Homosexuality

[hoosier]

BTW, did you go to that Hoosier game Saturday? I was hoping you guys would have won. The quicker we change things the better.

I think you might have gotten your wish if Chappell hadn't gotten himself knocked into next week at the end of the first half. The Badgers were trying as hard as they could to give the game away until that point. If you ever find yourself thinking that UW football just couldn't get any worse, take a trip down to Bloomington to see what true Saturday afternoon misery looks like.

[texaspackerbacker]

What is your opinion of homosexuality?
I practice it, therefore, I'm for it.
I don't practice it, but I see it as just fine--a morally equivalent alternative to heterosexual behavior.
I oppose homosexuality as clearly a wrong behavior, but I would NOT go back to having legal restrictions on the practice of it.
I favor laws restricting practice of homosexuality.

===========================================

First of all Tex, (LOL I like to start out slow LOL) Whether or not someone is homosexual and for Proposition 8 is not the issue with you it seems. It's not in "liu" of any proposotion out in the Left Coast. Rather it seems you're more intent on finding out how aroused you get by outing gay posters on these threads.

"I practice it, therefore, I'm for it" is poorly worded an ill-informed from a conservative pov towards a lifestyle you don't agree with. Why don't you just cut to the chase and label OPTION 1

BROWNIE HOUND

"I practice it, therefore I'm for it"??? What the f**??? Are gay people jugglers in a talent show all of a sudden? They need practice?...Dude, if you weren't such an a$$clown buzzkill I would have cut you slack for the colossal douchedraping you made other posters suffer through during your time at JSOnline.

How do you know those that "practice gay love" are for it? Larry Craig isn't for it. I'm pretty sure Ted Haggard isn't for it...or is he? Congress "R" Mark Foley doesn't practice on little boys? Or does he? No, Florida House of Rep Bob Allen doesn't like to filiate "burly black men" either?

I guess I could chime in with the "it's a lifestyle" mantra, but you seem to think gays "practice" like some 7th Wonder of the World sack-brain who can spin 15 plates on his fingers, toes and Johnson.


"A morally equivalent alternative to heterosexual behavior."

I mean this in all seriousness when I ask you....

Are you retarded?... said the gay person who actually read Crayon "literature" some dumbass Texan stuck in his mailbox when he wasn't home.

You so need to get out more and quit showing your a$$holishness on websites...eventhough it's more than apparent...And frankly I would be surprised if anyone on this board actually responded to your poll.

Because after all, naturally, people against "practicin' homosexuals" want to be REALLY REALLY anonymous and respond to poorly written polls.

Actually...TEX, you complete me.

Well, Mateo, I wish you would have put forth some "improvements" on those "poorly worded" poll questions. I honestly DID try to word things in as unbiased a way as I could.

The fundamental premise, though, is that homosexuality is indeed A CHOICE--an alternative behavior to heterosexual behavior. The born-to-be-a-fag concept is BOGUS--it is purely FALSE propaganda put forth to advance the gay agenda of promoting homosexuality as being just as moral and natural an alternative behavior as heterosexuality.

As for the reason behind my making these polls, I have asked repeatedly--and not gotten an answer: WHY is it always the leftists defending homosexuality--those of us on the good side of everything else are also virtually 100% on the good side of the homosexuality issue too. I'd STILL like to get an answer to that--why in the hell does somebody who favors higher taxes, government as a solution, de-emphasis of defense and security, etc.--all the other leftist shit--necessarily have to defend same sex ass-fucking?

TH87 asked a key question here: is homosexuality merely the attraction to/preference for the same sex? Or is it the practicing of homosexual behavior? I would say, clearly the latter, although I doubt there is any valid science to support even the former as being an inherited trait. Even by THAT definition--mere attraction/preference, homosexuality is a CHOICE, not a genetic trait. Maybe we should have a poll on that question.

[th87]

As for the reason behind my making these polls, I have asked repeatedly--and not gotten an answer: WHY is it always the leftists defending homosexuality--those of us on the good side of everything else are also virtually 100% on the good side of the homosexuality issue too. I'd STILL like to get an answer to that--why in the hell does somebody who favors higher taxes, government as a solution, de-emphasis of defense and security, etc.--all the other leftist shit--necessarily have to defend same sex ass-fucking?

Liberals are generally sympathetic to people of all kinds and believe in letting everyone do whatever floats their boat, as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights.

Conservatives are generally more into preserving society and traditionally established constructs.

In sum, Liberals focus more on making the individual person happy, and Conservatives focus more on making the existing society happy.

[mraynrand]

As for the reason behind my making these polls, I have asked repeatedly--and not gotten an answer: WHY is it always the leftists defending homosexuality--those of us on the good side of everything else are also virtually 100% on the good side of the homosexuality issue too. I'd STILL like to get an answer to that--why in the hell does somebody who favors higher taxes, government as a solution, de-emphasis of defense and security, etc.--all the other leftist shit--necessarily have to defend same sex ass-fucking?

Liberals are generally sympathetic to people of all kinds and believe in letting everyone do whatever floats their boat, as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights.

Conservatives are generally more into preserving society and traditionally established constructs.

In sum, Liberals focus more on making the individual person happy, and Conservatives focus more on making the existing society happy.

More like sinking the boat - or the sub, at least in this example.

[mraynrand]

Liberals are generally sympathetic to people of all kinds and believe in letting everyone do whatever floats their boat, as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights.

Then why do liberals want to change the definition of marriage, when most people - in poll after pol after proposition after proposition - consistently vote to preserve the definition as union of one man and one woman? No one is denied the right to do whatever floats their boat and marriage gets to keep the definition by which it has been known since language began. Changing the definition infringes on my rights to have consistency in language and meaning.

[Harlan Huckleby]

Liberals are generally sympathetic to people of all kinds and believe in letting everyone do whatever floats their boat, as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights.

Then why do liberals want to change the definition of marriage, when most people - in poll after pol after proposition after proposition - consistently vote to preserve the definition as union of one man and one woman? No one is denied the right to do whatever floats their boat and marriage gets to keep the definition by which it has been known since language began. Changing the definition infringes on my rights to have consistency in language and meaning.

For a while, the battle cry was for the protection of the institution of marriage. I never saw how heterosexual marriages were threatened by gays getting married. Have heterosexual marriages in Canada suffered from gay neighbors tying the knot? That argument has run out of steam.

Now we see a new variation: it is necessary to keep gays from marrying to protect consistency in language. The integrity of the English language is the priority. We can't have the meaning of a word change - good lord no!

The arguments against allowing gays to marry are hollow to the core. They are no more substantial than the arguments preventing different races from marrying. Young people want no part of bigotry towards gays. Maybe it will take a little longer for change to come because of immigration, but it will come.

[mraynrand]

Liberals are generally sympathetic to people of all kinds and believe in letting everyone do whatever floats their boat, as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights.

Then why do liberals want to change the definition of marriage, when most people - in poll after pol after proposition after proposition - consistently vote to preserve the definition as union of one man and one woman? No one is denied the right to do whatever floats their boat and marriage gets to keep the definition by which it has been known since language began. Changing the definition infringes on my rights to have consistency in language and meaning.

For a while, the battle cry was for the protection of the institution of marriage. I never saw how heterosexual marriages were threatened by gays getting married. Have heterosexual marriages in Canada suffered from gay neighbors tying the knot? That argument has run out of steam.

Now we see a new variation: it is necessary to keep gays from marrying to protect consistency in language. The integrity of the English language is the priority. We can't have the meaning of a word change - good lord no!

The arguments against allowing gays to marry are hollow to the core. They are no more substantial than the arguments preventing different races from marrying. Young people want no part of bigotry towards gays. Maybe it will take a little longer for change to come because of immigration, but it will come.

Language and meaning Harlan. Have you read 1984? The danger of corrupting meaning - making definitions arbitrary for political and social goals - is spelled out in those pages. I do suspect however that you are right in your prediction for the future. For whatever reason, people want to say A is B because it makes them feel more tolerant and elevated in their quest for the contradictory goals of radical egalitarianism (equality of outcome) and radical individualism.

[Harlan Huckleby]

a "fireman" uses to mean a man. that was the definition.

now "fireman" can mean a man or woman. Meanings of words change as society changes, it's not so fatal. Maybe the definition of "priest" will change some day too.

[MateoInMex]

As for the reason behind my making these polls, I have asked repeatedly--and not gotten an answer: WHY is it always the leftists defending homosexuality--

Tex,

Do you even have to ask?

It's because...jesus christ...it's because historically with the rightie fag slanging...you guys seem to be in the closet. Blues seem to be unfaithful, but reds are unfaithful with the same gender. How the f does that work?

I say this jokingly...I actually appreciated that you responded..but you have such a hatred towards blue people. I'm a registered as an Independent btw.

But I do give you credit for responding.

[Harlan Huckleby]

tex is NOT gay, he just likes to take a wide stance.

[th87]

Liberals are generally sympathetic to people of all kinds and believe in letting everyone do whatever floats their boat, as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights.

Then why do liberals want to change the definition of marriage, when most people - in poll after pol after proposition after proposition - consistently vote to preserve the definition as union of one man and one woman? No one is denied the right to do whatever floats their boat and marriage gets to keep the definition by which it has been known since language began. Changing the definition infringes on my rights to have consistency in language and meaning.

Which is why a lot of liberals empathize with this viewpoint.

For example, I hear ya. There are some people that want to protect the definition of marriage. The word marriage has meaning to them. That's why I think gay people should be allowed to "marry" and get whatever rights and recognition that heterosexual married couples get, but it would be better for everyone if they named it something else. Everyone's happy - the definition of marriage is preserved, and homosexual couples get rights they didn't have previously.

We can let the next generation deal with expanding the definition of marriage, since I doubt anyone would care by then.

[MJZiggy]

I realize most of you hate this guy, but he has some interesting questions germane to this discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY

[packinpatland]

Unfortunately, most here will shoot the messenger and not listen to the message.......

[packinpatland]

Liberals are generally sympathetic to people of all kinds and believe in letting everyone do whatever floats their boat, as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's rights.

Then why do liberals want to change the definition of marriage, when most people - in poll after pol after proposition after proposition - consistently vote to preserve the definition as union of one man and one woman? No one is denied the right to do whatever floats their boat and marriage gets to keep the definition by which it has been known since language began. Changing the definition infringes on my rights to have consistency in language and meaning.

Which is why a lot of liberals empathize with this viewpoint.

For example, I hear ya. There are some people that want to protect the definition of marriage. The word marriage has meaning to them. That's why I think gay people should be allowed to "marry" and get whatever rights and recognition that heterosexual married couples get, but it would be better for everyone if they named it something else. Everyone's happy - the definition of marriage is preserved, and homosexual couples get rights they didn't have previously.

We can let the next generation deal with expanding the definition of marriage, since I doubt anyone would care by then.

I have wondered a great deal whether the way to go is to get the government out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious sacrement...let the government issue only civil union licenses and let the different churches/religions etc. decide whether to marry a couple. It seems so simple to me, but obviously it must not be.

[Harlan Huckleby]

I have wondered a great deal whether the way to go is to get the government out of the marriage business. Marriage is a religious sacrement...let the government issue only civil union licenses and let the different churches/religions etc. decide whether to marry a couple. It seems so simple to me, but obviously it must not be.

This is my idea too. But it will never happen, and the reason is that people like having their own religious standards reflected in the government. So the fight goes on. The acceptance of marriage between gays in a legal sense will happen the same time that acceptance of marriage between gays occurs in a majority of churches.

Civil unions are the easy solution to the conflict, but there is zero chance this will be the resolution path, so its not worth discussing. Too many people on both sides of the issue see civil unions as a surrender. So we will waste a decade or two arguing, until enough older people die.