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110605/ap_ … pe_croatia
Needless to say, there are a number of flaws in his perspective.
Cultures change, families change, people's values change. Yet society is not coming apart at the seams. In fact, the most gay-friendly places in Europe tend to be doing very well. But the Pope just keeps fighting his pointless, losing battle.
That is your opinion,I was told different.A lot of people do ,but most don't.
I heard from a reliable source that Paul Revere warned us about the evils of gay pride. The British uniform of that era was adorned with a rainbow Louis Vuitton scarf.
"Common sense" don't need interpretation my friend.
Common sense? Like when "some one," told you that the facts you have been presented with are not correct?
So - are you ready to do what the IPU says yet?Because I have proof in my head that you are endangering yourself by telling so many lies.
Does god tell you to lie as well? Into your head.
Knowledge speak for itself.Words tell the story.
WHy? You need to do what I tell you Jack.
Personally I find "common sense" to one of the scarcest commodities around. It is nearly always confused with "what I believe with no evidence" or "what everyone (meaning me) believes". Very seldom does it come from easily obtainable knowledge that can be verified with little effort and thus commonly accepted as true. The "verified" part gets left out somehow or is limited to a handful of examples while ignoring or deriding opposing examples.
Common sense to me is like having a apple and a flower.Common sense will tell me which is which.
We are very much in agreement, then. Your fingers, nose, taste buds, etc. will tell you which is which. Certainly Jesus won't impart it as you cannot discern what is true and what isn't when just comes to you without verification.
The verification is both universal and personal .If you can't see it,you are missing out.
No. While actual verification is universal in that everyone can do the process, it is as impersonal as possible. Objectivity is required; subjective analysis is worthless in determining, for instance, the difference between an apple and a flower. You may not look at an apple, declare that it is a flower and have any expectations of truth.
If you don't understand this you are indeed missing out on a lot in life, and most likely living a life of fantasy. Eating a bloom of the nightshade plant will cause you damage whether you have declared it an apple or not.
A blind man can touch a flower, and then touch an apple and tell you which is which.And you with your eyes wide open can't tell the difference when they are both before you.
All you bring to the table is peanut shells,chicken bones,rotten apples,and dirty kool-Ade. Sorry.....your kind of contribution is not welcome to the table.
Since when were you the ruler of the forums, which are for public discussion?
You're not! Learn your place.
Easy, Cagsil. I fear we're frightening our little apostle. There is much truth being presented here and that's a scary proposition to such as he.
He has implied that common sense comes from Jesus but has found that while a blind man can tell the difference between a flower and an apple Jesus hasn't imparted that bit of sense to him.
It sounds as if he is concerned that I will suddenly produce peanut shells and chicken bones, demanding that he tell the difference, and Jesus hasn't told him that either!
If allowed, my continued contribution of Truth and Reality may shake his faith and he would lose his place at the head of humanity. Thus I am banned from the table.
Or maybe I'm just being needlessly cruel to the unfortunate among us.
Okay. As per your request, I will take it easy. With that said, I am done. He isn't even worth acknowledging, because he is too deluded.
I will continue to read what happens in this thread, but only for amusement. He has nothing to offer anyways.
You're right, Cags. The thread is good only for amusement purposes. His incoherent ramblings are too difficult to glean any real meaning from and can thus only be taken at face value.
Given that, he is half God himself, speaking in parables and tongues just the way he was taught. Good only for amusement - there is no useful information and I seriously doubt there is any teaching opportunity. I've about had it myself.
Have a good evening!
Just curious, who told you "different?" According to the LA Times recent polls show majority support for gay marriage.
Support in polls for same-sex marriage could influence Proposition 8 legal battle, experts say
Recent polls showing majority support for same sex marriage could have an effect on judges as the legal fight against Proposition 8 moves through the courts, experts and advocates say.
* Opponents of Proposition 8 rally outside San Francisco City Hall in August last year after a ruling in their favor. As the issue makes its way through the justice system -- probably to the Supreme Court in a couple of years -- some experts say that recent polls indicating majority support for gay marriage could subtly influence judges.
Opponents of Proposition 8 rally outside San Francisco City Hall in August… (Wally Skalij, Los Angeles Times)
May 23, 2011|By Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times
A series of recent polls suggesting a majority of Americans support the right of gays to marry may influence the outcome of the legal dispute over California's ban on same-sex marriages, some legal experts and gay rights advocates predict.
The courts don't look to opinion polls when they decide cases, but shifts in popular sentiment can influence their thinking on evolving interpretations of civil rights, constitutional experts say.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/23 … t-20110523
Wrong or not,...it is a matter of righteousness to me and to God.A man can only pretend to be a women...they can never be one.They can never have babies,and they can change the outside...but not the inside.
The statistics are correct. You are entitled to your minority opinion.
You might be right seeing that there is more evil and corruption in the world than it is good.So i stand corrected.
Skewed view. Nothing new from a religious individual.
There is plenty..........,but it is only given to certain ones.Those that think they know will always think they know,and those that think that they should grow will always grow.
Another ignorant statement, which lack a whole lot of knowledge and wisdom of life.
Growing never stops, which apparently yet again shows you lack so much knowledge and wisdom of life.
You keep digging the hole. A wise man would know when he is in over his head, which obviously escapes you.
God created Adam and Eve...and not Adam and Steve.We chose who we want to be and live as we want to live.To invade the sanctification of an establish order to promote ones own philosophy is wrong to began with.
Nonsense. God does not exist. Now you can stop causing so many fights.
That's about the silliest thing I've ever heard, and I've heard some pretty silly stuff.
Yet it is true.One can miss out on a whole lot by taking the wrong turn in life.
That Adam and Eve/Adam and Steve "carp" is trite and stupid and utterly without merit when discussing the rights of people under a secular government.
Note that nobody is suggesting that you should have to marry someone of the same sex, or that you should not be allowed to marry someone of the opposite sex. Nobody is trying to de-sanctify anything of anyone else's.
Neither my marriage nor yours will be affected even a little bit if gay people are allowed to marry. Why should a bunch of bigoted straight people be allowed to mess with gay people's marriages?
I have long felt that Christianity was absolutely wrong when they push their beliefs of other people. Such as invading pagan territory centuries ago to spread their philosophy or sending missionaries out into other sanctified and established orders today to do the same.
Nice to see someone else that feels Christians should keep it at home instead of trying to spread their philosophy through the world.
To each their own.Life is how you make it.It can only be as you let it.Nothing comes in nor out unless the intellect say so.Which make us guilty for what we do and say in this world.
Guilt only comes from something that is actually wrong. Too bad you cannot tell the difference between right and wrong, with your skewed view.
Then you should have plenty of guilt,since you have the Wrong knowledge,and going the Wrong way and the Wrong direction in life.
You have your opinion. Btw- not valid or worth a dime, much less anything else.
You can always tell a jealous person,and one that lick on themselves all the time......they are never wrong.They are the ones that are caught with their hands in the cookie jar and still look you in the eye and say.......I DIDN'T DO NOTHING,even though their hand is still in the cookie jar.
The above statement shows your lack of knowledge about the human species. Man, you seriously need to get over yourself.
Another statement, just shows you're completely out of your mind and apparently love talking about a child's actions, not that of an adult.
You need help. There is no doubt about that.
You don't nor those that think as you do qualify to give any seeing that you can't get water from a dry well.
?? Do you mean that you do not (would not) feel guilty for using Christianity to destroy the sanctification of other established orders? That your own philosophy is somehow better than theirs and that makes it OK?
I say the one that have touch the fire have more knowledge about the fire than the one that have not had the experience.
I must apologize; I'm having a really hard time understanding your meaning. I speak of Christians promoting their philosophy and you reply of guilt and that life is what you make it.
Not understanding your reply, I question again the promotion of Christian philosophy and you reply of fire and experience.
Perhaps if you would use common English instead of the parables and proverbs from your religious jargon I could better understand? As it is I'm beginning to think that because you come from the fires of Hell you need feel no guilt for doing or supporting what you very clearly and unambiguously stated was wrong in an earlier post on this thread.
God created Adam and Eve...and not Adam and Steve.We chose who we want to be and live as we want to live.To invade the sanctification of an establish order to promote ones own
After some time the Adam's Family had incest for a wail, then came from out of the closet Steve: from the 10% chance gen pool
If that is the world you want to live in,....be my guest.
It's worse than that; in the strictest sense of the word Eve was Adam. With only one parent (Adam) there is no second set of genes to give variety.
Can and Abel thus become the product of masturbation. This, however, might be a good thing as I am unaware for any rules governing the actions of such a product.
...and in certain mountain regions, 90 % supported homosexual activity as long as it was between cousins and other close relatives
I look forward to the days when this is no longer an issue! Who are we to deny people this human right to love and be with whom they desire? Who are we to play God? Let the homosexuals fight in the military and marry. This is America, right? well then it is time to step out of the dark ages.
I think that is well said. American values tend to be more conservative than most, but things are clearly changing.
Straight or gay in the military, I don't want anyone coming up from the rear.
Yes, this is America. If we were in the dark ages you, ma'am would not have the right to vote, drive, or do anything else without your husband's wishes. Just because many Americans feel that Marriage is between a man and a woman and is a large part of our social family structure does not mean that we are in the "dark ages". I mean, I would not think that you not agreeing would make you an unreasonable liberal who has no regard for the family structure in general. Why don't we leave the hyperbole alone and find some middle ground instead of always wanting to "win" what we want.
I'm sorry, but giving two gays the same legal rights you and your spouse have in living together has nothing to do with "family values". It has to do with equality, where there is no middle ground.
Perhaps we should allow black folk on public buses, but only in the back? Would that be a fine middle ground? Or let women work, but only in non-managerial roles? A good middle ground, yes? Wait! Best of all - let anyone living below the 35th parallel be a part of the union, but as they obviously don't understand what marriage values are don't let them vote in any but local neighborhood elections.
I guess it all depends on how you view marriage itself.. Is it an institution unto itself that is the basis of the family unit? Or is it an identification with which people can gain certain rights in a society. In some states people have offered up the ability to have civil unions that convey the same rights as a marriage. If the Gay community wanted to have the same rights, they would accept. They however want to have what to have marriage, the rights it conveys are not enough. That is what I was referring to as a middle ground... Oh.. and comparing it to racism, etc.. that is what I was referring to as hyperbole...
I view marriage both as a legal tool and an institution which used to be the basis of the family unit. It still can be, but so many families have only one parent today I'm not sure that we can actually claim that marriage is the basis anymore.
None of the civil union laws I saw proposed approached the legal ramifications of marriage - they did not convey all the same rights and duties. If we want to change the word "marriage" to "civil union" while conveying identical rights that would be the only middle ground I would see as reasonable, and if you do that then let 'em have any wording they want.
I also do not have a problem with a family headed by gays - in no way do I think it would produce an abundance of gay children and I cannot conceive of any other reason not to allow "gay families". It might produce an abundance of bi-sexual people but that's not my business any more than the sexuality of gays is.
Very well reasoned - very well expressed. Almost liberal
Oh, I make a fair social liberal. Very much a fiscal conservative, but a social liberal. I boils down to keeping the govt. out of private lives and checkbooks as much as possible while understanding that govt. is a necessary evil that must be tolerated to at least some degree.
Except it's not hyperbole. Once upon a time, there were laws about who could marry whom. As a white man, I would not have been allowed to marry a black woman, nor she me. Those laws have been struck down or changed, since it's none of the state's darn business who marries whom.
Now gay people are asserting their right to marry the person they love. There is no reason outside of religion to keep two informed, competent, consenting adult men or women from marrying each other. And since the state doesn't get to dictate religious practice, the state doesn't get to deny the right to marry to gay people. Simple as that.
The only thing that needs to happen to put America on track to getting better? The religious folk need to stay out of other people's lives. Plain and simple.
I don't understand why anyone cares if two consenting adults want to celebrate their love for each other, exchange vows, and get married.
Soldiers who are not afraid of guns, bombs, capture, torture or death say they are afraid of homosexuals. Clearly we should not be used as soldiers; we should be used as weapons. Letter to the editor, The Advocate
War. Rape. Murder. Poverty. Equal rights for gays. Guess which one the Southern Baptist Convention is protesting?
"It is intolerable that the world's religions -- founded on the values of love and compassion -- should provide a pretext for the expression of hatred and violence."
"Religious belief is a fine guide around which a person might organize his own life, but an awful instrument around which to organize someone else's life."
It seems inaccurate to say that "Most Americans support Gay marriage", when clearly the poll shows only half of Americans support the idea.
I would rather see two people making love than two people killing each other.
Based on an average of the many other polls I’ve studied
The Good New- America dose support gay marriage
Bad New - more America's still support the Iraq’s War
Funny thing: most Americans, I meet do not support Iraq war
Majority of Americans support gay marriage in poll
By Alex Dobuzinskis
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – Fifty-three percent of Americans support making gay marriage legal, a Gallup poll showed on Friday, a marked reversal from just a year ago when an equal majority opposed same-sex matrimony.
U.S.Catholics support gay marriage: poll
Charles Lewis, National Post • Mar. 29, 2011 | Last Updated: Mar. 29, 2011 4:05 AM ET
The study, conducted by the Washington-based Public Religion Research Institute Inc., found 43% of American Catholics support same-sex marriage, compared with 37% of the public and 36% of white mainline Protestants.
Onusonus - learn to read. From the article cited in the OP...
"PRINCETON, NJ --For the first time in Gallup's tracking of the issue, a majority of Americans (53%) believe same-sex marriage should be recognized by the law as valid, with the same rights as traditional marriages. The increase since last year came exclusively among political independents and Democrats. Republicans' views did not change."
Onus, 53% constitutes a majority i.e. "most." "Most" means more than 50%, even if it is just 50% plus one.
...polls are only on a very few number of people...they in no way constitute the entire population of this or any nation...so to say that the majority are for it is ludicrous...and incorrect this is only part of the problem...
the other parts have been stated so far in this thread...this is not just a religious, or political or secular problem...it is not just a scientific or logic, or procreation or evolutionary problem...it is not a just nature or nurture or chemical imbalance problem... it is not just monetary or legislative......it is all of the above (and anything I may have left out!)
From what I have witnessed the opposite seems to be be the case in England. The younger the person, the more they are likely to be homophobic. Most elderly and middle aged people seem to be be very accepting of people, no matter what their sexuality, whilst the homophobic use of language amongst the young is quite shocking. And over the past few years, there have been a number of murders of gay men in the UK, all committed by young people.
Same here. But, I don't go by polls, either. What turns straights off to the "cause" is that many gays here act like it's their nationality. Other genetic aspects which people can display are generally of a more physical presence. No special parking spots for being gay. The rights they are accorded are the same rights all Americans have, so, just what special rights do they want? I don't detail what I do in my bedroom, and I don't watch a lotta lovey dovey stuff on the tube. Gayness is being portrayed in movies, primetime shows and such...they've got their own parade. I don't have a special parade just for my sexual oreintation. In fact, they are the only ones that want one and have it. Why is it they think they are more entitled than anyone else. Things evidently are changing in their favor., maybe they should have a smidge of patience, after all, the black Americans fought for over a hundred years for equality, and they couldn't hide their skin. Maybe they should hush up a bit about how SEXUAL they are. Sign this Ben Dover
"Gayness is being portrayed in movies, primetime shows and such...they've got their own parade. I don't have a special parade just for my sexual oreintation." Well, yeah. Of course you don't have a parade for your sexual orientation, because your sexual orientation (I assume you're hetero) is so ingrained in our society that pretty much every day is a great big straight pride parade.
Snow White and Sleeping Beauty both get woken up by a kiss from Prince Charming (same prince?) and they get married and live happily ever after. Straight couples hold hands, kiss, and even get married right out in public all the time. TV shows talk about straight sex all the time: Sex in the City, Friends, Happy Days, even Gilligan's Island had Ginger come on to Gilligan (who always panicked) several times.
Straight sexuality is "shoved down our throats" from the time we're children. Really, if what sort of stuff we see and read and have read to us makes any difference whatsoever in our sexual orientation, I'm astonished that there are any gay people at all!
"Maybe [gay people] should hush up a bit about how SEXUAL they are."
When we straight people stop shoving our sexuality in everyone's face, then maybe that argument will have some weight. Until then, however, maybe we should try letting gay people enjoy the same rights and privileges we have, and discover that it's no big deal after all.
Great post Jeff.
Gays have all sorts of taxation and legal entanglements to cope with as well.
To say straightness is being thrown down your throat is ridiculous! If it wasn't for straights you would not be born! can you and your boyfriend create a life? I personally do not care if someone is gay or not but reject to teach it in schools to kids. If you are gay OK so go about your business and live your life as happy as you can. Should we teach kids to respect people that are gay, YES absolutely. I also think they should be able to have gay UNIONS. not marriage, It should include everything like a marriage but call it a UNION. I have some family and friends that are gay and Love them, But I do not agree with having young kids taught at a very young age as many can be swayed(immature mind) to think it is normal only to confuse them. In high school if they wanted to teach about being gay, That would be acceptable as they would be young adults(maturer minds) and have more knowledge to understand.
"I also think they should be able to have gay UNIONS. not marriage, It should include everything like a marriage but call it a UNION."
So you wouldn't have a problem calling a union between one man and one woman, a "Flapdoodle," then? I mean, since it's just like a marriage, but it doesn't matter what you call it?
I hope you and your spouse have a beautiful flapdoodling.
The first line of your post reminds me of a joke:
"There are these two young fish swimming along and they happen to meet an older fish swimming the other way, who nods at them and says "Morning, boys. How's the water?" And the two young fish swim on for a bit, and then eventually one of them looks over at the other and goes "What the hell is water?"
I do not cal it a flapdoodle. I call it normal as a man and woman can have a child together. Two gay people can not. I'm all about equality but certain things have to be understood. Obviously what makes people gay is a genetic mix up. The human body for a male and female have different hormones etc... When someone is born looking male and the genetic make up inside has more female than male they most likely are gay. Same for women. It is not the Norm for most people. Now I do not feel we should degrade or alienate gay people as it is a genetic abnormality and they are just as normal in every other way just sexually different. I have a problem showing young kids who's mind is not fully developed yet certain things about the gay lifestyle. If you were born gay you know it and no need until at least High school to confuse kids even more. Why should it bother you to have it called a gay union? you will receive the same benefits as everyone else? Personally if they even call it a gay marriage I could careless, I just do not want that taught to little kids in school until their minds are more developed. Everyone knows little kids are easily persuaded and then after realizing later they can have problems. I happen to know of someone(my cousin) who was very impressionable and experimented with one of his friends at a young age( I believe he said he was 8 or 9) and had problems growing up after he realized what had transpired. He is in his late 30's now but went through a hard time and tried to act even more macho because of his actions when he was younger. So after seeing that and knowing how easy kids can be persuaded I do not think it is a good idea to teach it in school at a young age. We seen it with boys being molested at a early age and have problems later! If these same people had encounters with the opposite sex they do not have issues later it is only same sex encounters.
You're confusing homosexuality with transsexuality. They're two different things.
"I call it normal as a man and woman can have a child together."
By that logic should we outlaw marriages between people who are known to be infertile, such as elderly couples?
"Why should it bother you to have it called a gay union? you will receive the same benefits as everyone else?"
The thing is, not a single state has offered "the same benefits as everyone else" with a civil union for gays and lesbians. They can't, because the federal government doesn't recognize same sex civil unions and therefore doesn't extend any of its numerous benefits to civil unions. A few states have offered identical state benefits, but even this is the minority of cases.
"We seen it with boys being molested at a early age and have problems later! If these same people had encounters with the opposite sex they do not have issues later it is only same sex encounters."
Not true. Sexual abuse is sexual abuse, whether it comes at the hand of a same sex or opposite sex adult.
In the case of your cousin, did he have a hard time later because he wasn't gay and was eternally revolted by his consensual(?) experimentation with his friend(? - same age? older?) or did he have a hard time later because he was gay and he couldn't admit it to himself? In my experience, the latter problem is far more common than the former, except in cases of sexual abuse.
"I do not cal it a flapdoodle. I call it normal as a man and woman can have a child together. Two gay people can not."
I see. So an infertile straight couple, who cannot have a child together, should have their marriage annulled?
"Personally if they even call it a gay marriage I could careless."
Call it a marriage, then. I'm good with that.
"I just do not want that taught to little kids in school until their minds are more developed. Everyone knows little kids are easily persuaded..."
By that reasoning, there would be no gay people ever. We're soaked in heterosexuality from day one. The handsome prince rescues the damsel in distress, and they marry and live happily ever after: it's among the earliest stories we read to our kids. Pop culture is full of heterosexual couples. Gay kids and kids who are merely perceived to be gay get bullied and harassed because they're gay. Kids who are just outcast for some reason unrelated to sexuality are called gay while they're being bullied for other reasons. Heterosexuality is the norm; gayness is routinely at least marginalized if not overtly condemned. So where do gay people come from, if children are so easily persuaded?
"We seen it with boys being molested at a early age and have problems later! If these same people had encounters with the opposite sex they do not have issues later it is only same sex encounters."
So a boy molested by a woman or girl molested by a man will have no problems in their adult lives? Are you really making this claim? If so, have you got anything to back it up with? Like data, for example? 'Cos I'll bet you that there are plenty of men and women (maybe some are even reading this discussion) who will tell you that being molested by someone of the opposite sex can be pretty darn traumatic, even if you think it's 'natural.'
A man and woman is normal, That was the way we were created. two of the same sex can not get pregnant. Like I stated I truly have no problem with Gay people. I have friends and family whom I adore! I think every gay couple should have the right to be together and enjoy the same benefits. I just have a problem with teaching at a young age. Everyone knows many young minds are not capable of understanding complicated issues and think it should be addressed when they have some brains and can make a intelligent decision.
The bullying part is unacceptable! But I do not think that stats at an early age more in the teens. And Also you can blame some a$$hole parents for not saying things in front of kids because as I stated they are impressionable at an early age.
on my statement about experimenting at an early age, I was saying that opposite sex experimenting doesn't do harm but same sex can as with my cousin. now I'm not talking about a grown man and a girl. also I do not think Many boys who are molested by woman do not have as many problems.
"I just have a problem with teaching at a young age. Everyone knows many young minds are not capable of understanding complicated issues and think it should be addressed when they have some brains and can make a intelligent decision. "
So why are there gay people, then, since from our earliest years we're steeped in heterosexual culture?
Again because if your born with different genetic make up, your Gay. I just have a problem teaching very young children about something so complex and wait for them to mature first. It is very simple. Like I said, Obviously we were created to be with the opposite sex otherwise any two people can reproduce. I do not get turned on by the same sex, do you think it is because I was taught that? NO. It is genetically instilled in me, just as you are attracted to the same sex. I do not want young children learning about something they do not need to know about until they have a better understanding of life and a much more mature brain. Is that truly hard to understand??
" I do not get turned on by the same sex, do you think it is because I was taught that? NO. It is genetically instilled in me, just as you are attracted to the same sex."
Uh, no I'm not. I'm straight (not that it matters). And, like you, I was born that way. For that reason, I'm really not worried about straight kids turning gay if they hear about the existence of gay people.
"I do not want young children learning about something they do not need to know about until they have a better understanding of life and a much more mature brain. Is that truly hard to understand??"
Then do you disapprove of kids hearing stories about (straight) people who get married and live happily ever after? Or is it okay to talk about straight people getting married, but not gay people?
If you are truly straight then why would you want to confuse little kids with something so complex? You can not deny many young kids are easily influenced. Why not wait until they are older to understand it more intelligently. Again it is NORMAL for a man and woman, that is the way we were created. It is not the Norm for two of the same sex. Again I have nothing against anyone as I'm certain they were just born that way, Just like being born with other abnormalities which are really bad. This is just a sexual one.
If gays are created that way as you state then it is completely, 100% normal for them. What makes your normal more important, more normal somehow, then their normal? Because there are more of your normal than of theirs?
Should we then hide away someone created with a genetic makeup resulting in a deformed arm? Or someone created with Down's syndrome? Keep anyone created with a different normality than yours out of society?
Where do you draw the line on normality?
"If you are truly straight then why would you want to confuse little kids with something so complex?"
You're right: let's not tell kids stories about anybody getting married. It's just too complex and confusing.
"Again it is NORMAL for a man and woman,"
I'd argue that you're confusing 'normal' with 'better' or 'superior,' and 'abnormal' with 'bad' or 'immoral.' Normal just means "most people do it." Abnormal just means "very few people do it."
Very few people become billionaires, thus, it's abnormal to become a billionaire. But that doesn't mean it's bad to become a billionaire (as long as you do so honestly). Very few people want to mary someone of the same sex. That doesn't mean it's bad to do so (as long as the people involved are informed, competent, consenting adults).
No matter how much you think discussion of homosexuality will "confuse" children, they have shown to be remarkably understanding and respectful of differences, much more than adults who have learned intolerance.
And no matter what they learn, children can not be "confused" out of their natural orientation. No matter how much exposure a child has to gay people as a child, if s/he's heterosexual, s/he will always be heterosexual.
The only difference is that a child who realizes normal gay people exist and are not meant to be spat upon and cursed, will be more comfortable coming out him/herself if s/he is gay.
If gays came together, and made up a country, They would be the third largest country in the World, wail gays are illegal in 76 countries, death in seven.
my state voted not . the wording asked what voters thought marriage was how we define it.. i voted man and woman. my vote wasn't to ban gay marriage or make it legal. the prop didn't pass . i let people be themselves . it seems that the ones wanting to be them aren't ok with others that are not like minded with their ideals. let gays marry i say . but expecting others to view it as acceptable norm. or instinctive behavior. with the its wrong to think its wrong rational is overstepping bounds i feel.
That is exactly what happens when it becomes legal. For instance Canada has charged numerous religious authorities and persons of faith with violating its human rights law by “impacting an individual's sense of self-worth and acceptance." Other countries where this has occurred include Sweden, the United Kingdom, and Singapore.
In New Mexico, the state's Human Rights Commission held that a photographer who had declined on religious grounds to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony had engaged in impermissible conduct and must pay over $6,000 attorney's fees to the same-sex couple. A state judge upheld the order to pay. In New Jersey, the United Methodist Church was investigated and penalized under state anti-discrimination law for denying same-sex couples access to a church-owned pavilion for their civil-union ceremonies.
A federal court refused to give relief from the state penalties. Professors at state universities in Illinois and Wisconsin were fired or disciplined for expressing personal convictions that homosexual behavior is sinful.
Candidates for masters' degrees in counseling in Georgia and Michigan universities were penalized or dismissed from programs for their religious views about the wrongfulness of homosexual relations.
A Los Angeles policeman claimed he was demoted after he spoke against the wrongfulness of homosexual conduct in the church where he is a lay pastor.
and other encroachments have been posed on the Catholic adoption services, and the boy Scouts for holding to their religious moral standards.
All of this violated their first ammendment rights to freedom of religion.
"In New Mexico, the state's Human Rights Commission held that a photographer who had declined on religious grounds to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony had engaged in impermissible conduct and must pay over $6,000 attorney's fees to the same-sex couple. A state judge upheld the order to pay."
Yeah, this is problematical. We do have freedom of religion, and merely saying that being gay is wrong doesn't violate anyones rights. But at the same time, if the church had denied the use of their pavilion to a black/white couple, what would the reaction have been?
But all of the things you've cited have not happened in a place where gay marriage is legal. I'm pretty sure that gays can't marry in New Mexico, Georgia, or Illinois, and I'm certain they can't marry in Michigan.
If I remember correctly, the New Jersey case was also complicated by the fact that the Church and/or pavilion were tax-exempt and the discrimination was therefore in violation of anti-discrimination regulations pertaining to tax-exempt organizations. If they'd dropped their tax-exempt status, they would have been free to continue discriminating against whoever they wanted, just like any other private organization.
My opinion in this matter is NO! I am religious but this is not the only reason why I disagree.
First of all the nature that all of us grew to know is that marriage is between a male and a female. It is the nature of us, it is the nature animals, even plants.
Children could be hurt in this process. After homosexual marriages becomes a normal thing, they would want to adopt children or even have their own through processes like having sperm cells from donors. It's just not right to have two mothers or two fathers. I just can't accept this thought.
And don't tell me to think about how homosexuals feel because trust me, I KNOW!
Anyways, this is just my own opinion.
Wal, I would have to disagree with your statement that we grew to know nature, We have for the most part been taught what to think and not how to think. Most of the uneducated in this country know in their heart that what they were taught by other uneducated people is in fact the truth. We have for decades been taught to answer questions on a test and not to think for ourselves.
I assume you are basing your position on your religious beliefs. I understand this and yet must ask you if an organization that has fought against the public gaining knowlwedge, is the best organization to base your beliefs about the real world on? I understand basing your religious beliefs on this organization and yet dont see how this organization could be right 100% of the time in debates with people trained in scientific discovery. It always comes down to this, the religious person believes what they believe based on religious teachings. If the scientist offers a differing opinion of reality, they are working for the devil. The only proof for the religious point of view is unproveable and this proves them to be right. That this makes sense to a lot of people is what is wrong with this country. Too many pewople are too willing to believe fantasy over proof. The fact that the scientist is wrong about the age of the planet simply means that they will be wrong about anything they ever say.
LoL.. funny... Can you prove the big bang theory? Replicate it in any way? Not just a dense matter exploding, but a dense matter that came from nothing.... And not just an explosion, but an explosion that creates a universe... Reproduce it... then I'll believe evolution. Hop on it scientist...
The truth is that both the religious person and the atheist have no ability to scientifically disprove the other. Show me physical evidence that there is no God??? You cannot do it.
I believe you can fly, prove me wrong in this if you can. The only way to do so is to head to the top of a very high building and jump off flapping your arms. Are you willing to prove the rediculous statement I made in the same way you expect me to prove that god doesn't exist?
No matter what is proven to you I doubt there will be much acceptance on your part. You chose to blindly follow your preacher and an acient book that has undergone numerous edits and translations and no amount of eveidence will ever you open your eyes.
I recommend you spend a little time doing some research and learning on your own, My bad, your a christian and you already know everything about everything. Especially the things you know absolutely nothing about. I know for a fact that the best way to become an expert on any subject is to ignore any facts that disagree with your beliefs.
Prove to me that jesus ever existed. Prove to me that god isn't a figment of your imagination.
More harm is done to children by christian parents than could ever be replicated by homosexual parents. Knowledge is what children need and you and your church will fight against them getting any with every ounce of your being. If that is not the case then please explain to me why the most reilgious states in America are also the least educated states in this country. The bible belt has consistantly ranked well below the national average in intelligence. Find the explanation for this in your bible if you can. Most christians I come across have no idea what their bible says. That they also lack the intelligence to do any reasearch on their own, simply means that this will not change anytime soon. Forrest Gump was a movie and not a guide for how to go thru life.
In my previous comment I said that I wasn't basing my opinion on religious belief. Gay marriage seems to break too many laws. For instance, the basic law of a male and a female mating. Furthermore, depending on anal sex, which proved that it can be dangerous. I can also see many children being harmed if gay marriage was a normal thing as stated in my original comment.
Wal, you did say that you weren't basing you comment on religous belief and then proceeded offer a religous belief as proof. Where does this basic law of male and female marriage as being the only acceptable form of marriage. This comes straight from the bible and perhaps you really do need to read your bible for once.
You also claim that anal sex can be dangerous and I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. I can only assume that you approve of a lesbian marriage as they dont practice anal sex. I would also venture to guess that a whole lot of straight married people are also breaking one of your laws.
How do you see children being harmed by homosexual parents? What do you base this on? Have you ever met any child raised by two mothers or twp fathers? I doubt it as you are simply repating the same crap other christians are taught in their church. Show me examples of how our jesus taught his followers that all homosexuals are to be hated in order to get to heaven. Show me the examples of him treating human beings in the manner you prescribe.
TRy finding out if the lies you have been taught are in fact just that. I am sure you wont go to hell for thinking on your own, or will you?
"It's just not right to have two mothers or two fathers. I just can't accept this thought."
Interesting. Is it wrong merely because you can't accept it, or are there other reasons for its wrongness?
"And don't tell me to think about how homosexuals feel because trust me, I KNOW!"
Oh? How do you know? 'Cos I can only think of a couple ways to know how gay people feel about this issue:
1) Have frank and open talks with people who are gay and get their opinions on the matter.
2) Be gay.
To begin with, this is a "views" discussion. I said I didn't accept it and think it's wrong and that's my opinion about this matter. I predicted a comment like yours so I posted "Anyways, this is just my own opinion." at the end of mine.
"Oh? How do you know?" Why would you ask this question? Why should I answer this question? What would you gain if I told you? Could be 1. Could be 2. Could be both. Could be neither one. I didn't say it in my comment and I won't say it here. If you don't want to believe me it's your choice.
Have a nice day.
"I said I didn't accept it and think it's wrong and that's my opinion about this matter. "
Okay, so, you haven't really thought about it, then? I get that it's your opinion. I was just curious as to why it was your opinion.
"Why would you ask this question? Why should I answer this question? What would you gain if I told you?"
Well, if you say that you know something, the natural question is "How do you know that?" You don't, of course, have to answer the question. It will make no difference in the grand scheme of things. If you do, however, it may lend your words more credibility. If you don't, it'll just be you saying stuff. And sure, I suppose there are other ways to "know" what gay people think. You could, I suppose, eavesdrop on their conversations or perhaps use a crystal ball or something. But unless you tell us how you know, nobody has any reason to believe that you do.
" You haven't thought about it, then? Can I have an opinion OF MY OWN without thinking? You can find the reasons of my view in my original comment. As for not accepting the idea of 2 mothers or 2 fathers, this is more like how I feel than how I think.
Since it may lend my words more credibility, I use a crystal ball. Even if I said that I was gay, who knows that I'm not lying?
"Can I have an opinion OF MY OWN without thinking?"
Of course you can. People do it all the time.
I followed your arguments in the earlier post.
You said you didn't agree with gay marriage. Fine. Then you said your reasons weren't religious. Fine. Then you said it's not natural. We could talk a bit about why what's "natural" is probably not the best guide to human morality, but let's leave that aside for now.
Then you said that a gay couple might want to adopt children, and that it wasn't right. "It's just not right to have two mothers or two fathers. I just can't accept this thought." There's no reason given other than your own distaste.
Oh, let's not let a committed couple enjoy the same rights and privileges as another committed couple; WaleedZ doesn't like it!
"Even if I said that I was gay, who knows that I'm not lying?"
Who would claim to be that, who was not?
"Oh, let's not let a committed couple enjoy the same rights and privileges as another committed couple; WaleedZ doesn't like it!" I think you don't get what I meant by " I can't accept this thought". I did not mean that I can't accept it so no one in the world should do it. I meant that it just doesn't get in my own head. And the reason behind my own distaste is that children could be harmed in this process.
"Who would claim to be that, who was not?" Someone trying to lend his words more credibility...
"I did not mean that I can't accept it so no one in the world should do it. I meant that it just doesn't get in my own head. "
Oh! You're right, I did misunderstand, then. Sorry, mate. So you're just saying it's not for you, and you'd never do it? That's cool and the gang!
The only problem I have is when people who don't like it and would never do it themselves try to stop other informed competent consenting adults (who like the idea and want to do it) from doing it.
Actually, studies have pretty consistently found that children raised by homosexual parents, especially lesbians, have higher rates of "successful" outcomes (such as good grades in school, higher levels of educational attainment, better paying jobs, lower risk of involvement in criminal activity, etc.) than those raised by straight parents.
I assume this is because, with the exception of a few who have children from previous unsuccessful heterosexual relationships, homosexual couples really have to WANT children in order to have them, and have to jump through myriad hoops on the way to getting them, so have plenty of time to really consider the issue seriously, whereas any pair of immature morons can get pregnant off one night of drunken sex if they're straight, and even some supposedly "planned" children are "planned" more because of outside pressures (such as pressure from wanna-be grandparents) than because they are actually wanted.
By the way, children raised by homosexual parents do not turn out to be gay or lesbian themselves at any higher rate than children raised by straight parents. Contrary to popular belief, homosexuality is not contagious.
kerry, there you go injecting facts and proof when Wal has already stated he prefers not to think about why he thinks what he thinks. I would also venture to guess and it is a guess that homosexual couples don't have the same 50% success rate in marriage. I am assuming that these relationship might actually be stronger. Too bad about all those kids who's parents can't be bothered to do what's best for the kid. This approved form of marriage works maybe 1/2 the time and that's the level of misery they want for everyone. Homosexuality isn't contagious as you said and unfortunaely neither is human decency or intelligence. You can lead a horse to a book but you can't force it to discover it may actually be an ass.
Interesting that all animals and plants marry. I suppose there are teeny tiny churches in a drop of pond water to marry two amoeba? As amoebae reproduce asexually with only one parent it seems a little counterproductive.
Do percula fish (think Nemo, from the movie) marry? Their family consists of one female and several males, but if the female dies one of the males will change sex, becoming female. Presumable he will then marry his co-brothers?
And I've just got to see the church ceremony marrying two redwood trees - truly an edifice fit for the Gods!
Nor is homosexuality only found in the human species; it is well documented in various animals. Your ideas on biology, while undoubtedly taught by the finest priests, are not very indicative of the real world.
"Children could be hurt in this process". Just how would that be? Do you believe the parents will abuse their children because they are gay? Or that children of gay parents will be gay? Any children will undoubtedly be made fun of and ostracized in their youth, but that will happen as long as there are bigots demanding that everyone be the same.
"It's just not right to have two mothers or two fathers. I just can't accept this thought". How did you determine "right" here? From your priest? From your imaginary God? Wherever it came from, it is a pathetic concept that you, and you alone, can determine "right" for someone else that impacts you in no manner. You really need to leave the dark ages and come into the civilized world of the 21st century. You do not have the right to indiscriminately control the actions of others, nor to deny them the "god given" rights that you enjoy. Accept that your are not God to determine how others live; you truly don't even have God's mandate to do it.
Denying gay marriage violation of religious freedom (civil and religious marriages are two separate institutions). Marriage benefits should be available to all couple it’s an accepted lifestyle nowadays as human are 99% biological the same
Denying gay marriages is minority discrimination and doesn't hurt society or anyone in particular, what matter in marriage is love. One advantage it deduce the world’s over population problem and encourages stronger family values. Since 10% of the world population is gay anyways, nothing will change that
The same financial benefits that apply to man-woman marriages as apply to same-sex marriages.
Homosexuality is god's way of insuring that the truly gifted aren't burdened with children. ~Sam Austin
The radical right is so homophobic that they're blaming global warming on the AIDS quilt. ~Dennis Miller
War. Rape. Murder. Poverty. Equal rights for gays. Guess which one the Southern Baptist Convention is protesting? Anon.
Good point about marriage Castle. The only laws gay marriage breaks are those from the bible. The bible is not the basis of our laws in America regardless of what the uniformed masses believe.
Throughout history gay relationships were accepted, as was the case in ancient Greece or India. The modern distinction between gay and straight relationships is based upon thousands of years of the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. What homophobic people don't seem to recognise is that their views are based upon a belief in a god, for whom there is no evidence. Yet, they are under the impression that because theirs is the one and only true ideology that they own morality. Yet evidence shows that homosexuality is not just a human trait, but is evident in many different species. These species have no concept of morality, so I wonder if they will be going to hell, because they have never been given the chance to accept Jesus as their Lord and Saviour. Is a homosexual horse as guilty as a human?
I hope that equality will not take as long to achieve as that for black people or for those of different religions. However, as we humans like to make distinctions and discrimination is so much a part of our natures, then I believe equality for non-straights will perhaps only ever be a dream. And I doubt there will ever be a civil rights movement by gay people, because there just aren't enough of them to be taken seriously. So it is very much dependant upon whether the majority straight population will find it in their hearts to allow people different to themselves to have equality. I suppose gay people in the West are fortunate, because in many countries around the world, the punishment for being gay is the death penalty. So, perhaps pushing for true equality is only likely to cause a backlash, as has been happening in England, with attacks upon gay men rising dramatically.
Some people get their pet baptized in church. All I have to do is stop feeding my pet when he becomes less cooperative, then I become Jesus to my pet.
I don't get religion commanding gays to hell and worst I don't get churches protecting child molester clergy men , It adds up to many people LIVING a lie and can’t imagine that ever in my live style
The percentage of gays that I come across who are truly happy greatly out numbers the christians who are happy. When it takes constant actions that belittle and demean others to feel good about oneself, it's bound to make that person as miserable as most christians seem to be.
Heh, I don't see gay knocking on your door or handing out brochure or having fight clubs trying to convert you over to Gayism.
There is a gay parade larger than the Santa clause parade in Toronto. Being curious, I visited once and got hit on a couple of times, my refusal was not met with huff and puff or ignoring me afterward like with refusing Christians conversions.
You got hit on a couple of times. There is no need to brag.
And most Americans support handgun control and banning assault-type weapons, but it doesn't seem to matter to our representatives in Washington.
God also created Cain and Abel...
should brothers @#@%@% each other??
This debate is a real pain in the astrologicals for the faithful
Any religion, that tries to force its idea of morality upon people is wrong, and I speak as a former Jehovah's Witness. I have heard that silly "God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" so many times. Please you religious faithful, come up with something original. Oh and by the way, God didn't make Adam and Eve, because Adam and Eve are allegories only.
I have to laugh when I think about how future generations will look back on this topic. They will say, "Wow they were really living in the stone ages." Americans went through this same process back when interracial marriage was against the law. Looking back, that law seems so barbaric. Some religious right even pulled out a bible that said it was against God's law.
I imagine some well dressed lady was drinking iced tea on a hot summer day in the late 1800's. While daydreaming, she wonders what it would be like if she were married to the black man she saw in town the other day. Spilling her tea, she exclaims, "Oh my God, I could NEVER do that! That is so wrong...we need to make it a law so it can never happen! (Oh, and let's criminalize it too!)" And so it was a law that whites and blacks could not marry each other until 1967.
Today, that same lady's great-granddaughter is sitting on her porch on a hot summer day drinking lemonade. While daydreaming, she wonders what it would be like being married to the lesbian she saw in town the other day. Spilling her lemonade, she exclaimes "Oh my God, I could NEVER do that! That is so wrong....we need to make it a law so it can never happen!"
And so it was, the states and courts and nearly every American argued about the sanctity of marriage and the constitution and the bible.
I think it's about time that the majority woke up. What is taking so long?
Mankind changes things when they abused too much to a high degree,, time and time again.
So , Now, many things have man changed things since when the Bible was written?
It goes around and comes around until a cycle is complete,and then it changes to another cycle.We can either change or stay the same.
One thing for sure, everything must change, the bible is not written in stone, and even the rock of ages must change.
Dose all that sounds too gay to you?
The Radical Homosexuals infiltrating the United States Congress have a plan:
Indoctrinate an entire generation of American children with pro-homosexual propaganda and eliminate traditional values from American society.
Their ultimate dream is to create a new America based on sexual promiscuity in which the values you and I cherish are long forgotten.
I hate to admit it, but if they pass the deceptively named “Student Non-Discrimination Act,” that’s exactly what they’ll do.
Better named the “Homosexual Classrooms Act,” its chief advocate in Congress is Rep. Jared Polis, himself an open homosexual and radical activist.
You see, the Homosexual Classrooms Act contains a laundry list of anti-family provisions that will:
*** Require schools to teach appalling homosexual acts so “homosexual students” don’t feel “singled out” during already explicit sex-ed classes;
*** Spin impressionable students in a whirlwind of sexual confusion and misinformation, even peer pressure to “experiment” with the homosexual “lifestyle;”
*** Exempt homosexual students from punishment for propositioning, harassing, or even sexually assaulting their classmates, as part of their specially-protected right to “freedom of self-expression;”
*** Force private and even religious schools to teach a pro-homosexual curriculum and purge any reference to religion if a student claims it creates a “hostile learning environment” for homosexual students.
And that’s just the beginning of the Homosexual Lobby’s radical agenda.
Unfortunately, this agenda is nothing new.
In fact, other countries like Britain are already experimenting with this kind of legislation, such as mandating public schools inject pro-homosexual content into every aspect of education.
Word problems in math classes are now to include homosexual characters. History classes will document the “civil rights” struggle against the “oppressive” pro-family establishment.
And it’s even started to infiltrate our state governments.
In California, lawmakers want to “require schools to portray lesbians, homosexuals, transsexuals ... as positive role models to children in all public schools.”
And if all that wasn’t enough to convince you that action must be taken immediately, there’s more.
Many say that there will always be private schools and traditional homeschool families to teach traditional values to the next generation.
But the truth is, this radical agenda is NOT restricted to public schools.
Kevin Jennings, Obama’s “Safe Schools Czar,” has clearly stated that “every school, public, private or parochial has an obligation” to teach a pro-homosexual curriculum.
In fact, Jennings denounced school choice programs as “very dangerous” because they make it much harder to impose the Homosexual Agenda on our kids.
“Lord forbid a Baptist or Mormon school,” he added.
Jennings' ultimate goal is for all curriculum in “kindergarten, and first grade, and second grade – every grade” be infused with a pro-homosexual slant.
Traditional values will be squashed and demonized as old fashioned or out of date, or even as bigotry.
This is from Public advocate
http://www.traditionalvalues.us/SNDApet … px?pid=th2
"Their ultimate dream is to create a new America based on sexual promiscuity in which the values you and I cherish are long forgotten."
If you mean the values that include viciously persecuting gay teens with impunity, they're values you cherish, and I hope they will soon be forgotten. Of course, the reality is that Mr. Jennings is not promoting homosexuality at all but rather trying to stop bigoted people from using homosexuality as an excuse to terrorize their classmates and students.
I note that you include a link to the unabashedly homophobic "Traditional Values.us" website, specifically their page that allows people to sign their names to a list of fearmongering anti-gay propaganda, but you do not include a link to the text of the bill. So I took a look at traditionalvalues.us to see if they included a link to the text of the bill so that people can read it and make up their own minds. They don't.
This does not surprise me, as zealots and bigots typically do not want people to think for themselves. People who think tend to realize that the bigoted zealots are, well, bigoted zealots, and rather than being genuinely concerned about real issues, they conjure chimaeras.
The list of "anti-family" provisions you quoted (I'm sure you're quoting, because deliberately lying is beneath you) mentions that the bill would "Force private and even religious schools to teach a pro-homosexual curriculum and purge any reference to religion if a student claims it creates a “hostile learning environment” for homosexual students."
Well, I went and had a look at the actual text of the bill in question. (I had to look it up on Thomas.loc.gov.) The bill specifically ensures that religious groups' free-speech and free-exercise rights will remain intact:
"(b) Free Speech and Expression Laws and Religious Student Groups- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to alter legal standards regarding, or affect the rights available to individuals or groups under, other Federal laws that establish protections for freedom of speech and expression, such as legal standards and rights available to religious and other student groups under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution and the Equal Access Act (20 U.S.C. 4071 et seq.)."
So that's a dirty lie. Not your fault; you didn't make up the lie, you're just repeating the lies that the lying liars at TraditionalValues.us are lying about.
Don't feel bad for believing the lies; most people believe lies about people they already don't like. Of course, now that you know the truth, I'm sure you won't repeat these dirty lies again, and might take any assertions from traditionalvalues.us with a shaker of salt.
It was an email and that was the only link it had. I have not checked out what is in the actual bill but when I have free time I definitely will do so. I can send you the email if you like.
Again I'm against teaching homosexuality in school until like high school. I totally believe it is not good and can confuse some children.
I'm against gay bashing etc... but there is no need to teach at an early age. sorry I truly do not believe that happens until kids get older anyway. do you know of 5-8 year olds gay bashing?
My personal belief is it is a genetic mistake and we should not hold it against anyone like you said about being born with other genetic mishaps. We were created to be with the opposite sex or we would have been born where everyone was able to have a baby.
"It was an email and that was the only link it had. I have not checked out what is in the actual bill but when I have free time I definitely will do so. I can send you the email if you like."
Thanks, but I've read the bill, (you can use the link in my post above to view its text if you like. It's refreshingly short for a congressional bill.) and there's nothing in it that promotes homosexuality or infringes on anybody's freedom of speech or religion. It merely protects gay people (and those who are perceived as gay) from harassment based on their gayness (or perceived gayness). That's all.
A person can still say that it's wrong for men to lie down with men, but he can't go up to a specific other person and call him names. What's more, a kid can't be kicked off the team for being gay. What's even more, private and parochial schools that do not receive federal funding are specifically exempt from this law, so the private schools can continue to gay-bash for as long as they refuse to accept federal support.
"do you know of 5-8 year olds gay bashing?"
Not so as they know what they're talking about, but yes, I've heard kids as young as 8 or 9 say, about something they thought was stupid or uncool, "That's so gay!" This legislation would basically ensure that when a kid says that, they'd get corrected and told "You mean, 'that's so silly,' or 'that's so uncool,'" because using "gay" as a synonym for bad is exactly the same as using any other trait a person can't change as a synonym for bad. You'd never say, "That's so albino," for example, or "That's so amputee." Same thing.
By the way, "that's so retarded" is just as bad as "that's so gay." I don't let my kids get away with saying that kind of thing, and I tell them why they shouldn't. (I mention this because I've read some comments on these forums using "retarded" for "bad.")
by seyiari 11 years ago
i will really like to know your own opinion about gay marriage . are you in support of it or not?
by Susan Reid 10 years ago
This is heartening news. It's not often you get lawyers to agree on anything.I will refrain from making a juvenile comment about the lone dissenter having a feminine name and the potential gender confusion that that must cause him http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/ … e-equality
by Donnablp 4 years ago
Is it wrong not to support Gay marriage?I recently read an article about a christian cake shop in American who refused to make a cake for a customers same-sex Wedding. The same-sex couple sued the owners of the cake shop who have been forced to close their business to pay $135,000.00 in damages for...
by Zaiden Jace 9 years ago
Do you support gay marriage?
by brittvan22 7 years ago
Was it a mistake for the president to give his opinion on gay marriage?Was it powerful moment in history? Or was it a ploy to gain more support that will back fired in the end?
by Texasbeta 9 years ago
Yesterday, the celebrations began...NY has approved gay marriage. The latest polls tend to show the most Americans support the right...what about on here?
Copyright © 2021 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|