Gay Marriage, Gay this and Gay that.

[wingFeather]

Your argument holds zero water.

In your mind, perhaps, but not in the minds of millions of Christians and potentially Muslims in this country. Marriage is a union in front of God. If people wish to be gay, then they can get civil unions for all I care. Just not "marriage".

WD- I like your idea. Level the playing field by removing any bonuses that straight couples receive. Hate'm all equally.

I agree. No government benefits should be handed to married couples (nor women who are baby factories).

[audtatious]

Hmmm

Interesting question on "homosexual kids". What age are these homosexual kids of "mine"? Were they the result of societal influences or genetics (gay gene does not exist.....does not mean people are not born with tendencies) or can you even conclude which one today? This all leads to "Is their gayness a fad or infatuation that will pass"?

If you support gay "marriage" do you support bigamy/polygamy? Interestingly, in numerous other threads I have read over the years the gays were all against allowing marriages to multiple partners. Should this be considered hypocritical?

I just haz questions.

[AppleBonker]

If people wish to be gay

Once again demonstrating your lack of understanding of a topic.

[AppleBonker]

If you support gay "marriage" do you support bigamy/polygamy? Interestingly, in numerous other threads I have read over the years the gays were all against allowing marriages to multiple partners. Should this be considered hypocritical?

What? You lost me?

[bigbadberry3]

Animals have been found to be homosexuals which I think says a lot about the possibility of genetics playing role.

[WDRacing]

Gay guys being genetically related to gay monkeys? That's kinda funny right? They should definitely get a tax break

[audtatious]

If you support gay "marriage" do you support bigamy/polygamy? Interestingly, in numerous other threads I have read over the years the gays were all against allowing marriages to multiple partners. Should this be considered hypocritical?

What? You lost me?

I'm asking if those that support gay marriage also support bigamy/polygamy. I'm also saying that over the years I have primarily seen gays against it, which is kinda interesting that they would not support the practice, thus, do you find that a hypocritical position?

Curious minds want to know.

[audtatious]

Animals have been found to be homosexuals which I think says a lot about the possibility of genetics playing role.

Then where is the gay gene if it's genetics?

[WDRacing]

Dude, you do know we have only unraveled a tiny fraction of the DNA chain right? We're at the tip of the spear where DNA is concerned.

[heliochrome85]

Dude, you do know we have only unraveled a tiny fraction of the DNA chain right? We're at the tip of the spear where DNA is concerned.

truth.


this thread is full of LULZ and FAIL.

keep you religion out of my bedroom. that goes both ways too.

[AppleBonker]

I'm asking if those that support gay marriage also support bigamy/polygamy

I don't personally agree with it, but I have no problem with others practicing it. I wouldn't want to see them receiving any tax breaks. But I don't want to see gays or straight couples getting tax breaks for getting married either.

do you find that a hypocritical position?

I honestly haven't put much thought into it, so I don't know if I can actually answer this right now.

[audtatious]

Dude, you do know we have only unraveled a tiny fraction of the DNA chain right? We're at the tip of the spear where DNA is concerned.

From what aspect? HGP completed in 2003 and mapped all genes in human DNA. Am I missing something

[audtatious]

I'm asking if those that support gay marriage also support bigamy/polygamy

I don't personally agree with it, but I have no problem with others practicing it. I wouldn't want to see them receiving any tax breaks. But I don't want to see gays or straight couples getting tax breaks for getting married either.

do you find that a hypocritical position?

I honestly haven't put much thought into it, so I don't know if I can actually answer this right now.

Fair enough.

[wingFeather]

keep you religion out of my bedroom. that goes both ways too.

This has nothing to do with the bedroom. Nobody is promoting laws against gaybuttsechs here.

Once again demonstrating your lack of understanding of a topic.

How so? Those who might be "genetically inclined" to be gay *choose* to follow those impulses. The same way I am inclined to be straight yet have given in to my impulses to have sex outside of marriage. We all make choices whether we follow our animal selves, or strive for more.

[WDRacing]

keep you religion out of my bedroom. that goes both ways too.

Just to clarify, so long as I leave my religion out, I am welcome in your bedroom?

[audtatious]

keep you religion out of my bedroom. that goes both ways too.

Just to clarify, so long as I leave my religion out, I am welcome in your bedroom?

Your "small religion" does not really count so nobody would notice.

[stebo0728]

Not to argue either way regarding the gay rights, i could care less either way, and frankly think equal protection under the law should be EQUAL, but hey its just the gays so whatever...

But to weigh in on the genetic code issue, I dont buy the gay gene thing either, genetics are popular right now, and tends to be an excuse overused. Plus, its a bit of a slippery slope, what behavior will we label genetic and excuse in the future? If good sound science can be presented thats one thing, but its still sortof in the "i think so" stage, like most of science right now, so lets not draw any concrete conclusions on inconclusive evidence just yet

[heliochrome85]

Dude, you do know we have only unraveled a tiny fraction of the DNA chain right? We're at the tip of the spear where DNA is concerned.

From what aspect? HGP completed in 2003 and mapped all genes in human DNA. Am I missing something

the genome project was designed to sequence the DNA. meaning know exactly how many bases human DNA consists of. Gene technology is relatively in its infancy. It takes millions of dollars to design studies that test a single gene. there are literally millions of genes and some act in synchrony with others.

so for example
gene a controlls one thing
gene b controlls another thing
genes a+b together control yet another thing

thats three different studies.

gene technology is the future of medicine. but like i said, its still very very very very very very early. that being said, what we have already accomplished is monumentally promising, like not having to remove the lungs of kids with Cystic fibrosis, but rather administering a spray that has the protein they may need.

[WDRacing]

Dude, you do know we have only unraveled a tiny fraction of the DNA chain right? We're at the tip of the spear where DNA is concerned.

From what aspect? HGP completed in 2003 and mapped all genes in human DNA. Am I missing something

I didn't think we were able to tell what parts of the chain make certain area's develop certain ways. Mapping something and being able to identify which part of the DNA chain controls what is different no? Either way, being related to gay monkeys is a riot.

[heliochrome85]

Not to argue either way regarding the gay rights, i could care less either way, and frankly think equal protection under the law should be EQUAL, but hey its just the gays so whatever...

But to weigh in on the genetic code issue, I dont buy the gay gene thing either, genetics are popular right now, and tends to be an excuse overused. Plus, its a bit of a slippery slope, what behavior will we label genetic and excuse in the future? If good sound science can be presented thats one thing, but its still sortof in the "i think so" stage, like most of science right now, so lets not draw any concrete conclusions on inconclusive evidence just yet

with all due respect steve, you are talking about something you know nothing about. no one is in ANY position to rule out genetics what so ever. it isnt a slippery slope, but rather a legitmate explanation for alot of things. last i checked, you didnt CHOOSE to love women. it was ingrained in your body. its not like someone taught you to have an erectlon when you saw an attractive woman. Some of these things are just instinctual and part of the human body.

also, science isnt meant to convince anyone outside of the scientific community. im in no position to sit and criticise the methodology of nuclear physicist claims, because im simply not in the field. so again, you know nothing about this. ill get off my soapbox now.

[audtatious]

thats three different studies.

Ah...

Which gay gene do you have?

I'm just kidding, thanks for the explanation. Still, no gene nor association found as of today.

[heliochrome85]

thats three different studies.

Ah...

Which gay gene do you have?

I'm just kidding, thanks for the explanation. Still, no gene nor association found as of today.

i have em all. just for you boo.

[audtatious]

Either way, being related to gay monkeys is a riot.

It gets worse, how about being related to gay monkeys that don't evolve

[heliochrome85]

Either way, being related to gay monkeys is a riot.

It gets worse, how about being related to gay monkeys that don't evolve

mark foley?

[audtatious]

Ah...

Which gay gene do you have?

I'm just kidding, thanks for the explanation. Still, no gene nor association found as of today.

i have em all. just for you boo.

U gots all I needz

Now....gay gene or no gay gene, I do believe people are born with tendencies towards one sex vs. another. Then you have people like Brian who are right in the middle

[audtatious]

It gets worse, how about being related to gay monkeys that don't evolve

mark foley?

Is he toe tappin?

[WDRacing]

*Sarcasm Alert*

Hmm...so we could eventually have a "gay spray" and people could be straight or gay by choice. That is interesting indeed. Would you want something like that added to the water Or hell, what if some terrorists, probably Muslim, get ahold of the spray that turns us gay and put THAT into our water

[heliochrome85]

all im saying is that while yes society makes being gay acceptable, i think its just as ok as being black or white or some other non-arab ethnicity. there may be a place in society where treating these groups differently would be ok, but it goes against the nature of this country and the freedoms enshrines in the founding documents.

if the founders were christian and perfect as to perfectly state their desires for the country, how does one explain the 3/5s argument? where in christian morality and rules is a black person 3/5ths a white person. how about women? non property holders?


im really sick and tired of people trumpeting the supposed judeo-christian founding of this country as justification for their own modern prejudices. im not naming anyone specifically because not everyone is guilty, but rather pointing out that the founding fathers were merely human. they made mistakes. but what they achieved despite this is what makes them special.

[heliochrome85]

[quote="heliochrome85"


mark foley?

Is he toe tappin?[/quote]



get your republican gays right. mark foley didnt toe tap. he just sexted his underage staffers on aim. we could take a short trip down memory lane...

[stebo0728]

with all due respect steve, you are talking about something you know nothing about.

Isnt that par for the course around here?

All Im saying is, lets not be too quick to excuse something based on "proposed genetic influence", and really its become so popular theres really hardly any reason to excuse it anymore anyway. Like Aud said, wheres the gene? Not having mapped the gene neither proves or disproves the theory, but it still leaves it in the theory status.

And by slippery slope, I mean what will we decide to excuse next by using genetics? Its one thing if we have sound science that PROVES genetic origins of homosexuality, but to say so as fact now opens the flood gates for potentially other behaviors to be excused genetically, even behaviors we find reprehensible as a society now. Just because we find it reprehensible now doesnt mean we will in 20 years. If you had said 40 years ago that "in 40 years gays will openly walk the streets hand in hand, marry, adopt children" you would have been laughed out of town, or worse, imprisoned or something, yet here we are. We are a fad based society, and it follows that "what one generation ALLOWS, the next generation tends to EMBRACE" thats just how we work, and if you build a construct for this embrace, such as unquestioned genetic involvement, then you set the stage for more issues down the road. Sure laugh at me, call me crazy, or whatever, but history shows, this is just how we work, and perhaps thats for the better sometimes, sometimes not, who's to judge?