so I had chick-fil-a this morning

[ItODDospeed]

Interestingly, they have not had any of our state congressmen submit a resolution calling for marriage to be re-defined. They have not tried to change the law in the correct legal way at all - instead, they have mounted a media blitz and have attempted to find a way to force the federal government to override the states' rights and go outside the correct legal process that everyone else has to follow.
Don't you think that if the majority of Georgian's wanted marriage to be redefined for same-sex marriages that it would be passed? The fact is that Georgians supported the Defense of Marriage Act in 2004 overwhelmingly.

This is the exact short-sighted comment I was speaking of. If some states still had slavery, and some didn't; what kind of mess between the states would exist. GA wanted slavery, and for the topic's sake let's say it still exists. Yet, in Ohio it isn't, does the slave now have new rights in Ohio, or is he still property of the slave owner in GA? It would be too muddled if it wasn't a United State's issue as a whole - as it became, and started the only war of with our own states. It's about human rights in a free society - our society to be exact. Gay marriage has to be approved in all states, so that the same rights are in each state. Otherwise, IMO, it goes back to the Civil War, and the foundation of what caused it - equality.

[ItODDospeed]

As I stated, the marriage license laws are defined at a state level. Georgia has overwhelmingly voted to clarify the definition of marriage as man-woman in 2004. There are no resolutions being promoted in the state legislature to change that. Instead, the gay community wishes to have DC override the states area of management of marriage laws and redefine it from a federal level. This is not how the structure of government was setup, nor has ever been managed like this. it is against everything the founding fathers setup.

Yeah, some of the founding father's owned slaves. How did that work out for us as a country? It's a federal matter, not a state matter, or we'd still have slavery. You really don't understand history that well.

[ItODDospeed]

Do you realize that the color of one's skin is not the same as the actions of an individual?
Do you realize that gay people are allowed to marry? They can legally marry anyone from the opposite sex that they choose. They have the same rights as anyone else.

Read the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, the Amendments, and case law, then come back.

Yes.

No, they aren't allowed to marry whom they choose, so they aren't allowed the same rights as everyone else.

You need to read the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, the Amendments, and case law, and then come back with an intelligent response that doesn't have religion biased orientations. This issue that we're talking about is what separated us a Union, and marriage for gays is doing nothing less.

[Elbow]

Multi-quote is your friend.

[ItODDospeed]

This is not an equal right. I, as a straight man, want the right to marry the person I'm in love with, regardless of their gender.

Anything less is being judgmental on religious BELIEFS, and is the degradation of a free society.

[ItODDospeed]

Seriously, are you trying to say that a person has no choice on what he does/does not do? If you really believe that, then there is no help available for you. I choose my actions, and I am responsible for them. You appear to have no concept of personal responsibility. Make a choice, be responsible, and live with the consequences. The consequence for being gay is that you cannot legally marry your homosexual partner. That's a fact. It's also fact that gays can marry just like anyone else - to the opposite sex. It's also fact that they have the same rights to petition to have the law changed through the same process that everyone else has to go through (something you fail repeatedly to address, as you know it is true).
This is not oppression like slavery or racial discrimination, and is it unfair to our ancestors and heritage to treat it as being on the same level. Being black is not an action, and there is nothing that any of them could do about it.

Read through court rulings from the formation of the country up through now, and find where the federal judical branch overruled laws concerning state laws on gay marriage.
I'll give you a start:
Defining Marriage: Defense of Marriage Acts and Same-Sex Marriage Laws
Federal Appeals Court Invalidates California Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

Note that 6 states have gay marriage - these states went through the legislative process. This is what I have stated multiple times that the gay community needs to do to have legal gay marriage. What part of that do you not understand?

You sound like the biggest closet homosexual with those comments, and you stifle them by claiming your faith. Not allowing gay marriage is discrimination, and you obviously need to understand what that means.

The courts still ask you to swear on the bible to tell the truth...yeah, that's gonna make someone say the truth. Whatajoke. The separation of church and state is not what it should be, or gay marriage would exist, swearing on the bible would cease to exist, our license plates would say "In God I trust," and the ten commandments wouldn't be outside or in court-houses. Even on a federal level, paper money still says a belief as well - "In God We Trust." Our country needs a real separation of State and Federal government from beliefs.

[ItODDospeed]

Multi-quote is your friend.

I know Simon, but it's hard to address properly without taking each post seperately. This is a subject that should be addressed properly, and that's why I'm doing it one at a time.

[ItODDospeed]

Thats just social conditioning, Cant really fault him for that. Anytime you mention "civil rights" in the context of the early 20th century, people automatically think you're talking about black Americans and violent racial oppression. Like there wasnt anything else that was going on during that time. LOL

For real...

[ItODDospeed]

You know what I find extremely funny and ironic? You talk about separate but equal, racist views, and interracial relationships; but here it is 2012 and if a "white boy" like me dates a "sista" I face prejudice and decriminalizing from blacks. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten evil looks from blacks for "taking all the good sistas". Or the snide remarks I would get from her family because I didn't "understand the black struggle". Not to mention how her father would constantly tell her how she would be better off dating a decent and strong black man. Get real man, racism is alive no matter the color. Get over it already. P.s. separation of races is not biblical, some white supremesist churches came up with the bible banning mixing of races based on color. What the bible banned was mixing of races based on faith. For Jews not to marry those who were pagans or worshiped false idols. "Christians" have often used supposed biblical meanings and man made regulations to force a belief on their own people. This kind of practice is not limited to religion only, see my story above.

As far as the gay issue goes. What about bisexuals? You can't tell me there is no choice involved when it comes to attraction. Why don't I like fat chicks or super skinny ones? Why do I like brunnettes more than blondes or red heads? Why do I not really care for breast size or how come Indian women do absolutely nothing for me? Get real man, attraction is a choice just like "love" is. Have you never had a "friends with benefits" relationship? Have you never been with a woman you felt nothing for yet stayed with cuz the sex was great? Is it not your choice that you are with the woman you are currently with instead of someone else? Or we're you "genetically" programmed to be attracted to only one type of woman or that one woman in particular?

Here is a simple fact for you. Marriage is not a right guaranteed by the constitution. How then can ones civil rights be violated if that said "right" is not guaranteed nor listed as a "civil right" any where?

Racism is always odd to me, and I'm a Southerner, but when Blacks are racist, it always seems so weird. I've heard some call that reverse racism, but truly it's simply racism.

First of all Jews only marry Jews, because it's part of Judaism. If two Jewish people of the same sex wanted to be married under Judaism, I'm sure they would be allowed, if it was allowed under law.

Marriage has lots of rights that aren't afforded to those that aren't. Tax breaks, federal loans, and etc. - I'm not sure you have a grasp on what your talking about, besides your own beliefs. If two people want to be married they should be allowed, no one should have the right to they can't. It's considered a civil right, because it's a choice for an individual, that affords them the same benefits as those who have the right. The choice of what your attracted to is a choice, but sexual orientation has been proven on a genetic level.

[ItODDospeed]

How is it not an equal right? Anyone is allowed to marry an opposite gender spouse, in any state in the USA.

You are such a simpleton if you believe what you just said.

[ItODDospeed]

Do we need to be equally as proactive in the black community about racism towards white people? Do we need to stop putting a mic in front of Jessie Jackson and the NAACP? do we need to start viewing the black panthers the same as the KKK? do we need to view redneck, honkey, and cracker the same as we do the word nigger?

If so, sign me up. I'm on your side. Lets get rid of all racism.

This is a great statement, I'd sign up immediately, and practice it everyday as well. I also do all that without the belief in a God. I do it because it's the right thing to do, I don't need a human doctrine to tell me so...

[ItODDospeed]

FTR, I had CFA for breakfast, and it was good.

There is so much ideology going on here. Some people are born gay, and some chose. Some people like this or that, and that's another set of choices. However, therein lies the point, we live in a free society, one where we get to choose. Even more so, a Democratic society where we get to vote. Yet, all those choices are lost when we define what's right for one because of our own ideology. If you wanna be whatever you want to be sexually, socially, intellectually, politically, or etc. it's your choice, and if we live in a free society no one should be able to tell you otherwise.

[quickdodge®]

Instead of sarcastic remarks, I'd love to know your views on this subject or better yet, for you to answer the simple question I asked...

Here's the thing, dude. No one is arguing that being gay can be a choice. You're still trying to push a debate that is currently only yours to debate because everyone is agreement with that issue. As far as attractions go, I believe that to be a choice that a person has. You can choose to like blondes over brunettes. You can choose to like heavier set women over thinner ones. I think that's your choice to make. But, if you prefer blondes over brunettes and you decide to go out with a brunette one time and you like it, you may end up swaying yourself into making more long term your commitment to that person who you initially didn't have an attraction to. I honestly don't see how this is relative to being born genetically gay. And it sure doesn't disprove the "gay gene."

I've given you my views on homosexuals. If you don't like them, fine. No big deal. Who cares what they do? If you do, why? Who cares if they can get married? Doesn't hurt anyone, so why not. If your life is to a point where you have this much time to focus on an issue that has nothing to do with you, then kudos. I have work, a house, a wife, children and others to fulfill my time and life.

I know Simon, but it's hard to address properly without taking each post seperately. This is a subject that should be addressed properly, and that's why I'm doing it one at a time.

Multi-quoting will still keep your addresses separate, dude. It really pushed things back when you address every post in a different. If you would, please use multi-post. Thanks! Later, QD.

[ItODDospeed]

Multi-quoting will still keep your addresses separate, dude. It really pushed things back when you address every post in a different. If you would, please use multi-post. Thanks! Later, QD.

I fully understand that it would have kept my replies to posts separate, and from each member. I felt I'd get lost with all the posts with my replies, and I still did on one or two chronologically. I wanted to address properly, therefore, I took my singular approach.

Any other time, and from here out on this thread, I will. Later, T.

[Sinfix_15]

I never want to see the day that being gay is normal enough that kids are sitting in sex ed class being told that it's normal for two guys to fuck each other in the ass. I personally do not care what they do and wouldnt say i'm disgusted by them *YET*, because at this current time, i can avoid seeing or hearing about it. If i was gay, i would want to be discrete about it. I really dont understand the "make the world accept me" campaign theyre on.

A lot of you are supporting gays because its the trendy hipster thing to do. You're all attacking Geoff because he's christian and doing it in a way that you're trying to frustrate him and make him step beyond the "boundaries" of his faith. Do you really feel that passionately about your argument?

Would any of you sit down with your son or nephew and tell him that if he has feelings for one of his friends that it's ok to explore them sexually? Some people are gay and we have to accept them, but is this really a part of society that we want to encourage?

[quickdodge®]

I never want to see the day that being gay is normal enough that kids are sitting in sex ed class being told that it's normal for two guys to fuck each other in the ass. I personally do not care what they do and wouldnt say i'm disgusted by them *YET*, because at this current time, i can avoid seeing or hearing about it. If i was gay, i would want to be discrete about it. I really dont understand the "make the world accept me" campaign theyre on.

The reason why this part is off is because for one, homosexual sex will not be taught in schools because it isn't conducive to reproduction. Sex ed isn't taught in school for the sex of it. It's taught in school as part of the reproduction process. Secondly, if you "do not care what they do," then why worry about their "'make the world accept me'" campaign? They just want to be able to get married. Nothing wrong with that.

A lot of you are supporting gays because its the trendy hipster thing to do. You're all attacking Geoff because he's christian and doing it in a way that you're trying to frustrate him and make him step beyond the "boundaries" of his faith. Do you really feel that passionately about your argument?

Would any of you sit down with your son or nephew and tell him that if he has feelings for one of his friends that it's ok to explore them sexually? Some people are gay and we have to accept them, but is this really a part of society that we want to encourage?

I'm neither a "trendy hipster" nor trying to attack Geoff because he's "Christian." I've never had any dislike towards people of a gay nature. I don't get in all their businesses because I don't care enough to. But when it's brought up, I voice my opinion. And OPINION is what it is. Where my (what you call attack) responses back to Geoff are letting him know that what he tries to come off as fact is really his opinion. I didn't attack his religion.

As far as encouraging society goes, I may not encourage it, but I wouldn't discourage it either. I wouldn't shame them. It's not like they're aliens. They're still human beings with emotions and feelings. Later, QD.

[Sinfix_15]

The reason why this part is off is because for one, homosexual sex will not be taught in schools because it isn't conducive to reproduction. Sex ed isn't taught in school for the sex of it. It's taught in school as part of the reproduction process. Secondly, if you "do not care what they do," then why worry about their "'make the world accept me'" campaign? They just want to be able to get married. Nothing wrong with that.



I'm neither a "trendy hipster" nor trying to attack Geoff because he's "Christian." I've never had any dislike towards people of a gay nature. I don't get in all their businesses because I don't care enough to. But when it's brought up, I voice my opinion. And OPINION is what it is. Where my (what you call attack) responses back to Geoff are letting him know that what he tries to come off as fact is really his opinion. I didn't attack his religion.

As far as encouraging society goes, I may not encourage it, but I wouldn't discourage it either. I wouldn't shame them. It's not like they're aliens. They're still human beings with emotions and feelings. Later, QD.

Sex ed teaches a lot of things beyond reproductive purposes. I remember sex ed being mostly about the diseases you can get from having sex and that you could still get them from oral sex, kissing ect. If i had to sum it up, id say the class should have been named "only way to avoid disease is to not touch a woman in any way". I'm pretty sure they'd talk about gay sex if it became more prevalent.


>>>> i feel our view is the same on this, but we're leaning in slightly different directions. I dont want to encourage it or discourage it, but feel the need to discourage people from encouraging it.

[quickdodge®]

[QUOTE=Sinfix_15;39438642]Sex ed teaches a lot of things beyond reproductive purposes. I remember sex ed being mostly about the diseases you can get from having sex and that you could still get them from oral sex, kissing ect. If i had to sum it up, id say the class should have been named "only way to avoid disease is to not touch a woman in any way". I'm pretty sure they'd talk about gay sex if it became more prevalent.

You're right in the teachings of diseases as well. I did exclude that as I wasn't thinking in that spot, but you're right.

>>>> i feel our view is the same on this, but we're leaning in slightly different directions. I dont want to encourage it or discourage it, but feel the need to discourage people from encouraging it.

I feel our views on this are similar as well. Later, QD.

[nelson9995]

I never want to see the day that being gay is normal enough that kids are sitting in sex ed class being told that it's normal for two guys to fuck each other in the ass. I personally do not care what they do and wouldnt say i'm disgusted by them *YET*, because at this current time, i can avoid seeing or hearing about it. If i was gay, i would want to be discrete about it. I really dont understand the "make the world accept me" campaign theyre on.

A lot of you are supporting gays because its the trendy hipster thing to do. You're all attacking Geoff because he's christian and doing it in a way that you're trying to frustrate him and make him step beyond the "boundaries" of his faith. Do you really feel that passionately about your argument?

Would any of you sit down with your son or nephew and tell him that if he has feelings for one of his friends that it's ok to explore them sexually? Some people are gay and we have to accept them, but is this really a part of society that we want to encourage?

why do I often find myself agreeing with you 100%?

[geoff]

I'm not gonna spend too many words on this b/c surely you know this happens to everybody, for a variety of reasons, many more than just ethnicity. If a family doesn't like a quality about you, they don't like it whethter it be that you're white, you have freckles or you wear a size 10 shoe. If you're different expect somebody to say something about it, that's the day and age we live in. The real irony is this is the same type of discrimination ur planning on teaching ur kids, b/c someones sexual orientation is different

Ah yes, when it comes to blacks being racist then you make this argument. Double standard? This woman's family discriminated me simply because i was white. So with this statement from you, i can assume that you believe its ok for whites to do the same thing to blacks? I will not teach my children to discriminate. I will teach them what is right and wrong and then teach them my faith. What they do with that is on them, this is a simple fact.....the anus is not intended to be a sexual organ, therefore making gay sex a perversion of natural intent. or do you wish to argue that the anus/rectum is indeed intended to be used for anything other than excretion of waste?

I think you're confused as to the extent to which a person is able to make decision. Yes, you may prefer brunettesto blondes, or whites to indians, but the overall choice is that you are attracted to women. Think of the characteristics of those women that attract you as a sub-category to the fact that you like women and those characteristics are all subject to that initial statement. Now lets say you came across a white brunette male, do you think you could get an erection for him? Doubtful, b/c you don't find him attractive, now you could choose to pop the blue pill and bang it out like baby monkeys, but that doesn't mean that you find him anymore attractive. Choosing to have sex with a person, is not the same as choosing to be attracted to person, one is a choice, one is not. If you think that's not so I want you to choose to be attracted to blank cd tell me how that goes

I'm confused as to the extent to which a person is able to make a decision? I'm sorry, but i was under the impression that we as a species are cognitive and self aware and very capable of making decisions. There is always a choice to be made, we are not dogs or beasts that react on impulse alone. I made this part of your statement bold, i agree with this 100%. Sexual attraction is very much a choice which is heavily influenced by society and many other environmental aspects. For example, many whites don't find blacks attractive because they are taught it is wrong. Overweight people are not seen as "attractive" because society teaches us that skinny is "pretty"...i.e. look at all the young women who read magazines and such and the image they are shown of "beauty".

Pretty sure Jesus say's don't judge...right? What is normal to one doesn't have to be normal to another, and if you think your right, then you're being judgmental. You are not anything thing close to being an intellectual or reasonable if think what you said to be 2 simple truths. Gay sex disgusts you, but your not homophobic...right. You've really put a lot of thought into gay sex. I also must applaud you for using the word retard - very Christian like...

Do not assume that you know anything about my beliefs nor what my Bible teaches me. Passing judgement would be me condemning this lifestyle to hell or saying that these people are evil. I have done neither, but according to my faith, this lifestyle is sin and therefore i am not out of place to say it is "abnormal". Even science agrees with me, normal sex encompasses that which is for reproduction. Yes gay sex disgusts me in the fact that i personally do not find it an act that is "beautiful". To think of two men having sex is a turn off for me, that does not in any way shape or form make me homophobic any more that a gay man viewing hetero sex or the female body as "disgusting". No it is not very "Christ like" of me to insult anyone on here or use "retard". please quote me where i said i was the standard for the Christian "image". I am human and have faults and can only be pushed so far, I made this argument earlier as to this being yet another double standard.

Seriously? I am a scientist, and most (88%) do not believe in God. The scientists that are Atheists (5%) certainly know that the bible is a human doctrine. No Atheist would ever say that a Christian has a higher moral ground. The very reason they question Christianity is, because of the actions of so called Christians.

The ONLY reason the bible even was able to say the world would be like this is, because the two testaments are so far apart, and science was already taking the place of faith. The bible doesn't have a place anymore, because it's an antiquated story of fiction. There isn't a person out here who can say a single word from the bible, God's or Jesus's existence is a fact. It's a belief, but if you need an antiquated story of fiction to bind you to be a better person - please, keep following your FAITH.

So you're a scientist huh? Please show me any study of genetics you have conducted that would qualify you to make any assumptions that are more relevant than my own. Otherwise, you have read the articles, read the studies, and then have taken a stance on which side you believe; just like everyone else in this thread. So the (5%) of scientists that are atheist can speak to the bible being a human doctrine for the other 95% and also the billion people world wide that do believe.....Richard Dawkins must be your "god", and I can show you examples of atheist scientists that disagree with him and his tactics. There are apprx. 400 years in between the old and new testament. If you knew anything of the Bible then you would know why. Jesus and many events/people in the Bible can be historically proven therefore making it fact. For an educated man, you lack the simple ability to research historical accuracy.

So what was the point of this? Some gay men have sex with women every now and then.

There was a study that showed women to be "turned on" by all types of sex, straight, gay, even between primates. Therefore, showing that they indeed were not "programmed" or born to be simply attracted to women or gay sex.

What is with you and sex? I'm starting to think you may be questioning your manhood and may have strange feelings towards men and that scares you. I also can't grasp why people think gay people choose to be gay purely for sexual pleasure. Any gay guys I know are far more into each other than just in bed.

I somewhat agree if you're "bi" you're probably just bi because you have some freaky sexual desires, it's sort of hard to be in between I would imagine, but I'm not a scientist.

Ah yes, because I disagree with the gay agenda and have an opinion against it, that automatically makes me a bigot or a closet homosexual myself. I forgot that these are the only two options. Do people not have sex for pleasure? If that were not the case then only sex for reproduction would take place and there would be no gay people. Its funny, but no one here has even touched the topic of transexuals. Care to explain if thats a choice or genetic programming?

Yes.

No, they aren't allowed to marry whom they choose, so they aren't allowed the same rights as everyone else.

You need to read the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution, the Amendments, and case law, and then come back with an intelligent response that doesn't have religion biased orientations. This issue that we're talking about is what separated us a Union, and marriage for gays is doing nothing less.

Show me one example of marriage being a civil right. The fact remains that gays are given every single right that a straight individual is guaranteed in the bill of rights, ect....If marriage is to be a civil right then it should be illegal to get divorced. There have been countless studies done that show divorce harms all those involved, especially children. I believe that gay couples who perform a civil union are to be given the same rights as a married couple, but to not change tradition or the definition of marriage. I'm highly suspicious though that even this would not be enough to satisfy them.

[QUOTEYou sound like the biggest closet homosexual with those comments, and you stifle them by claiming your faith. Not allowing gay marriage is discrimination, and you obviously need to understand what that means.

The courts still ask you to swear on the bible to tell the truth...yeah, that's gonna make someone say the truth. Whatajoke. The separation of church and state is not what it should be, or gay marriage would exist, swearing on the bible would cease to exist, our license plates would say "In God I trust," and the ten commandments wouldn't be outside or in court-houses. Even on a federal level, paper money still says a belief as well - "In God We Trust." Our country needs a real separation of State and Federal government from beliefs.][/QUOTE]
It is not discrimination. It is the will of the majority over the will of the minority. It has been put up to a vote before and the people spoke. That is what a democracy is no? Or should things of this magnitude of importance not be left up to the people to decide but rather the government? How about no presidential elections, the government can chose whom they believe would be the best candidate for our country? Also, your liberal kind argue that nothing should be illegal as long as it does not harm anyone or take away their rights. Therefore, who is being harmed and what rights are being taken away by having "in God we Trust" on our money, the 10 commandments outside court houses, or anything religious listed in the constitution ect....? Separation of Church and State was included so that no single religion would be endorsed by the government and then forced on others like it was in England; therefore taking away ones right to follow any religion or lack there of they wish. Talk about taking something out of context.

First of all Jews only marry Jews, because it's part of Judaism. If two Jewish people of the same sex wanted to be married under Judaism, I'm sure they would be allowed, if it was allowed under law.

You realize there is a difference between the Jewish people and the people of Judea right? Jew is a term used for those that practice a faith. The Jewish Law is reliant upon and dictated by their faith passed down from father Abraham and Moses.

Marriage has lots of rights that aren't afforded to those that aren't. Tax breaks, federal loans, and etc. - I'm not sure you have a grasp on what your talking about, besides your own beliefs. If two people want to be married they should be allowed, no one should have the right to they can't. It's considered a civil right, because it's a choice for an individual, that affords them the same benefits as those who have the right. The choice of what your attracted to is a choice, but sexual orientation has been proven on a genetic level.

Would you then legalize incestuous relationships or those between a 50 year old man and 14 year old girl? What if sexual orientation was proven to be strictly genetic and doctors could determine that a child will be gay even before they are born; would you then make it illegal to terminate that pregnancy simply because the parents don't want a gay child? I say all this to make the point of " where does one draw the line on morality and values"?

FTR, I had CFA for breakfast, and it was good.

There is so much ideology going on here. Some people are born gay, and some chose. Some people like this or that, and that's another set of choices. However, therein lies the point, we live in a free society, one where we get to choose. Even more so, a Democratic society where we get to vote. Yet, all those choices are lost when we define what's right for one because of our own ideology. If you wanna be whatever you want to be sexually, socially, intellectually, politically, or etc. it's your choice, and if we live in a free society no one should be able to tell you otherwise.

You just supported a company that donates profits to organizations that believe contrary to your own beliefs. They donate to "Christian" organizations that believe in traditional marriage. Does that then make you a hypocrit? or is this a ridiculous argument to make? Addressing the bold part; see my above comment.

Here's the thing, dude. No one is arguing that being gay can be a choice. You're still trying to push a debate that is currently only yours to debate because everyone is agreement with that issue. As far as attractions go, I believe that to be a choice that a person has. You can choose to like blondes over brunettes. You can choose to like heavier set women over thinner ones. I think that's your choice to make. But, if you prefer blondes over brunettes and you decide to go out with a brunette one time and you like it, you may end up swaying yourself into making more long term your commitment to that person who you initially didn't have an attraction to. I honestly don't see how this is relative to being born genetically gay. And it sure doesn't disprove the "gay gene."

How can one separate sexual orientation from sexual attraction? Sexual attraction in fact describes sexual orientation. True it does not disprove the "gay gene". Rather, it provides evidence that suggests sexual orientation is a choice. There also is no "proof" or a "gay gene/genes" but again, rather evidences to suggest their existence. The whole purpose of this debate was to say that one can not claim that sexual orientation is genetic any more than one can claim it is pure choice. Yet, the gay community would have you believe it is nor more a decision than choosing what color skin you are born with. How then can one support the notion of a "gay gene" and simply dismiss all the arguments and research that says the opposite? How does one take one researchers word as true and dismiss another's as false? What qualifies one over the other? Is it perhaps because one supports a minorities views and jumps on the "gay is good" band wagon; while the other dismisses this argument? Do you understand now the argument I am making? What if it is proven by FACTS that sexual orientation is pure CHOICE? How would that effect this "progressive" gay movement?

[quickdodge®]

How can one separate sexual orientation from sexual attraction? Sexual attraction in fact describes sexual orientation.

I was thinking something else. You discover yourself (by either choice OR genetics) when you discover who you are attracted to. How about this for an argument for the genetics side of the coin? A guy grows up with a Mom and a Dad in a traditional home. He's not subjected to any of lifestyle but the one he grows up in and even dates females through high school. Then all of a sudden he turns up at home telling his family he is gay. He has always felt that way but didn't understand it. Even while going out with girls, he felt uncomfortable or out of place. This, to me, seems like it could be a choice he made due to a genetic cause. He tried to fight it and it won. Not saying this is any proof, but yet another theory that could point towards a DNA link.

True it does not disprove the "gay gene". Rather, it provides evidence that suggests sexual orientation is a choice.

My example above shows that it does not provide any evidence towards choice.

The whole purpose of this debate was to say that one can not claim that sexual orientation is genetic any more than one can claim it is pure choice.

Exactly! We agree.

How then can one support the notion of a "gay gene" and simply dismiss all the arguments and research that says the opposite? How does one take one researchers word as true and dismiss another's as false? What qualifies one over the other?

Again, I agree with you. You've got researches that support both sides. How is one supposed to know which side is right? You know?

Do you understand now the argument I am making?

Honestly? No, lolol.

What if it is proven by FACTS that sexual orientation is pure CHOICE? How would that effect this "progressive" gay movement?

For me, it would produce nothing different. I still wouldn't care. If gay people want to be gay, then that's fine. If they want to get married, let them. Doesn't ruin my life. Later, QD.

[.blank cd]

I believe that gay couples who perform a civil union are to be given the same rights as a married couple, but to not change tradition or the definition of marriage.

You mean the "Christian" tradition of marriage, which no one is trying to change, right?

[nelson9995]

IMO if you feel, see things, and news channels and scientists are predicting exactly what the bible predicts then it is indeed fact. Do you guys not see how many things the bible states that are being stated by news channels, scientists, etc... therefore those things are facts!

[quickdodge®]

IMO if you feel, see things, and news channels and scientists are predicting exactly what the bible predicts then it is indeed fact. Do you guys not see how many things the bible states that are being stated by news channels, scientists, etc... therefore those things are facts!

How contradictory. Later, QD.

[nelson9995]

How contradictory. Later, QD.

you always try to find a way to make people look dumb w.o EVER having anything to say.
i.e: above

[quickdodge®]

you always try to find a way to make people look dumb w.o EVER having anything to say.
i.e: above

Good, aren't I. Later, QD.

[nelson9995]

Good, aren't I. Later, QD.

Not really. More like weak.

[quickdodge®]

Not really. More like weak.

You said I made you feel stupid without saying anything.

Not that that was my intention. I'm assuming you didn't understand what my initial reply to you really meant. Later, QD.

[Matt300ZXT]

I can't believe you guys are still arguing about this. If there were any self respecting mods on this forum, they would have closed this long ago.

[geoff]

QD: we seem to agree on what the real issue is, yet we find ourselves taking a stance on opposing views of the evidences provided. I can give you details on how this effects me personally, but these reasons are my own and not shared by the entire population opposed to gay marriage. So will these reasons suffice as "good enough" to you? Probably not, therefore there is no reason to list them. We can agree to disagree on this and shake hands as "friends".

I will address something you asked me before, which also happens to be relative to the debate. You asked when did I decide to be attracted to women instead of men. I can not give you a detailed moment as to when the choice was made, but I gave rather an example of when I first realized my attraction to women. So, I leave you with this to ponder...what if sexual orientation is neither genetic nor realized choice I.e. we remember precisely when we made the choice. What if sexual orientation is a subconscious choice we make? Is it possible that this is the case? The subconscious mind is very powerful and at the same time very mysterious. I have looked into it a bit recently and found the research very interesting. I might add that I believe sexual attraction/preference to be a subconscious decision as well. Check out the study, " Science of Sex Appeal". It is very interesting to see how at first glance it would seem attraction is purely an "evolutionary" program of which we have no control over; yet when studied in depth, the brain is very much involved and at work in our "idea" of what's is "sexy" and what is not and how society as a whole influences it.

Also, I have yet to provide my faith based belief on this topic. One which may surprise everyone here if they would care to know.

[nelson9995]

You said I made you feel stupid without saying anything.

Not that that was my intention. I'm assuming you didn't understand what my initial reply to you really meant. Later, QD.

you didn't, you tried! lol

[.blank cd]

IMO if you feel, see things, and news channels and scientists are predicting exactly what the bible predicts then it is indeed fact. Do you guys not see how many things the bible states that are being stated by news channels, scientists, etc... therefore those things are facts!

There is no scientific fact in the bible because the bible and modern science are about 1600yrs apart. It's easy to get relatively close when the bible tries to make incredibly broad and vague predictions.

[quickdodge®]

QD: we seem to agree on what the real issue is, yet we find ourselves taking a stance on opposing views of the evidences provided. I can give you details on how this effects me personally, but these reasons are my own and not shared by the entire population opposed to gay marriage. So will these reasons suffice as "good enough" to you? Probably not, therefore there is no reason to list them. We can agree to disagree on this and shake hands as "friends".

Although I can't even fathom why you would be affected by gays being allowed to marry, I can agree to disagree and now give you a virtual handshake.

I will address something you asked me before, which also happens to be relative to the debate. You asked when did I decide to be attracted to women instead of men. I can not give you a detailed moment as to when the choice was made, but I gave rather an example of when I first realized my attraction to women. So, I leave you with this to ponder...what if sexual orientation is neither genetic nor realized choice I.e. we remember precisely when we made the choice. What if sexual orientation is a subconscious choice we make? Is it possible that this is the case? The subconscious mind is very powerful and at the same time very mysterious. I have looked into it a bit recently and found the research very interesting. I might add that I believe sexual attraction/preference to be a subconscious decision as well. Check out the study, " Science of Sex Appeal". It is very interesting to see how at first glance it would seem attraction is purely an "evolutionary" program of which we have no control over; yet when studied in depth, the brain is very much involved and at work in our "idea" of what's is "sexy" and what is not and how society as a whole influences it.

The subconscious? I don't know about all that for sure. I would assume genetics over the subconscious. My opinions are choice and DNA.

And you've been a good boy by not bringing in your faith talk, lolol. Later, QD.

[quickdodge®]

you didn't, you tried! lol

Lolol. I wasn't really trying. Honest! I was referring to you saying "in my opinion," "this is fact." Lolol. Later, QD.

[geoff]

QD: at this point in time in the study of sexual orientation and sexual attraction, can anything be ruled out? I'm not trying to "get you to see things my way" or "win this debate". Take some time to think about this, is it possible that sexual orientation/attraction is a subconscious decision?

[.blank cd]

QD: at this point in time in the study of sexual orientation and sexual attraction, can anything be ruled out? I'm not trying to "get you to see things my way" or "win this debate". Take some time to think about this, is it possible that sexual orientation/attraction is a subconscious decision?

Layman subconscious tends to be dismissed by modern psychologists because of its lack of testability and falsifiability. However, the science behind subconsciousness is still based off of information the brain collects from its senses, therefore sexuality would still be a choice, albeit one we are unaware we've made, and one we're incapable of making until a certain age.

[geoff]

Layman subconscious tends to be dismissed by modern psychologists because of its lack of testability and falsifiability. However, the science behind subconsciousness is still based off of information the brain collects from its senses, therefore sexuality would still be a choice, albeit one we are unaware we've made, and one we're incapable of making until a certain age.

Again blank you show your excellent ability to search google and then copy and paste from wikipedia. That being said, lack of testability and falsifiability does not make the study of subconscious irrelevant. The part i made bold, this is exactly what I am trying to say and what I believe. Are we actually in agreement on something for once?

[.blank cd]

Again blank you show your excellent ability to search google and then copy and paste from wikipedia. That being said, lack of testability and falsifiability does not make the study of subconscious irrelevant.

:facepalm:

The part i made bold, this is exactly what I am trying to say and what I believe. Are we actually in agreement on something for once?

IF it were a subconscious choice, it would still require the cognitive ability for rational thought (which arguably some humans don't possess, but that's another topic for the religion section), and since this trait has been observed in vertebrates without this ability, it means it's deeper than just a choice.

[geoff]

Animals react to instinct and impulse. How can you compare the intricate brain and cognitive ability of humans to the unrational mind of a beast. The day I take the actions of a beast as comparable to the rationality of the human decision making process is the day I see a dog work out a word problem.

[.blank cd]

Animals react to instinct and impulse. How can you compare the intricate brain and cognitive ability of humans to the unrational mind of a beast. The day I take the actions of a beast as comparable to the rationality of the human decision making process is the day I see a dog work out a word problem.

What are you talking about?

You do know scientifically you're just a "beast" with a little more brain function, right? You do things animals do for themselves every single day