I'm changing the Slogan of the Website... LetsRun.com Promoting Homosexuality

It is common knowledge that over half of marriages in the US end in divorce (google it). Citing that fact does not imply that gay marriages would be perfect - that is a classic "red herring argument" (if you don't know what that is - google it). Gay marriages do not have to be "perfect", it is reasonable to hold them to the same standards as heterosexual marriages.

btw, homosexual couples can adopt kids, and it could be done with greater ease in this country if the religious right could accept the fact that there is not one shred of scientific evidence that social environment contributes to sexual orientation. In an overpopulated world with lots of kids waiting for adoption, it is shameful that we are denying both gay couples and these kids this opportunity.

No response to simple questions that challenge your wild, speculative accusations?

Big surprise.

sheesh, what a maroon!

he should have been in Stockholm last week where the Pride Festival's theme was "Sport."

[quote]veggie wrote:

Oh, and here's a no-brainer: gays can't have kids.

[quote]

Assuming your excluding adoption, what is your point? Can all straight couples have kids? Do all straight couples want to have kids? Is marriage defined by having kids? What does your statement possibly have to do with the topic at hand?

Veggie's represents the majority of american people on this topic. I'm with most of you and just don't understand why people have such a huge problem with 2 guys or 2 girls being together.

When it all comes down to it, if dick and dick or jane and jane want to hook up, i fail to see how it effects my life. I'm still blown away by how angry people get over nothing... if you want to save the institution of mariage, then where's the public outcry to ban divorce.

I think its funny how people get so worked up over a god damn word. They're fine with civil unions, but using marriage is just out of question... well here's some food for thought, All mariages, including women and men, should become civil unions that gaurantee the same legal and financial benifits for all couples, regardless of sexual prefference. If the term marriage is what is in question, and that it degrades your religious institution, then take the stupid word out the law.

Church and state should be seperate anyway. I think its funny that people who talk about how its a christian institution don't have a public outcry to ban Muslims from getting married, or Hindu's, or budists...

The fact of the matter is, people are using the word marriage as a front line to combat homosexuality. They're using the word marriage to say that being straight is the Right way and that gays are moraly, ethically, and humanly inferior to themselves. Its just plain stupid. I'm calling for our state governments to remove the word marriage all together... if its such a christian institution, they're should be no cry about it because then we'll all be the same in the eyes of our "impartial" law... unioned.

Let people live how they want to. It's not like they're hurting anyone. How is liking some one of the same sex destructive?

At least you are above us. Let us heathens know how sweet heaven is when you arrive.

You're goddamn right I didn't (I've perused it). There are two sides to every issue, but religious, politically motivated hacks only further discredit their position and any worthwile "authority."

I can answer a resounding "yes" to this question. Growing up, my parents (and peers and community) indocrinated me to think that homosexuality was disgusting and unnatural. To rationalize this fear, of course they deemed it immoral, readily armed with a few obtuse and open-ended passages from a 2000 year old book of myth. I can clearly remember the days when Mom took me to school with Jimmy D. blaring on the radio, proud of the fearful little bigot she was raising. Now don't get me wrong, I love my parents and don't have any rebellious axe to grind. I understand that's the generation they grew up in, just like their parents grew up uncomfortable with mixed race marriages and a general disturt towards minorities. But parents have their faults just like every other person.

So I was pretty comfortable hating homosexuals all throughout my teen years because it was gross to me and I seemed to have a "moral" justification for it. Then, as well-adjusted, thoughtful young adults generally do, I matured and began really considering it logically, as with many other aspects of my life. And the only possible conclusion was arrived upon for many of the same reasons already given by other posters. So yes, I have actually "stopped to actually examine it and see who is really the problem here." I think most of the posters here know who the problem is here.

What, pray tell, are they doing to themselves?

If you don't believe me look it up. It's a well known statistic in this country. And anything over 50% qualifies as a majority, which is how I put it.

Of course not, but likely not any more or less so than heterosexual marriages, which you obviously can't hold up to be the golden standard of success. But you seem almost intelligent to have already known what I meant by that statement.

Ah yes, I thought that argument was quite clever when I was 16 as well.

And to that I would always ask, who's paying and what is their agenda?

My biggest question is, how long is it going to be before Jimmy D. gets caught giving the largest donor to Focus on the Family a rim job in a public bathroom with a needle still stuck in his arm?

And to Wejo: Absolutely change the letsrun slogan to "Promoting Homosexuality" I don't think you'd lose any valueded visitors.

doctor wrote:

btw, homosexual couples can adopt kids, and it could be done with greater ease in this country if the religious right could accept the fact that there is not one shred of scientific evidence that social environment contributes to sexual orientation. In an overpopulated world with lots of kids waiting for adoption, it is shameful that we are denying both gay couples and these kids this opportunity.

There is not one shred of scientific evidence that anything, in particular, contributes to sexual orientation. Popular psychiatric/scientific concensus just wants everyone to accept that homosexuality is genetic, without any real evidence. What ever it is that causes homsexuality is far more complex than most involved in the debate are prepared to admit.

You come off as narrow minded as a religious zealot arguing the opposing position.

You didn't start to think logically. You were pushed from one extreme of hate and fear to the other. I'm sorry that you were brought up that way, but you can't generalize all christians as gay-hating bigots. I don't hate gays, but I have seen the danger to the institution of marriage that they've presented.

Why do we have man and woman? Why are we attracted? Why are our sexual reproductive organs not able to function without the other? Is there some kind of plan here? It seems like common sense to me, but this logic can no longer be used, we are only allowed to use YOUR kind of logic.

There will always be someone who will claim evolution installed these organs over millions of years and somehow we developed these attractions to improve the survival of our species. Well, to this I say, when the first organism evolved, how did it happen to find something to marry? We cannot be sure that the male/female would evolve in the same place OR same time. How's that for logic, and why don't we ever use it?

How can you say what is right or wrong if you don't even have any basis for morality with what you believe? What is logic? I believe God gave us logic so that we could tell the difference between what right and wrong, between what is real and what is not, and here you are claiming that it somehow developed for the survival of the species? Yes, I know you haven't actually claimed this yet, and I'm not trying to argue from authority because I am not a scientist, but I think that we are beginning to use logic in the wrong way just so we can justify our own beliefs.

Veggie,

Why don't you leave the judgment of sin to God and divert your energies to ensuring your own path is straight (no pun intended).

You are the epitome of the bad Christian; one who gets so wrapped up in the dogma that you completely lose sight of all the things Christ taught so that man could truly experience God and His love.

Put down the James Dobson books and pick up the Bible.

boredman wrote:

There is not one shred of scientific evidence that anything, in particular, contributes to sexual orientation. Popular psychiatric/scientific concensus just wants everyone to accept that homosexuality is genetic, without any real evidence.

Evidence that genetics play a role in homosexuality include:

* Homosexuality runs in families (the brother of a gay man has a 3-4X increased odds of being gay; 2-3X for women)

* Twin studies suggest heritability of 40-60%

* Evidence that homosexuality is linked to Xq28 in men, and the human genome project found possible linkages to chromosomes 7, 8, and 10 in men.

Other potential biological factors include:

* Prenatal hormones

* Congenital hormone abnormalities

* Anthropometric studies

* Number of older brothers (Each older bro increases odds of homosexuality by 33-48%)

* Androgen dependent hypothalamic differences

Correct, you are not a scientist. We are not discussing the origin or purpose of life. We are discussing whether homosexuals should be allowed to marry, or more generally, why you claim homosexually is a destructive force in our society. You have yet to address any of the issues I have laid out in previous posts, and instead have slipped into a tangential, disorganized rant about evolution and logic. If the entire basis of your arguement is "God created man and woman to be together and it says in the bible that homosexuality is a sin", then I give up.

Are you talking about protecting the institution of marriage, or the institute of reproducing, because in your entire rant, you made no clear definition as to why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry.Obviously, gay men or women can not reproduce, but that means they shouldn't be able to enjoy the same benifits under the eyes of the law as you and your wife? We are talking about allowing two people's right to be legally joined in the same reflection as any 2 straight couple. I'm baffled that you can still try to apply your christian definition of marriage into the legal definition of the word, it shouldn't work that way, they're 2 completely different institutions.

Why are we attracted?

Way to throw me a lob so I can knock it out of the park. If you can actually define Love and why people love someone else over another, i'd love to hear it, but I suppose only heterosexuals are the only ones who can experience it or its power over you. Thats why I think banning gay marriage is a terrible idea, because I think it strikes at the heart of all relationships, love. Your telling a group of peoplethat their love isn't as strong as another groups, or its just down right wrong. The social institution of marriage is much different than your backyard evangelical version.

I think its funny that people think allowing gay marriage is somehow going to become this fad that spreads the nation and turns all the young men and women in our country into flaming gays and our society will come crashing down because no is going to reproduce... get with it... heavens forbit someone tried to say "One Nation, under Allah..." and you'd have another hissy fit... live and let live and quit using the government to spread YOUR way of life.

That should please the sailor boys and Texans. See you at the bathhouse, Wejo.

Then explain it to us. We're still waiting.

I and the rest of the enlightened world can promise you there is not.

You (as well as this someone claiming "evolution installed these organs")just demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution that I'm not going to bother with. Just because you don't understand it doesn't automatically mean it must be the work of some benevolent creator. That's called a God of the Gaps and we're not even talking about any Gaps here.

I thought in this day and age we could decide our value system on what contributed to a progressive society, not on some archaic "morals" based on some supposed universal right and wrong.

Logic and faith are two contradictory things. I presume we approach this issue with a fundamental difference.

So my last question, one that is quite serious is this. If homosexuality is a temptation, a temporary pleasing sin much the same way heroin addiction, adultry, theft, murder etc. are, how do you over come this intense desire to have sex with other men. What is it about you that helps you resist this strong desire. What is it about "those gays" that they cannot resist the same tempation you have? I'm sure you've had lustful feelings towards others' spouses, the impulse to physically harm someone who has wronged you, the wish that for once, you could just take something for free and not have to pay for it. But presumabely you've done a pretty good job resisting those temptations, so how do you quell all those other immoral temptations you face to make love to men. It would be quite pleasing and exciting no? But obviously a bad, bad thing. Obviously homos just don't have the same control over their desires as you've excercised. If you do nothing else, I would honestly appreciate a frank reply to that question.

Nowhere in your rambling nonsense is there anything that even resembles a coherent, well developed thought. The fact that there are more of you out there, and that you have the right to vote, is truly scary. The fact that you are stupid enough to think you are open minded and logical is even scarier.

Wow.

Are all people tempted by the same things? Certainly all of us confront that which may tempt us. Or does every temptaion or vice come pre-packaged with a genetic predisposition?

lla

Reverend Lovejoy wrote:

Marriage is not a Christian institution... yes, it has been adopted by the Christian church, but it wasn't even until the Council of Trent and an ensuing catechism that marriage was to be between a man and woman and had to be performed by a priest.

Ummm...no. The Council of Trent was in the 16th century, slightly after Henry VIII married six women and beheaded two of them as part of his dispute about the sacrament of matrimony. By that point it had been a sacrament for over fifteen centuries.

Concubinage of one form or another has been around for thousands of years. That's not the same thing as matrimony or marriage however.

Pope T-Bag II wrote:

[quote]veggie wrote:

I don't hate gays, but I have seen the danger to the institution of marriage that they've presented.

Then explain it to us. We're still waiting.

[quote]veggie wrote:

I guess we'll be waiting forever. The internet is a wonderful resource for disseminating information, but unfortunately, bigoted idiots like this guy are also able to spread their hateful, cowardly rhetoric and then vanish anonymously.

I really think in 50 or 100 years homosexuals will have the same civil rights as everyone else, and everyone will look back on this issue the same way we now look back at racial discrimination in the 50's.