Doogie

[Lance_Iguana]

Jason Wrote
John Wayne?

No way was the duke gay, no not the duke, not my John Wayne no way, :bigfrown

lol, i will say agian, just because a man has manly attributes doenst mean he is or he's not gay.

when i was bi. there was no lisping, any hint of feminity.

Agreed. I don't lisp either. The gay stereotype is actually extremely inaccurate. Most of the explosion of ultra feme men that are gay or bi is based on this idea that we are supposed to be like that. Most of us are just like any other guy on the street. Their are click and sub clicks in the gay community, when I finally came to terms with myself and started talking to people, I was actually shocked to find out that its almost the same as being straight, just with drag shows.

 

[jasoncran]

we had a gym member that wanted to join the bjj club and was gay, and yet no hint of hit any feminity or softness. man he was big.

the only hint i saw was the wristlace of the rainbow colors.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Maybe they think Men liking Men is unnatural and vile...

I don't agree with it...but it's not my right to stop you guys from living your lives

I don't mind if people think what I'm doing is wrong. I'm not saying we must be accepted in every single way. Everyone has the right to their opinion and I respect that. Its just that politicians are now using that to convince voters that the entire issue is bigger then what it is and that we are destroying the world.

To simplify this, politicians always pick a group to use as a scape goat in order to distract us from the actual problems our country is in.

Ex.
Why is divorce so high? Must be those gay people.
Why are drugs so rampant? Must be those Morale less gay people.
You get the idea? You can replace Gay people with any group.

 

[jasoncran]

if a christian fall for that then they mustn be reading their bible. cause we and all sinners are the cause of whats wrong with society, along with the devils.

but we must take the blame first. as noone can make us do something we dont want to do. the devil made me do it. wont hold in a court of law and neither at the white throne judgment.

all manner of sin is caused by this in a nutshell, the sinner who hasnt repented or the christian who needs to repent and get right with god.

 

[Caroline H]

Maybe they think Men liking Men is unnatural and vile...

I don't agree with it...but it's not my right to stop you guys from living your lives

I don't mind if people think what I'm doing is wrong. I'm not saying we must be accepted in every single way. Everyone has the right to their opinion and I respect that. Its just that politicians are now using that to convince voters that the entire issue is bigger then what it is and that we are destroying the world.

To simplify this, politicians always pick a group to use as a scape goat in order to distract us from the actual problems our country is in.

Ex.
Why is divorce so high? Must be those gay people.
Why are drugs so rampant? Must be those Morale less gay people.
You get the idea? You can replace Gay people with any group.

To be honest, I haven't heard a politician blame divorce rates and drug use rates on the gay "community," have I been missing something?

I understand that you don't want people speaking in ignorance about homosexuality and making rash judgments against them just because of a social fear, and I agree with that sentiment as well because it makes us all look bad when people do that. However, when people make their judgments about homosexuality based upon what the Lord says about it, then their feelings are quite valid. You cannot expect people to accept a redefinition of marriage or family when they are following what the Bible says. That would be irrational.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

To be honest, I haven't heard a politician blame divorce rates and drug use rates on the gay "community," have I been missing something?

Look up commercials for Prop 8 in California. We where blamed for everything under the sun. The politicians there didn't pull a single punch. They went for blood. Polls have shown that the majority of votes had no idea what they where voting on. Most seriously thought they we voting on the banning of Gay sex, or Gay people, not marriage. It was a mess.

I understand that you don't want people speaking in ignorance about homosexuality and making rash judgments against them just because of a social fear, and I agree with that sentiment as well because it makes us all look bad when people do that.

Agreed. :yes

However, when people make their judgments about homosexuality based upon what the Lord says about it, then their feelings are quite valid. You cannot expect people to accept a redefinition of marriage or family when they are following what the Bible says. That would be irrational.

I'm not asking people to change their religious views or their personal/ Church's definition of marriage. That is one thing I don't think I convey clearly enough. The entire issue with same sex marriage is that the legal state side shouldn't be with held because it violates the 14th amendment. That is the biggest issue. Churches are exempt from having to worry about this, because they have the ability to discriminate as they wish. The only exception is that churches willing to marry us ( of any religion) should have the choice to as well.

I think the biggest problem with the entire issue is the people's ignorance that there is such a thing as civil unions/ State marriage/ other religions being able to marry. That's this entire debate in a nutshell.

 

[Pard]

Really, I see two options on this whole thing.

The first, and the simplest of the options is to make a "civil union" open to straight couples as well. As I hold to be true, a marriage ought only be between two people AND God. If someone doesn't believe in God they shouldn't be getting married. Of course I cannot, nor would I want, to deny them the right to be legally bound to each other so you ought to form an alternative, aka civil union.

Really, when we break down civil union what it means is a union that is made official by the government. It has been turned into a special case marriage for gays, and I think that is not right. Anyone ought to be joined in civil marriage if they wish to only recognize their coupling before the government and not before God.

A marriage should ALSO be open to anyone, but the government ought to have no say in the matter, becase it is a Godly matter and not a human one. If a pastor or church feels that they are willing to marry a gay couple before God, than by all means let them. God 'll sort it all out.

The other option is simply to remove all government ties from marriages/unions at all. Why do I need to have my marriage approved by the government anyways? Let the churches deal with who they will marry and who they will not marry. Any gay or atheist who wishes to be married ought to seek out the closest Unitarian Universalist church...

 

[Pard]

The other thing I don't get is the assertion that it is "perfectly normal" to be gay. Even from a trictly evolutionary stand point homosexuality is abnormal. It is also abnormal from the liberal humanist view, however I find that often the homosexual crowd is cajoled into believing they are all welcome into the liberal bandwagon, though on a closer inspection it is truly the moderate wagon that the homosexual falls into, as either side of middle has a reason for homosexuality's abnormal nature.

 

[jasoncran]

lovely. a gay rights debate.

pard. the problem is that any christian who works for the goverment and has the title of justice of the peace must then marry gays.no exceptions.(this includes any judge,public notary) and so on.

whether they work for a bank or not,in florida any public notary can marry. and they dont have to work for the state directly. they are officers of court in that sense.

 

[Pard]

lovely. a gay rights debate.

pard. the problem is that any christian who works for the goverment and has the title of justice of the peace must then marry gays.no exceptions.(this includes any judge,public notary) and so on.

whether they work for a bank or not,in florida any public notary can marry. and they dont have to work for the state directly. they are officers of court in that sense.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

 

[Lewis]

Jason Wrote
John Wayne?

No way was the duke gay, no not the duke, not my John Wayne no way, :bigfrown

lol, i will say agian, just because a man has manly attributes doenst mean he is or he's not gay.

when i was bi. there was no lisping, any hint of feminity.

Jason I know that, I have been around them long enough to know the deal, got people male and female in my family that are gay, got gay friends, my first wife's brother dressed in drag and did female hormones and silicon shots for the breast area, as a way of life, and he lived with us, and now he has had a sex change, and I still love him as a person. But I know some gay men that you will not know that they are gay when you meet them, because they don't act gay. My aunts husband is gay, and you would think that he is normal when you meet him, but he ain't. I didn't know that Doogie was gay.

 

[Caroline H]

Pard, marriage is not necessarily a religious institution. It is for us Christians, and people of other religions, but it doesn't have to be. If it were made so that the government didn't have to recognize marriages, then there would be all sorts of legal schisms and we'd have a big 'ol mess. Think about benefits, insurance, wills, etc...

 

[Theofilus]

On average, 1 out of every ten people are gay. Meaning for every 100 there are 10 gay/ lesbian people.

That is absolute rubbish for which there is no support, except maybe for the claims of the gay community, if you count that as reliable evidence for their numbers. I have something I believe is much more reliable.

No you don't,

Yes I do. I said I believe these numbers are more reliable. If you believe something else, that's fine for you, but you can't tell me what I believe.

my information comes from annual surveys that have been done since the 1970s sometimes including the census.

Surveys are not a reliable source of information. I used to think that Gallup surveys were reliable until they called me one evening. It was obvious from the questions they asked that they had already decided what the outcome would be. They arrived at the conclusion they were paid to arrive at.

I do find it interesting that you mention the census. Do they ask whether you're gay or strait on the census form? I thought they weren't allowed to ask that.

For both heterosexuals and homosexuals, there are 3 types of recognized unions here in Iceland -

1. Religious marriages[/*:m:39fxwlpf]
2. Civil marriages/unions[/*:m:39fxwlpf]
3. Registered cohabitaion[/*:m:39fxwlpf]

Gays and lesbians claim that they are 10-15% of the population here. But if you take all forms of unions, about 1500 heterosexual couples start some kind of relationship every year. Gays and lesbians start about 9 relationships every year.

Nope, that proven false years ago, we are actually about the same relationship wise as heterosexuals.

What do you mean by "the same relationship wise"? Do you mean that the same percentage of homosexuals live together or start recognized unions (civil or religious) as heterosexuals? If that's what you mean, then that supports what I said. If 10% of the population were gay, and they're "the same relationshipwise", then they would account for 10% of recognized unions, but they don't. They only account for less than 1%.

That's less than 1% of the total. If they were 10% of the total population, wouldn't you expect them to be in 10% of unions? The numbers just don't add up.

No I wouldn't, because not all 90% of the straight population marry or remain married. Around 48% of straight marriages end in divorce, so that automatically skews the results right there.

Here in Iceland, the number of divorces among heterosexual couples is about 36% of the number or weddings. Among homosexuals that number is around 64%. But that doesn't skew the numbers at all. The numbers I gave earlier were the number of weddings/unions/cohabitations that were started each year, regardless of how they end.

 

[Pard]

Pard, marriage is not necessarily a religious institution. It is for us Christians, and people of other religions, but it doesn't have to be. If it were made so that the government didn't have to recognize marriages, then there would be all sorts of legal schisms and we'd have a big 'ol mess. Think about benefits, insurance, wills, etc...

I didn't mean that government should recognize a marriage, I am saying that the government has no business deciding who ought to be married at all. The stance that government has over marriage is nearly God-like in nature. Let them acknowledge marriages and unions but leave that stuff to other people. Jason said even bankers can marry people... what makes a banker fit to marry people? What makes a paper-pusher fit to marry people? Now I get judges marrying and such, but that really ought to be the only way to be married before the government.

Jason,

I did a Google search for John Wayne being gay... The evidence is so weak it's not even funny. Furthermore, at the bottom of Google, where they suggest other google searches, I had a list of five other actors who had stuff about them as being gay. One may not act gay with their characteristics, but a quick look as to John Wayne's stance on politics and religion and such would clearly answer any question of his homosexuality. Considering he was a Christian...

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Really, when we break down civil union what it means is a union that is made official by the government. It has been turned into a special case marriage for gays, and I think that is not right. Anyone ought to be joined in civil marriage if they wish to only recognize their coupling before the government and not before God.

Striaght people can get a civil union. They always could, what actually started this entire mess was that gays like myself where denied this. This gose back to my statement of the populace being completely ignorant of the issue.

The other option is simply to remove all government ties from marriages/unions at all. Why do I need to have my marriage approved by the government anyways?

The reason why the government is involved is because there are multiple situations where unless you are family or married, you can't be involved. Bank accounts, inheritance, property rights, mortgages, power of attorney, and over a hundred more instances. That is why the government is involved, to make sure we aren't getting worked over because our spouse isn't directly related to us.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Yes I do. I said I believe these numbers are more reliable. If you believe something else, that's fine for you, but you can't tell me what I believe.

............... So if I beleive that Africa dosen't exist, dose that mean I'm right, and you can't correct me because its my belief?

Surveys are not a reliable source of information. I used to think that Gallup surveys were reliable until they called me one evening. It was obvious from the questions they asked that they had already decided what the outcome would be. They arrived at the conclusion they were paid to arrive at.

Population survey's are not gallup polls.

I do find it interesting that you mention the census. Do they ask whether you're gay or strait on the census form? I thought they weren't allowed to ask that.

They are alowed to ask, you are allowed to omit it though.

What do you mean by "the same relationship wise"? Do you mean that the same percentage of homosexuals live together or start recognized unions (civil or religious) as heterosexuals? If that's what you mean, then that supports what I said. If 10% of the population were gay, and they're "the same relationshipwise", then they would account for 10% of recognized unions, but they don't. They only account for less than 1%.

No, I'm saying that we have the same problems relationship wise. There are multiple reasons why LGBT might still not be marrying. Being closeted and family being a big one.

Here in Iceland, the number of divorces among heterosexual couples is about 36% of the number or weddings. Among homosexuals that number is around 64%. But that doesn't skew the numbers at all. The numbers I gave earlier were the number of weddings/unions/cohabitation that were started each year, regardless of how they end.

Then its meaningless because I live in the USA, and we have differnt diversity and population densities then Iceland.

 

[Pard]

Striaght people can get a civil union. They always could, what actually started this entire mess was that gays like myself where denied this. This gose back to my statement of the populace being completely ignorant of the issue.

Not everywhere. I recall in one of the north east states an atheist couple sued the state for not allowing them a gay union.

And I think you are the one who is ignorant in this. The first state to allow civil unions was Vermont and it was a way for gays to be coupled. Trust me, I live in CT, we are one of the battleground states for this. Your state (I think Washington) does not allow for it (or didn't) but that doesn't apply to the other 49 states. In CT the civil union was created for gays and restricted hetero couples from even getting a civil union.

The reason why the government is involved is because there are multiple situations where unless you are family or married, you can't be involved. Bank accounts, inheritance, property rights, mortgages, power of attorney, and over a hundred more instances. That is why the government is involved, to make sure we aren't getting worked over because our spouse isn't directly related to us.

I did a terrible job at describing my second option. This better describes my second option:

viewtopic.php?f=23&t=48938

 

[Caroline H]

They are alowed to ask, you are allowed to omit it though.

I didn't see it on my census form, do have sources for these tidbits and statistics?

 

[jasoncran]

lovely. a gay rights debate.

pard. the problem is that any christian who works for the goverment and has the title of justice of the peace must then marry gays.no exceptions.(this includes any judge,public notary) and so on.

whether they work for a bank or not,in florida any public notary can marry. and they dont have to work for the state directly. they are officers of court in that sense.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

then we have a problem then as in mass that law there forces christians to marry gays, and lesbians, if they cant they are fired!

unless you know something that i dont.

 

[Pard]

then we have a problem then as in mass that law there forces christians to marry gays, and lesbians, if they cant they are fired!

unless you know something that i dont.

It's Mass... Do I have to say more? They are the biggest you-know-what this side of of the Pacific! Of all the New England states they are the only one that will not honor a temp. license plate from an of the other surrounding states. Of all the states in New England they are the only one that will not honor permits for TRAVELING with a gun from another state. Of all the states in New England they are the only state that does not honor boat registration from out of state.

This is also the state that wants to FORCE Christian hospitals to give abortions.

They couldn't careless about rights, and the fed couldn't careless about them.