Yet Another Republican Gay Sex Scandal

[webdude]

Erm, not at all. Civil unions extend them those rights while not trouncing the beliefs of others. Where is equal rights not present in that equation?This is the case now, but not if widespread civil unions were adopted. And that IS equal rights.One does not have to be religious to believe that homosexuality is wrong.

Erm, That is NOT equal. If they are equal, there wouldn't be a need to adopt a different setup or name to it. It is better than nothing, but it is not equal.

And you missed the point, religious or not, beliefs should not be imposed on those who don't share such beliefs (unless of course bodily harm or property, I still have difficulty understanding how gay marriages will harm others).

For example, my non-religious belief is that rich ppl should not marry poor people, that would be wrong, both should be of equal networth, should that be enforced? And also, tall people should not marry short people, that would also be wrong in my eyes, so should that be enforced too? Couples with too much of difference in networth or in height should not be married, they should get together under a different kind of union. It is my non-religious belief that should happen, cause these sick couples with their widely different heights and networth are trouncing on my beliefs despite the fact it does not harm others.

[HtownWxBoy]

It is what I call the perfect compromise. It gives gay couples the exact same rights as straights while letting those that oppose it still think they won a small victor. It is called a win-win situation.

I'll be honest. I think it was the "letting those that oppose it still think they won a small victory" part that threw the lobbyists. But what do you say to the majority of Americans who still hold beliefs that homosexuality is wrong, amoral or a sin? Do we just trounce all over their beliefs or can we not come to a compromise?

Again although I am OK w/ civil unions as long as you get the same rights that come with marriage... I think many gay people don't want anything different than what straight people can get... if straight people can get "married"... then they want gay people to be able to get "married". Calling it a "civil union" says "you are different".... some are not OK w/ that. Again, I don't care what you call it, but I can totally understand why some would want "marriage" and not "civil unions".

[HtownWxBoy]

Erm, That is NOT equal. If they are equal, there wouldn't be a need to adopt a different setup or name to it. It is better than nothing, but it is not equal.

And you missed the point, religious or not, beliefs should not be imposed on those who don't share such beliefs (unless of course bodily harm or property, I still have difficulty understanding how gay marriages will harm others).

For example, my non-religious belief is that rich ppl should not marry poor people, that would be wrong, both should be of equal networth, should that be enforced? And also, tall people should not marry short people, that would also be wrong in my eyes, so should that be enforced too? Couples with too much of difference in networth or in height should not be married, they should get together under a different kind of union. It is my non-religious belief that should happen, cause these sick couples with their widely different heights and networth are trouncing on my beliefs despite the fact it does not harm others.

Gay marriages won't harm others... they will only benefit people. I have heard those on the religious right talk about how marriage rates are down in countries like Sweden where gays are allowed to marry... and they blame that on gay marriage. How can gay people getting married keep straights from getting married? Straight people are not getting married at the rates they were b/c they just don't wan to, or they just don't want to at such an early age as people did in the past. Also, allowing gays to marry won't turn straight people gay either since gay people are born gay. I know some whackos think allowing gays to marry will make others want to be gay.

[millennica]

Lest anyone misunderstand what I have been trying to say. The only reason I wanted clarification of the term marriage is because I wanted to make the point that while many people are married in a religious ceremony, in the US marriage isn't a religious institution; it is a legal arrangement that religions also sanction. If a couple gets married in a civil ceremony--by a justice of the peace or some other government sanctioned official and this is not officiated by religious officials, that couple is still legally married. As I said earlier I and most of the couples I know were married only by government officials not by religious officials. My purpose in trying to clarify what marriage is--a legal arrangement between individuals--was not to argue for marriage to be extended to same sex couple, but only to say that what makes a marriage a marriage is the legal-civil component not the religious one.

That being said, I personally have no objection to same sex couples being married despite the fact that it bothers many religious people. It wasn't that long ago that marriage between people of different races was illegal. It wasn't until 40 years ago until the Loving vs Virginia case ruled on by the Supreme Court in 1967 that prohibitions against marriage between people of different races was declared unconstitutional. When the plaintiffs in the Loving case Mildred Jeter, a woman of African American and Native American ancestry and Richard Perry Loving, a white man who lived in Commonwealth of Virginia but were married in June 1958 in the District of Columbia, they did so because it was against the Racial Integrity Act, which was a state law banning marriages between any white person and a non-white person. When they returned to Virginia they were charged with a felony for violating the law which defined "miscegenation" as a felony punishable by a prison sentence of between one and five years. In Jan 1959 , the Lovings pleaded guilty and were sentenced to one year in prison, with the sentence suspended for 25 years if they agreed to leave the state of Virginia. The trial judge in the case, Leon Bazile, the trial judge in the case, who was relying on an 18th-century interpretation of race, wrote,

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, Malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Today when we read that language, it seems archaic as if from a very long time ago even though it was only 40 years ago. However, I bet that in 1959, when the Lovings were charged with violating the Racial Integrity Act, lots of Americans were against interracial marriages. Although there are probably fewer people against interracial marriages today, there are likely some who still find it objectionable. I believe that the laws banning marriage between same sex people will change. It's only a matter of time.

[ssullivan]

gwilson, I must say it is refreshing to hear someone who claims to be a Republican speaking so honestly about this issue. I wish that many of the elected politicians who affiliate themselves with your party would do the same, instead of constantly trying to bend over backwards in an effort to get votes from the religious right. Unfortunately it seems that most Republicans today in Congress, and the Bush administration, have abandoned most of the fiscally conservative values that Republicans claim they believe in, and at the same time, have tried to bring the government into the private lives of millions of Americans by pushing for things like writing discrimination into the US Constitution in the form of a marriage amendment. I'm not a Republican, but I can say that this is one issue we agree on.

I think where the US has gone wrong is that many people tend to forget that modern marriage is not just a religious issue, and that many marriages in this country have no religious ceremony. Yes, most, if not all, religions, have some form of marriage ceremony. I think the government has no right to tell religious groups who can or can't have one of those religious ceremonies to celebrate a union. However, to say that marriage is only a religious institution smacks of ignorance. If that was the case, and this really is a country with a separation of church and state, then why do married couples automatically get certain tax, inheritance, immigration, and other rights, all of which are enforced by the government, not religious institutions? Many people who are against gay marriage, and who support things like constitutional amendments to prohibit it, are looking at marriage just as a religious issue. They are ignoring the fact that a gay couple who has lived together in a committed, monogamous relationship for over 25 years has almost no rights as a couple should one of them be hospitalized or die. Yet, a man and woman with a valid marriage license who have been married less than a week have full visitation, inheritance, tax, and immigration rights -- even if they got married an hour after they met in a Las Vegas casino! To those of us who are for equal marriage rights, that's the issue. I couldn't care less if certain churches preach that homosexuality is somehow immoral, and refuse to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. While I disagree with their belief, they have just as much right to believe, and preach, what they want, as I do. Where I draw the line is when that belief is used to willfully try to limit my rights as a tax-paying, law-abiding, successful, mature American adult. And that's what has been happening in our government for quite some time now.

It's even more disgusting to me when we keep seeing these stories of politicians with anti-gay rights voting records being caught cheating on their spouses in same-sex affairs, be it something more long-term, or just casual hookups in public restrooms. These individuals are lying to everyone, including themselves, and are trying to cover it up by playing to the religious right in an effort to hide their transgressions and keep getting reelected. I realize that many of these men didn't have the benefits of growing up in a time where homosexuality is more accepted, and more people are open about it. In a way I feel a little sorry for them, because they have allowed themselves to get into such a horrible position that leads them to engage in risky behaviors. But, while I may feel a little sorry for them, I still find their actions disgusting and repulsive, especially since so many of them have such anti-gay voting records.

[HtownWxBoy]

One problem is that so many people are to afraid to stand up to the religious right. Even Bush, who I can't stand, didn't want to make gay marriage such an issue in the last election... he only went along w/ the idea to please the religious right so he could get elected again... all Karl Rove's idea. He used the religious right for the sheep that they are. It's great to see the religious right all in shambles this election b/c they don't have a clear canditate. Rudy, who unlike Bush is a true leader, won't give into the religious right and change his stance on social issues like gay rights just to get their votes.... that's a true leader.

Like interracial marriage, gay marriage will one day be 100% legal in the U.S. like it currently is in some of the more socially advanced nations of the world. As advanced as the U.S. is as a Nation, it's still a bit backwards on some social issues due to the religious right. Religion when it gets too powerful tends to slow the advancement of society a bit... look at the Middle East! Support for gay marriage grows every year and that trend will only continue. There was a time in the U.S. when blacks had no rights, when slavery was actually LEGAL, when women could not vote, when a woman showing her ankles was considered blasphemy... all things that today seem unbelievable... you will be able to add "gays not having equal rights" to that list soon.

[gwilson]

I have a theory why so many are opposed to gay marriage. It being a sin is an easy answer and doesn't really require any more explanation, but I believe that to be, to a degree, a cop out.

This country has undergone massive, sweeping and very rapid social reform (not always in the best ways) in the past century. I think it might have been too quick. Societal change, I believe, can happen too quickly. The populous cannot adapt quick enough.

[rps324]

This country has undergone massive, sweeping and very rapid social reform (not always in the best ways) in the past century. I think it might have been too quick. Societal change, I believe, can happen too quickly. The populous cannot adapt quick enough.

I believe this was the same general argument southern politicians used in the 60's to argue against desegregation.

[HtownWxBoy]

I have a theory why so many are opposed to gay marriage. It being a sin is an easy answer and doesn't really require any more explanation, but I believe that to be, to a degree, a cop out.

This country has undergone massive, sweeping and very rapid social reform (not always in the best ways) in the past century. I think it might have been too quick. Societal change, I believe, can happen too quickly. The populous cannot adapt quick enough.

If other nations can advance more quickly so can the U.S.. If social reform means allowing citizens to have equal rights then it should be done quickly... the quicker the better. Many people are opposed to gay marriage b/c they have been brainwashed into believing some of the following...

1)Gay people choose to be gay / being gay is a "lifestyle"............ this is wrong. I am gay and I was definitly born gay... I would have never chosen it but am now proud of who I am and wouldn't change it for the world. If being gay was my choice I wouldn't have considered suicide when I was 19... thankfully I found a strength in me that helped me get over those thoughts. Of course I can't speak for all gays, I would just find it hard to believe that I was the only one who was born gay.

2)Gay people have more "devious" lifestyles than straight people............ this is of course wrong... people just focus on the "bad" things some gays do and don't bring up the fact that straight people do the same exact things. If gays are so devious then why do so many of them want to get married and settle down w/ someone they love?

3)Gay people want to convert children into being gay.......... religious folks are the ones into the whole "converting" thing... gay people just want to be themselves.

4:Children raised in households w/ gay parents will more likely turn out gay............. study after study has proven that this is not true... the percentage of children that end up being gay is the SAME w/ straight parents as it is w/ gay parents.... children of gay parents may just "come out" earlier b/c they are more accepted.

5)Gay marriage is wrong b/c the bible says so.......... the bible says a lot of things people don't listen to anymore... people just use this excuse to make themselves feel better.

6)Allowing gays to marry ruins the sanctity of marriage......... if marriage is so sacred then why is the divorce rate so high. Gay people actually WANT to get married. Falling marriage rates occur b/c straight people don't want to get married or feel like they have to at such early ages.

I could go on and on... but I'll stop there...

[memebag]

One does not have to be religious to believe that homosexuality is wrong.

Really? I can't think of any group of people who believe that homosexuality is "wrong" for any reason other than religion. Who are you thinking of?

[bachanon]

Really? I can't think of any group of people who believe that homosexuality is "wrong" for any reason other than religion. Who are you thinking of?

there are people who are naturalists. naturalism could argue that because reproduction requires both sexes, homosexuality is unnatural (but not sin). there are non-religious people who feel that homosexuality is a maturity issue. these people are in the minority and seldom speak out for fear of drawing attention to themselves. there are non-religious folk who philosophically believe that homosexuality is not the best behavior.

[sevfiv]

Here we go again...! Let's face it folks - there has been, are, and will be gay people everywhere in every possible description. There will also be those that make known their beliefs against it, try to legislate those beliefs, and I am sure hurt many many people in the process.

But hey folks, let's remember to keep it on topic of this thread: politics, scandal and lies

[bachanon]

yes, back on topic.

i wish the republican party would quit eating their own when they turn out to be gay. a REAL big tent party would say "SO WHAT", it's his business. booting these people reinforces the appearance of intolerance. the anti-gay marriage crowd (thanks for stirring that up mr. rove) should focus on governmental issues rather than moral issues.

that being said, this guy was a complete doofus to call the cops.

[gwilson]

I believe this was the same general argument southern politicians used in the 60's to argue against desegregation.

There is a massive and obvious difference between the two so your argument is not analogous to the topic at hand.

If other nations can advance more quickly so can the U.S.. If social reform means allowing citizens to have equal rights then it should be done quickly... the quicker the better. Many people are opposed to gay marriage b/c they have been brainwashed into believing some of the following... 1)Gay people choose to be gay / being gay is a "lifestyle"............ this is wrong. I am gay and I was definitly born gay... I would have never chosen it but am now proud of who I am and wouldn't change it for the world. If being gay was my choice I wouldn't have considered suicide when I was 19... thankfully I found a strength in me that helped me get over those thoughts. Of course I can't speak for all gays, I would just find it hard to believe that I was the only one who was born gay. 2)Gay people have more "devious" lifestyles than straight people............ this is of course wrong... people just focus on the "bad" things some gays do and don't bring up the fact that straight people do the same exact things. If gays are so devious then why do so many of them want to get married and settle down w/ someone they love? 3)Gay people want to convert children into being gay.......... religious folks are the ones into the whole "converting" thing... gay people just want to be themselves. 4:Children raised in households w/ gay parents will more likely turn out gay............. study after study has proven that this is not true... the percentage of children that end up being gay is the SAME w/ straight parents as it is w/ gay parents.... children of gay parents may just "come out" earlier b/c they are more accepted. 5)Gay marriage is wrong b/c the bible says so.......... the bible says a lot of things people don't listen to anymore... people just use this excuse to make themselves feel better. 6)Allowing gays to marry ruins the sanctity of marriage......... if marriage is so sacred then why is the divorce rate so high. Gay people actually WANT to get married. Falling marriage rates occur b/c straight people don't want to get married or feel like they have to at such early ages. I could go on and on... but I'll stop there...

These are some arguments that idiots use, yes. These arguments are usually rapidly shot down by anyone with common sense, even those opposed to gay marriage.In the interest of full disclosure, I do not believe one is born gay, but I also do not believe one makes a choice to be gay.

Really? I can't think of any group of people who believe that homosexuality is "wrong" for any reason other than religion. Who are you thinking of?

I know more than one person who believes that it is wrong and are not religious in the least.Many view it as unnatural and subsequently wrong. Also, others see it as deviant and amoral.Moral codes aren't based on religion always.

Here we go again...! Let's face it folks - there has been, are, and will be gay people everywhere in every possible description. There will also be those that make known their beliefs against it, try to legislate those beliefs, and I am sure hurt many many people in the process. But hey folks, let's remember to keep it on topic of this thread: politics, scandal and lies

I, in no way, believe that legislation should be made AGAINST homosexuality. I think that legislating such things is outside the scope of the government's contract with the people.

yes, back on topic.i wish the republican party would quit eating their own when they turn out to be gay. a REAL big tent party would say "SO WHAT", it's his business. booting these people reinforces the appearance of intolerance. the anti-gay marriage crowd (thanks for stirring that up mr. rove) should focus on governmental issues rather than moral issues. that being said, this guy was a complete doofus to call the cops.

You're absolutely right. People need to caring about what lifestyles others lead that do not affect them. You do not have the RIGHT to not be offended (which is why I believe it was wrong that the Westboro Baptist Church lost that lawsuit in spite of my disdain for them). So mind your own and ignore it if you see it. The only time this is limited is when it encroaches on ones rights.

[HtownWxBoy]

In the interest of full disclosure, I do not believe one is born gay, but I also do not believe one makes a choice to be gay.

Well I can tell you for sure that I was born gay... from the moment I hit puberty and developed "attractions" to others, it was always towards other boys... though at the time I didn't know what those attractions meant... I thought it was part of growing up and every boy went through it. Obviously I was wrong. ha ha I don't believe that people are either 100% gay or 100% straight... I think there is a range so that some people who are attracted to both sexes do actually makes choices.

[mojeaux131]

In the interest of full disclosure, I do not believe one is born gay, but I also do not believe one makes a choice to be gay....I know more than one person who believes that it is wrong and are not religious in the least.Many view it as unnatural and subsequently wrong.

So, if people aren't born gay and they don't choose to be gay, the only way they wind up being homosexual is from some early sexual experience or abuse? It's obvious that many, if not most, gay people are born that way. But honestly, if they aren't born with the preference and they don't choose it, how does it come about? What are you saying here?

Also, I know you don't have a problem with it, but those who view it as unnatural don't know their biology. Animals are extremely gay. There was a really interesting article in the Economist in October 2006 about widespread homosexuality in the animal kingdom. My favorite part was its discussion of dolphins: gay male dolphins were said to penetrate each others' blowholes, and female dolphins were said to use their snouts as dildos on each other. I love that magazine. Moral of the story: homosexuality is in no way unnatural. Case closed.

Here's a link, but it's not the complete article. Sorry.

http://www.economist.com/science/displayst...tory_id=8074843

[gwilson]

Well I can tell you for sure that I was born gay... from the moment I hit puberty and developed "attractions" to others, it was always towards other boys... though at the time I didn't know what those attractions meant... I thought it was part of growing up and every boy went through it. Obviously I was wrong. ha ha I don't believe that people are either 100% gay or 100% straight... I think there is a range so that some people who are attracted to both sexes do actually makes choices.

My response to that would be, how do you know? You weren't a sexual being when you were born, so this statement cannot possibly be confirmed or even studied without research at the genetic level (which is being done with mixed and speculative results).My own personal theory is that homosexuality is neither inherited or inherent. I would also contest that it is not a conscious choice either. I believe it to be a product of several factors including environment, circumstance, personal history, among other things. The short answer is that it is an unconsciously learned behavior.I fear that some might have taken some of my past comments as homophobic in either or both of the senses of the word. This couldn't be further from the truth.

So, if people aren't born gay and they don't choose to be gay, the only way they wind up being homosexual is from some early sexual experience or abuse? It's obvious that many, if not most, gay people are born that way. But honestly, if they aren't born with the preference and they don't choose it, how does it come about? What are you saying here? Also, I know you don't have a problem with it, but those who view it as unnatural don't know their biology. Animals are extremely gay. There was a really interesting article in the Economist in October 2006 about widespread homosexuality in the animal kingdom. Here's a link, but it's not the complete article. Sorry. http://www.economist.com/science/displayst...tory_id=8074843

There have been several assertions that homosexuality is present naturally in nature. The question that has yet to be answered is are these acts of true homosexuality (attraction to the same sex) or acts of convenience Are we truly monosexual (I made that word up) or are these merely acts of convenient sexual gratification?I especially enjoyed the dolphin visual.

[Subdude]

A quick reminder is in order that HAIF is rated PG. A lot of kids access the site, so keep it "family friendly" please.

[memebag]

there are people who are naturalists. naturalism could argue that because reproduction requires both sexes, homosexuality is unnatural (but not sin).

Can you reference any of their writings? I can't believe a "naturalist" would ignore homosexuality in non-human animals that way.

there are non-religious people who feel that homosexuality is a maturity issue. these people are in the minority and seldom speak out for fear of drawing attention to themselves. there are non-religious folk who philosophically believe that homosexuality is not the best behavior.

So there are people who are anti-gay for non-religious reasons, but they don't say so? How do you know about them?

[bachanon]

QUOTE(bachanon @ Sunday, November 4th, 2007 @ 12:41am) *

there are people who are naturalists. naturalism could argue that because reproduction requires both sexes, homosexuality is unnatural (but not sin).

memebag: Can you reference any of their writings? I can't believe a "naturalist" would ignore homosexuality in non-human animals that way.

animals exercise domination by sexual behavior. animals "exhibit homosexual behavior" but they are not homosexual as humans are homosexual. for some species sexual behavior is a bonding ritual with younger members of a group. should we apply this behavior as natural for humans? i think not.

in the book In Defense of Natural Law By Robert P. George, George defends the "naturalistic" view that homosexuality in humans is unnatural. before anyone goes off, i'm responding to memebag's assertion that no naturalists have this viewpoint.

QUOTE(bachanon @ Sunday, November 4th, 2007 @ 12:41am) *

there are non-religious people who feel that homosexuality is a maturity issue. these people are in the minority and seldom speak out for fear of drawing attention to themselves. there are non-religious folk who philosophically believe that homosexuality is not the best behavior.

memebag: So there are people who are anti-gay for non-religious reasons, but they don't say so? How do you know about them?

i meant that people in the sciences who have the secular ideology that homosexuality is not correct behavior do not publicly speak about their beliefs because of the heated politically correct environment that we live in. if you were a philosophy or biology professor at a major university, would you publicly discuss your unpopular opinion on homosexuality? would you risk a promotion or tenure? you certainly wouldn't write an article about it.

and.........we're off topic again. the thread is about closet gay republicans being outed (and this genius did it to himself, priceless). should anyone really care? i think the gay community does itself a disservice by rejoicing over the public humiliation of other gay people.

[westguy]

My response to that would be, how do you know? You weren't a sexual being when you were born, so this statement cannot possibly be confirmed or even studied without research at the genetic level (which is being done with mixed and speculative results).My own personal theory is that homosexuality is neither inherited or inherent. I would also contest that it is not a conscious choice either. I believe it to be a product of several factors including environment, circumstance, personal history, among other things. The short answer is that it is an unconsciously learned behavior.I fear that some might have taken some of my past comments as homophobic in either or both of the senses of the word. This couldn't be further from the truth.There have been several assertions that homosexuality is present naturally in nature. The question that has yet to be answered is are these acts of true homosexuality (attraction to the same sex) or acts of convenience Are we truly monosexual (I made that word up) or are these merely acts of convenient sexual gratification?I especially enjoyed the dolphin visual.

I've seen two female ducks getting it on. There's no shortage of males around either. I'm pretty sure the gay penguin couples that adopt eggs also have convenient access to a lot of hens.

[houstonmacbro]

From International Herald Tribune: Curtis is married and has children, according to his legislative Web site. Elected to the state House of Representatives in 2004, he voted in 2005 and 2006 against a bill that granted civil rights protections to gays and lesbians, and in 2007 voted against a bill that created domestic partnerships for same-sex couples. Both measures eventually passed the Democratic-controlled state Legislature and are now state law."The lady doth protest too much, methinks."What is it about hypocrisy that Republicans find so appealling?

What is it with being married and having children that people use all the time? I mean, as if there are no married RELIGIOUS people with kids who are also PERVERTS.One does not negate the other.People really need to learn that lesson once and for all. There are freaks of every stripe.

My response to that would be, how do you know? You weren't a sexual being when you were born, so this statement cannot possibly be confirmed or even studied without research at the genetic level (which is being done with mixed and speculative results).My own personal theory is that homosexuality is neither inherited or inherent. I would also contest that it is not a conscious choice either. I believe it to be a product of several factors including environment, circumstance, personal history, among other things. The short answer is that it is an unconsciously learned behavior.I fear that some might have taken some of my past comments as homophobic in either or both of the senses of the word. This couldn't be further from the truth.There have been several assertions that homosexuality is present naturally in nature. The question that has yet to be answered is are these acts of true homosexuality (attraction to the same sex) or acts of convenience Are we truly monosexual (I made that word up) or are these merely acts of convenient sexual gratification?I especially enjoyed the dolphin visual.

So all the heterosexual people in the world were BORN that way, but all the homosexuals were somehow genetic misfits?What a load of crap.

[memebag]

in the book In Defense of Natural Law By Robert P. George, George defends the "naturalistic" view that homosexuality in humans is unnatural. before anyone goes off, i'm responding to memebag's assertion that no naturalists have this viewpoint.

George is a Catholic, and his definition of natural law comes straight from Catholic dogma, so I don't think that counts.

i meant that people in the sciences who have the secular ideology that homosexuality is not correct behavior do not publicly speak about their beliefs because of the heated politically correct environment that we live in. if you were a philosophy or biology professor at a major university, would you publicly discuss your unpopular opinion on homosexuality? would you risk a promotion or tenure? you certainly wouldn't write an article about it.

I don't know. I just haven't encountered a secular ideology that homosexuality is "not correct", and I'm wondering where you've seen it.

and.........we're off topic again.

Yeah, sorry, but talking about gay Republicans is boring.

the thread is about closet gay republicans being outed (and this genius did it to himself, priceless). should anyone really care? i think the gay community does itself a disservice by rejoicing over the public humiliation of other gay people.

I don't think the gay community does that. I think some get a kick from anti-gay types being exposed as hypocrits.

[gwilson]

I've seen two female ducks getting it on. There's no shortage of males around either. I'm pretty sure the gay penguin couples that adopt eggs also have convenient access to a lot of hens.

But access doesn't equate availability since the females, in general have to approve their mates.

[gwilson]

So all the heterosexual people in the world were BORN that way, but all the homosexuals were somehow genetic misfits?What a load of crap.

Not at all. I don't believe there is anything genetic about it at all. I believe homosexuality is caused by circumstance, not genetics. In fact, I've been saying the whole time that I don't believe it to be natural. I think to use heterosexuality being natural as some sort of justification for homosexuality being natural is just an inherently flawed argument.

[memebag]

Not at all. I don't believe there is anything genetic about it at all. I believe homosexuality is caused by circumstance, not genetics. In fact, I've been saying the whole time that I don't believe it to be natural. I think to use heterosexuality being natural as some sort of justification for homosexuality being natural is just an inherently flawed argument.

What "circumstance" causes this "unnatural" homosexuality?

[west20th]

There is a massive and obvious difference between the two so your argument is not analogous to the topic at hand.These are some arguments that idiots use, yes. These arguments are usually rapidly shot down by anyone with common sense, even those opposed to gay marriage.In the interest of full disclosure, I do not believe one is born gay, but I also do not believe one makes a choice to be gay.I know more than one person who believes that it is wrong and are not religious in the least.Many view it as unnatural and subsequently wrong. Also, others see it as deviant and amoral.Moral codes aren't based on religion always.I, in no way, believe that legislation should be made AGAINST homosexuality. I think that legislating such things is outside the scope of the government's contract with the people.You're absolutely right. People need to caring about what lifestyles others lead that do not affect them. You do not have the RIGHT to not be offended (which is why I believe it was wrong that the Westboro Baptist Church lost that lawsuit in spite of my disdain for them). So mind your own and ignore it if you see it. The only time this is limited is when it encroaches on ones rights.

Is there something about "back on topic" you do not understand? Start a new thread if you do not want to discuss the topic of this one.

[west20th]

Not at all. I don't believe there is anything genetic about it at all. I believe homosexuality is caused by circumstance, not genetics. In fact, I've been saying the whole time that I don't believe it to be natural. I think to use heterosexuality being natural as some sort of justification for homosexuality being natural is just an inherently flawed argument.

"I've been saying the whole time". WHO CARES. You've been babbling on and on about your opinions on gay marriage and the root causes of homosexuality. Again, WHO CARES! Well I'm sure quite a few may care. And for them? START A NEW TOPIC PLEASE!!!

[gwilson]

I hardly think the attitude is necessary. I've been responding to people and they to me. So relax. Feel free to use the ignore function if the fact that I don't ignore peoples comments and questions offends you.

[west20th]

I hardly think the attitude is necessary. I've been responding to people and they to me. So relax. Feel free to use the ignore function if the fact that I don't ignore peoples comments and questions offends you.

I'd like to "ignore" by choosing to view or not view a topic, based on that topics interest to me. Cramming your opinions down my throat on a thread that has nothing to do with your opinions is pretty rude.

Maybe this will explain my "attitude" to your responses.

As a gay man I've always known I was born that way. As a heterosexual, you have every right to have an opinion on something you know nothing about. But "born" or "learned" what the hell is the difference? Should I have to accept less rights because I "choose" to be this way? Should I happily accept harrasement because I was born straight and I chose to be a 'Mo? Pardon me but I find the whole "born" or "learned" question to be trivial. Interesting discussion, under the correct topic, but really, what difference does it make?