i'm equally as far from reality, i see no similarities.Originally Posted by .blank cd
i'm equally as far from reality, i see no similarities.
You sure did suprise me here!
I'm ok with gay marriage in the sense that "i dont care", but it's not right for people to seek to change long standing traditions to accommodate their lifestyle. If a tradition does not suit your lifestyle, dont participate. In this particular circumstance, marriage has legal benefits that should be made available to everyone, however, the tradition it'self shouldnt be changed for gay people. If so, i want the bible changed to say that atheist dont go to hell when they die, they spend all of eternity in a hot tub with 6 petite brunettes who dont speak english and know how to make tiramisu.
^ this. They should be entitled to benefits after 5 years together under a civil union, but they will not be given a marriage license. What is wrong with this scenario? The gay community doesn't really care for equal benefits. If they did they would then fight for it. What they are fighting for is to change the definition of marriage and for everyone to accept their lifestyle and for homosexuality to be supported. Well guess what, the majority of America does not accept it nor want it. Whether religious or not no one sees a homosexual relationship in the same view as a heterosexual one. A homosexual as an individual is entitled by law the same rights as a heterosexual, we are not a muslim country that treats homosexuals as inferior and put them to death for their deeds.
Normal: conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.
By definition, homosexuality is not normal. I don't have to believe in a divine authority or read a book to know that one man sticking his genitalia in a mans rectum is not normal. The anus' sole purpose is to excrete waste, it is not a reproductive organ...fact!
Right: *in accordance with what is good, proper, or just: right conduct.
socially approved, desirable, or influential:
By definition, homosexuality is neither right. It is not good nor proper for a man to have his anus stretched. It is neither socially approved, desirable or influential in the fact that more than half the population disapproves nor cares for it and that homosexuals make up 2-5% of the population.
Wrong: 4.*not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice: out of order, awry.
But by definition it is wrong. Gay sex is not proper use of organs(reproductive or not) and it is out of order with what the basic natural intent of sex is; a means for reproduction.
I wish ghosts were real, so that your ancestors might bitch slap you for your stupidity in claiming their struggles for basic human rights is the same as gays pushing to be accepted. Kunta kinte would be ashamed of you.
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
You're exactly right. What am I thinking. We shouldn't change the long standing 2000 y/o tradition of slavery just to suit the lifestyle of blacks and Jews....I mean marriage to suit the lifestyle of gays and lesbians, sorry. We should remain true to be biblical definition of marriage of paying dowry's to fathers for their daughters and having multiple concubines.
If "socially approved" is more than 50% of the population, then yes, being gay is socially acceptable everywhere
You're right. We need to get this info to legislators. Shitting, suppositories, and anal thermometers should be illegal.By definition, homosexuality is neither right. It is not good nor proper for a man to have his anus stretched. It is neither socially approved, desirable or influential in the fact that more than half the population disapproves nor cares for it and that homosexuals make up 2-5% of the population.
Guess what, if you believe it's not normal, don't have sex with a man! Lol. No one is forcing you, you poor oppressed Christian. Lol
LMAO. I wish god was real an Jesus was around so that they may smite you for twisting scripture to hate against people in their nameI wish ghosts were real, so that your ancestors might bitch slap you for your stupidity in claiming their struggles for basic human rights is the same as gays pushing to be accepted. Kunta kinte would be ashamed of you.
Slavery isnt a tradition. Slavery restricted the freedoms of black people. Marriage doesnt restrict anyone's freedom. Gay people can be together, live together, have sex with each other, kiss and hold hands in public, go anywhere they wish and do anything they want. They can seek marital benefits and i hope they get them. They can even come up with a new name for their union and celebrate that, but they dont have to change the current tradition of marriage. Theyre not seeking equal rights, theyre seeking to change something that others hold sacred. Gay people arent asking for their own union ceremony, theyre asking to uproot the current one. If gay people had their own union and the government refused to give it equal rights and benefits of marriage, that would be wrong.
If you want to tomahawk chop, go to Florida State. If you want to Gator chomp, go to Florida. Dont go to Florida and tell them to change their tradition. You dont have to step on someone else's freedom to obtain your own.
The limitation of freedom is when it restricts someone else's freedom.
Slave ownership was a tradition. Practiced for thousands of years. Sometimes it restricted freedoms for black people. But they were far from the only ones. It's not a tradition anymore because society progressed. Which will eventually happen in this case.
Im free to gator chop all I want to at FSU.If you want to tomahawk chop, go to Florida State. If you want to Gator chomp, go to Florida. Dont go to Florida and tell them to change their tradition. You dont have to step on someone else's freedom to obtain your own.
You're exactly right.The limitation of freedom is when it restricts someone else's freedom.
What if a white guy decided that black people should no longer be called african americans or (insert any term here that you like) and decided that black people should now be called "previously enslaved negros who were released from captivity" (dont be offended, made it offensive on purpose to make a point)... Why should gay people be allowed to redefine marriage and go completely against what the upholders of marriage have always stood for. If you dont like marriage, create something else and seek rights and benefits for that. There's a compromise to be made without allowing every tradition that doesnt accept everything and everyone, to crumble.
The same way gay people can be themselves anywhere in america. Ask FSU to paint an orange F on the side of their library and see what they say, because that's what gay people want to do to the tradition of marriage.
Going to make 1 simple comment and leave this thread of the theologists.
Whether you agree and disagree with the comments made by Cathy, I, and everyone else should, have a very serious problem with an Alderman or Mayor having the power to prevent a business from opening based on their personal opinion. Maybe this time you are ok with the reasoning, but what happens next time when the KFC owner decides he doesnt like any competition on that particular corner and lets the Alderman know that campaign cash could be made available if KFC didnt have to compete for customers?
I agree with you here. I personally don't care either but they are trying too hard to be accepted.
Good one... if the bible said that I would become an atheist! lol
Chick-Fil-A's chicken has 34% less gay virus than chicken found at any other restaurant.
You can't argue with science.
It's definitely a choice - as are most things in life. And people should have that choice. Some people choose to be gay, and that's their choice, but let me have my choice as well. Don't push a gay agenda on others and expect them to go along with your choice, when they choose to not to recognize something that disagrees with their beliefs. What makes the beliefs of gays that they should marry legally more important than the majority of Americans who choose to stay with tradition? In other words, a minority group that has special interests wants the majority of America to be deprived of what they have chosen. If you want to change it, put it to a vote in your state, and let the people vote. I can tell you now, it won't pass in GA, and that is why the LGBT groups here want it to be decided in court, rather than put it on the ballot.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
1) As others have stated, following an accepted tradition and definition of marriage is not the same as a social injustice. As you have shown, you do not have a grasp of what true social injustice is, nor are you capable of understanding the difference.
2) If you think you have the votes, petition to get a bill written by your state representative, and get the petition put on the state ballot. See if you have enough Georgians (you will need a majority) to vote in favor of changing the definition of marriage. I can tell you already that you will not get enough votes to change it. Go ahead and call your represenative and set an appointment and tell him that you want this bill created. Don't say that it can't be done - California has already put it on the ballot before as Prop. 8.
Now, where is your majority, and who is in the minority?
3) Show me evidence that there is a "gay gene" in humans. You claim there is evidence, yet you have none to show. You claim that it is genetic, and that you have overwhelming scientific opinion? Where are these scientists? Perhaps you are referring to Brian Mustanski's 2005 announcement? You know, the guy who now is director of Northwestern’s IMPACT program, and definitely had an agenda when he made his anouncement of chromosones 7, 8, and 10? Oh yeah, he was a Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and has a degree in Psychology - and did not have the skills needed to conduct genetic research. He is still one of the main sources for ProCon.org, which is the group that promotes "born gay".
When you dig in and see what the sources are, you see there is no basis in fact for their statements.
If you are going to claim something, you'd better come with some facts, or I will tear apart your statements, as I just did. You have shown that you make unfounded statements all the time on multiple subjects. You're ready to run for Congress as a Democrat!
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Point debunked. You pointed out that I spend about an hour a day on here? Good call.
Affects. The word you should have used is affects. Not effects.
Lolol @ yet another self-contradiction. Later, QD.
FOR MORE INFO, CLICK THE PIC!!!
Yes I agree that it can be a choice. But to say there is no way it is genetic is not correct. That has been proven or not, so we don't know. Later, QD.
FOR MORE INFO, CLICK THE PIC!!!
Right. Because theres only one degree of social injustice. It's violent racial oppression, or nothing at all. Please grab a dictionary, open it to the word social, then flip back to the word injustice.
Tear apart my statements? Hardly. You did however, cleverly, try and twist my statement against me. We'll try this again so maybe you can understand it better.3) Show me evidence that there is a "gay gene" in humans. You claim there is evidence, yet you have none to show. You claim that it is genetic, and that you have overwhelming scientific opinion? Where are these scientists? Perhaps you are referring to Brian Mustanski's 2005 announcement? You know, the guy who now is director of Northwestern’s IMPACT program, and definitely had an agenda when he made his anouncement of chromosones 7, 8, and 10? Oh yeah, he was a Assistant Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and has a degree in Psychology - and did not have the skills needed to conduct genetic research. He is still one of the main sources for ProCon.org, which is the group that promotes "born gay".
When you dig in and see what the sources are, you see there is no basis in fact for their statements.
If you are going to claim something, you'd better come with some facts, or I will tear apart your statements, as I just did. You have shown that you make unfounded statements all the time on multiple subjects. You're ready to run for Congress as a Democrat!
You keep bringing up, what christian apologists and christian gay opponents usually bring up, one specific gene that hasnt been found, and that probably will never be found. This isnt what Im referencing at all. I'm talking about separate genetic and hormonal factors which increase ones chances of being born gay. Hamers study, back in 1993, was never disproven, some scientists challenged his findings (this is encouraged in the field of scientific research) because someone one else couldnt replicate his results the same way. Researchers after him have used the same study with different parameters and come up with different results. Here is his abstract -- Linkage between sexual orientation and chromosome Xq28 in males but not in females - Nature Genetics
Yes. we can also cite Mustanskis study, in which he was a co-author, with Michael DuPree, which they theorize (not a guess, but a scientific explanation) a group of genes, in particular, 7q36, 8p12 and 10q26, that contain potential information about sexual orientation. Their research yielded a 60% accuracy rate between their test subjects, which is better than the expected 50% random chance. Are you claiming someone with a doctorate in psychology and a researcher in behavioral genetics is not qualified to co-author a study about behavioral genetics? Lol. Here's their abstract -- A genomewide scan of male sexual orientation. [Hum Genet. 2005] - PubMed - NCBI
Then theres UCLA geneticist Sven Bocklandt (What the hell would this guy know, right?) who was inspired by Hamers findings. He studied the activation and inactivation of the X chromosomes and found that it wasnt so random in mothers with gay children. Here's his abstract -- Extreme skewing of X chromosome inactivation in mothers of homosexual men [eScholarship]
Ivanka Savic, Hans Berglund, and Per Lindstrom, Swedish scientists, found a reaction in the hypothalamus of gay men that was similar to straight women when exposed to a male pheremone. Here's their abstract -- Brain response to putative pheromones in homosexual men
And for good measure, I'll give a nod to a couple more researchers on the topic who concur with these theories: George Rice, George Ebers and Carol Anderson at the University of Western Ontario, Neil Risch at Stanford Medical School in California, and Alan Sanders, a psychiatrist and geneticist at the University of Chicago. All of the abstracts I've presented can be found in their entire publications.
So yes, scientific studies point to genetic and hormonal influences over environmental ones. Nature versus nurture. Do some choose to be gay? Maybe. Is it an across the board choice for every homosexual person? No. The mere fact that its expressed in animals that don't have the capacity for reasoning is proof enough. Other than that, science is overwhelmingly clear on the issue.
Nice try on the unfounded statements thing though! We might need to get you a job at Faux News. Geoff is too easy, at least you gave me a challenge. That was fun. I think we're done here.
^ You ignorant pompous moron. The gay agenda is nowhere near the civil rights movement. Before the rights were given to blacks, they were treated like animals. Use different fountains/toilets, no right to vote, no right to protest, no rights what so ever. The gay community is a bunch of pansies crying to change the definition of marriage and force heterosexuals to accept them. They have every right individually as every one else. They don't want equal benefits, they want attention and to force straights to support them. Simple, read a book man.
Yes David tore your argument apart. FACT, there is no gay gene nor any evidence that sexual orientation is genetically influenced. Sure I believe a gay man was turned on by another mans pheromones, he's gay. He has probably licked the sweat off another guys sack, of course it turns him on. These studies were conducted on mature adults that have practiced homosexuality for quite some time. Sure a study of their brains with show differing results then in straight men. They are gay, they will react differently than straight men. Study children who have no concept of sexual orientation, who are not yet attracted to either sex. Follow them for a few years and see what happens. Don't study a gay man and straight man in adolescence and say "eurieka!!!! These men have different patterns in their brains when it comes to attraction." we'll no kidding they are different. Further more, I can give you names of scientists as well that have conducted studies to show their might be a creator. You expect me to accept yours while you dismiss mine as irrelevant?
Sure animals practice homosexuality, but they react on instinct and impulse. They are not cognitive nor capable of rational thought, they are driven by primal instinct. They get horny and screw anything that moves. Sure compare that to gays, the irrationally and without logic react to a primal urge to mate. That helps your case a lot. Science is not overwhelmingly clear on $hit. It is not the generally accepted opinion of science that gays have no choice in the matter. The general consensus is that there is no proof that genetics dictate whether someone is straight or gay. Why don't straight men have gay DNA? Why is it just inactive? What about transgendered, where is the evidence to show their changing of sex and self mutilation is based on genetics?
Also, I can show you Biblical evidence that God allows gays to be gay, He even allows them to believe they are doing the right thing. That their choice is Gods will. Did you know that was in my Bible?
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
Do you honestly believe that anyone that disagrees with you is a primitive, ancient outdated textbook following, closed minded Christian? I may be wrong and if I am I apologize, but I don't think David is a Christian and I know for sure that Sinfix is not. It must be that only far left, gay supporting, big government, God hating, fag loving, black, Obama supporting , ant gun extreme leftists like you are correct in every statement, every thought, and every belief. Every one else are bigots, close minded, hateful, stupid, blind and irrational people. Is that about right? For one that is enlightened, you sure are a dumb ass.
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
Lolol. That was too easy. More people should be like you. Just back away when they know they've been bested. Later, QD.
Last edited by quickdodge®; 07-29-2012 at 08:35 AM.
FOR MORE INFO, CLICK THE PIC!!!
You can believe being gay is wrong all you want. I don't care. Its when you disagree with facts that makes you look like a moron. Throughout this thread, all you've done is disagree with facts. You can argue against facts all you want, but facts will still be facts. Sorry
1) Again, comparing gays to black in their struggles is not appropriate, and really a poor card to try to play. You really need to drop that one. Its not even close to the same. If you don't understand that by now, then you probably never will.
2) Yes, I agree that science test and retest and compares results. Yes, this is common in the field of genetics. These studies are not conclusive until confirmed, and the fact is that no one has been able to reproduce and confirm anything in regards to a gay gene. You cannot take something as conclusive evidence when others contradict it, and there is no confirmation from separate, unrelated sources. The fact is that many researchers (in multiple fields) start with an agenda funded to find a specific result, and they are quick to reject any results that do not agree with what they are looking to find. Mustanskis specifically was looking to reject data that did not fall in line with his goal, and that is why no one has been able to confirm his work. And no, he was not qualified to be an author on that paper anymore than you or I would be.
3) I have not read the papers of the links that you have posted - yet. I will read them when I have a chance to. This is the best post that you have produced in any thread so far though. At least you have something to finally base some statements on. Please continue to do this in the future on other topics.
Here is a question for you though. If evolution is to be believed, why on earth would a gay gene even come into existence? In other word, since survival of the fittest is the rule of the day in genetics, how would a gene not be weeded out that pushes away from biological reproduction? If you believe in a gay gene, then you are saying that evolution is failing, as it has not led to a reduction inthe numnber of people who will not reproduce. Just something to think about.
On the other hand, if you look at it as a choice only, then it makes perfect sense, and fits the world that we see today. Again, let me state that everyone has the freedom to make their choice as long as it does impact others in a negative way. Pushing an agenda from a minority group over the majority, and changing the majority's definition is not a freedom though.
Now, as to genetic or choice - neither makes any difference in regards to the legality of marriage licensing, or to how society defines marriage, so this tangent has no bearing on the initial situation of this thread.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Correct. I am saying that you cannot assume and teach that it is genetic without proof. If they can prove it, then by all means, teach it. Until then, it is pure choice, as we know people can choose to be gay.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
You are mistaken.
He believes it is wrong, you believe it is normal. Both of you are entitled to the freedom to believe what you wish, and to voice that opinion.
Again, no one is stopping gays from being gay. They are not legally allowed to marry though, as they are not opposite genders, and the legal definition in GA requires.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
I agree, sir. You can't teach what isn't known. And there is no reason to really get into beyond letting people know there are studies on it.
Yeah, David is a Christian. But I can see why he would not be seen as one. And the beliefs each person has is spot on. No one is right or wrong. Normalities I don't care about.
I didn't address the "like black oppression" discussion. blankcd, I can see what you're saying to a point. Gay people are frowned on, looked down on and such. But not nearly to the level that black people were. Gay people have never been subjected to the ridicule and social stresses that black people were. Now I can think of one thing that might have helped this last fact. Gay people can hide their sexuality whereas black folks can't hide their skin color. If gay people couldn't hide their choice, they might have had a rougher time than they do now. Lots of Hollywood and sports celebrities were gay, but they never let it out because they felt (with good reason) that they would have been pushed right out. But gays are not nearly as "unequal" as blacks were. Later, QD.
FOR MORE INFO, CLICK THE PIC!!!
And that's fine. I totally agree. I've never said once gay people have been subject to violent oppression, and I doubt they will be. But there are varying degrees of social injustice. To say that gays are not experiencing some degree of injustice is simply irresponsible.
They are, but they aren't. It's quite a small degree, I'd say. There's not much they can't do. The only main issues is getting legally married and ridicule. The getting married part is slowly disappearing. And the ridicule? Who doesn't get ridiculed? Who doesn't get made fun of? Who isn't the butt of jokes? Later, QD.
FOR MORE INFO, CLICK THE PIC!!!
David: I apologize for assuming you might not be Christian. My point was to say that this is not just an issue between the Church and gay community. I have seen comments made by people of other faiths and those with no faith. One just needs to look at any article about the "gay agenda" to see this.
QD and david nailed the point I have been trying to make all along. There is no fact or conclusive evidence that one is born gay. So why does the gay community "preach" that it is fact and that they have no more choice over their sexual orientation that their skin color? QD said it best, " you can't teach something that isn't known".
Sure gays get ridiculed and mocked. So do those with faith or overweight people. But the gay community can not compare their "struggle" to the civil rights movement. They are on different levels and and degrees. No one is taking any civil rights from them. Marriage is not a civil right Guaranteed in the constitution. Therefore, every gay individual is given every single right that a heterosexual individual gets. They are 100% equal in terms of legality. I would like to point out what happened in California. The issue was put to vote and the people voted to ban gay marriage. This judge Vaughn Walker comes in and overturns it. Is it not the duty of the courts to judge on legality rather than personal morals or political views? How can he take away the voice of those who voted on it. That would be like tossing out the elections this year and keeping Obama in office simply because some might vote against him because he is black. Since when does the vote, voice and opinion of the American people get disregarded like it is meaningless? You can not push the agenda of a minority on the majority. Put it on ballet in every state and let the people speak. If it passes it passes, if it doesn't it doesn't. Then the true opinion of this nation will be known. Like what happened in NC, the people spoke and now the gays are having a hissy fit. Get over it. This is not a civil rights issue, as no civil rights under the law of the land are being taken. This is a personal choice issue. What's next, protesting and suing religious institutions for not placing gays in the roles of leadership?
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
no wonder chick fila tastes soo good...they have the right ideas!
If you believe it is simply a choice, do you know when you chose to be straight? What were your influences in making that decision?
I cannot think of when I made that decision, I just know I am attracted to women. I am absolutely positive it was the same for you.
Yes, I know exactly when - when I hit puberty. :-p
The society that I grew up in (here in the south) teaches that male-female relationships are normal. It is something that has been taught, and you choose to follow your teachings.
If I had been born in some "fantasy" land where people are taught to have relationships with their own gender, then I probably would have been influenced to think that was correct, and would have been inclinded to follow that path - and probably would have incorrectly said that I was born that way also. The truth is that a society like that would have only made it one generation though, as reproduction would have been impossible - and yes, I said impossible intentionally. You cannot find a case where one male human impregnated another male human, and that had a successful birth to propetuate the species. That makes it pretty clear that it is not "normal".
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
Yep....
I've based everything Ive ever said on that same information. I don't like doing christian apologetics research work for them because thats what keeps them in the intellectual hole they're in in the first place. Read more, and stay away from anti-science-christian-blogs for scientific answers.3) I have not read the papers of the links that you have posted - yet. I will read them when I have a chance to. This is the best post that you have produced in any thread so far though. At least you have something to finally base some statements on. Please continue to do this in the future on other topics.
Here is a question for you though. If evolution is to be believed, why on earth would a gay gene even come into existence? In other word, since survival of the fittest is the rule of the day in genetics, how would a gene not be weeded out that pushes away from biological reproduction? If you believe in a gay gene, then you are saying that evolution is failing, as it has not led to a reduction in the numnber of people who will not reproduce. Just something to think about.
I agree with you that homosexuality is not normal and is a deviation from biological tendencies. I completely disagree that it is a choice. It is a defect in their natural programming. If it was a choice those 'sexual rehab' courses created by the church would have worked. If it was a case of nurture you would never see a gay black or a gay from a religious family.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
^ I disagree. I was watching a documentary on the study of sex and attraction. They described how pheromones come into play, how facial symmetry influences attraction, the significance of big breasts, ect...Basically it was saying how humans are programmed to find certain things attractive, in it's most primal state; a basic blue print for individuals to find a "perfect" mate to reproduce wIth. That really throws a wrench in the whole gays not having a choice theory. it seems that we are all wired by nature to find a mate of the opposite sex to reproduce the healthiest offspring possible. But something peculiar happens. Women who are considered very beautiful and desirable are choosing men who are the opposite. Like when you see that bomb shell blonde with the tall goofy awkward looking guy and you wonder how a guy like that managed to pull a girl like her. Surely she could have any man she wants, so why him? CHOICE! Maybe she was hurt and this guy is the "safe" choice. Maybe she is with him because he treats her good and makes her laugh...who knows. The fact is that she CHOSE that man and not the "best" candidate to reproduce with. It seems that we in our most primitive state of mind choose sexual partners based on what will be genetically probable for genes being passed on. Watch the video, it's pretty informative. It's called, The Science of Sex Appeal.
Many factors come into play when it comes to sexual attraction. But it all comes down to personal choice. If there ever was a gay gene, it would have been bred out through evolution. I also have a Biblical view, but that doesn't interest you guys, so here is the science approach.
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
So like I just said. Homosexuality is not normal, but a deviation. That doesnt make it a choice, it makes it abnormal.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
I don't read Christian blogs. I read scientific research papers. I also actually research the background of the researchers, and of the studies that researchers base their studies on. You should try it some time.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
You base your disagreement only on your own opinion, which does not have any basis in current facts. We do know for a fact that someone can choose to be gay. We do know that education and training at a formulative age can produce any results that we desire. We do not have any proof of any gay gene, and definitely not that it is a "defective" gene. In fact, I think most gays would probably take that offensively to say that it is a "defect in their natural programming".
Let's look at human behavior for a minute. A lot of kids are taught that they should be conservative by their parents when they are young, and if you ask them questions, they will repeat the answers that their parents have taught. Once they get older, they see a lot of TV, and the media starts to influence them. Additionally, they start to get to get to make their own choices and engage in risker activities, and tend to have more liberal tendencies. The media's influence usually showswhen they are in their 20s-30s. Once they get older, many tend to drift back towards what their parents originally taught, and are more conservative, and more traditional.
Look atfter any major media event, such as a serial killer, we see copycats, even though they know it is wrong. This is pure choice. People see repetitive media, and they begin to copy it.
Now, as to the media, do you see more new promoting the gay agenda, or against it? Watch the news, and it promotes it. Watch TV shows, and they promote it. It is rare that they give the majority of Americans a voice on anything.
The only way to put this to bed is to put it to a vote, let the public determine if the definition of marriage should be modified to include same sex relationships. Georgia has already had a voted related to gay marriage - back in 2004, in the GA Marriage Amendment. Georgia Marriage Amendment, Question 1 (2004) - Ballotpedia
GA voted overwhelmingly change the state constitution to say that marriage is only between a man and a woman. 76% voted for it, and make no mistake, this sealed the chance of gay marriage being approved anytime soon.
"Racing is life. Anything before or after is just waiting." - Steve McQueen
This is solid scientific research right here ladies and gentlemen.
You've been doing this throughout the thread.
If we put to vote that evolution was a myth, 76% of Georgia would vote yes. That doesnt mean that evolution is a myth, that means that 76% of Georgia voters are stupid.
Sure someone can choose to be gay. They can just make the decision that they feel more comfortable with people of the same sex. That is not the truth for the vast majority of gays though. Most simply do not feel an attraction to the opposite sex.
You bring up social programming that that was exactly why I brought up blacks and the church. These are 2 of the most anti gay demographics in the US. If it was simple programming, you wouldnt find any gays in those demographics. Obviously that isnt the case.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
