| Your opinion? |
| Good. |
|
39% |
[ 9 ] |
| Bad. |
|
60% |
[ 14 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 23 |
|
| Author |
Message |
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
 Fri Aug 20, 2004 10:06 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | How did you come to that conclusion? |
There have been studies that have proven it.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Fri Aug 20, 2004 11:34 pm |
|
Get me proof. Yall haven't given me any proof except for only what yall are saying. Give me a website, a book, an article, something that supports what you are saying.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Fri Aug 20, 2004 11:42 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Quote: | | There is no legitimate scientific research connecting homosexuality and pedophilia. Sexual orientation (homosexual or heterosexual) is defined as an adult attraction to other adults. Pedophilia is defined as an adult sexual attraction or perversion to children.7 In a study of 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two offenders where found to be gay or *beep*. More relevant was the finding that of the cases involving molestation of a boy by a man, seventy-four percent of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boys mother or another female relative. The conclusion was found that "a child's risk of being molested by his or her relative's heterosexual partner is over one hundred times greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual." |
That's from a USA Government Site: The US Department of Health and Human Services
http://naic.acf.hhs.gov/pubs/f_gay/f_gayb.cfm#eight |
There.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Gondor Girl
Princess of Ithilien
Joined: 27 Sep 2003
Posts: 3966
Location: Henneth Anun, Ithilien
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 3:53 am |
|
| Chakotay1988 wrote: | Because it takes alot of effort and money for a gay person just to have a child. Whereas in hedersexual relationships, alot of the time these days it's cuz the ppl were too anxiouse to do it and couldnt be bothered to put a condom on.
But with a gay couple you would have to really think hard about having a child. It costs a hell of alot of money and there all the tests they have to go through and then they have to find someone that will carry there baby (Most likely in another country) and the travel costs and thee are just so many things. To go through everyhing just to have a baby then they would have to be really determined and it's a choice to have a baby and there willing to put lots of money in it. and not to have a baby by accident and then not believe in abortions etc etc.
This was all on a program that was on a few month ago called "Making Babys The Gay Way" |
You're saying that as if all heterosexual people have children simply because they forgot to put on a condom when they were with their partner. Besides, they could just put the child up for adoption if they didn't want him or her. But having a baby by accident is due to immorality, which is another obscenity right along with homosexuality. I'm sorry, but a man with a man and a woman with a woman, is just wrong. No, I take that back. I'm not sorry. Homosexuality is wrong and there are no exceptions. The only reason that this isn't opposed in the Constitution is because the founding fathers never thought that it would come to the point where it would be needed to be declared that a man MUST get married to a woman. The time the Constitution was written, homosexuality was unthinkable. And don't say that change to this point is good cause that's bull. I don't know if I'm the only one that realizes this, but America is travelling down the same road that Rome travelled. It happens to the most powerful countries. And it does not end well. Eesh... you'd think that people would learn.
-------signature-------
Gondor! Gondor, between the mountains and the sea
West wind blew there; the light upon the Silver Tree
Fell like bright rain in the gardens of the Kings of old
O proud walls! White towers! O winged crown and throne of gold...
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:10 am |
|
| Gondor Girl wrote: | | where it would be needed to be declared that a man MUST get married to a woman. |
What if I don't want to marry? What if I want to stay a bachelor all my life, doomed to eking out a miserable little existence?
And time and time again, it has been definitively proved that people don't learn. In-duh-viduals sometimes learn better, and end up changing the world. (Then the DNRC catches up with them). But people in general are stupid. Good thing I'm one. 
|
|
|
Five - seveN
Rear Admiral
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 3567
Location: Shadow Moon
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 12:15 pm |
|
| Gondor Girl wrote: | | Chakotay1988 wrote: | Because it takes alot of effort and money for a gay person just to have a child. Whereas in hedersexual relationships, alot of the time these days it's cuz the ppl were too anxiouse to do it and couldnt be bothered to put a condom on.
But with a gay couple you would have to really think hard about having a child. It costs a hell of alot of money and there all the tests they have to go through and then they have to find someone that will carry there baby (Most likely in another country) and the travel costs and thee are just so many things. To go through everyhing just to have a baby then they would have to be really determined and it's a choice to have a baby and there willing to put lots of money in it. and not to have a baby by accident and then not believe in abortions etc etc.
This was all on a program that was on a few month ago called "Making Babys The Gay Way" |
You're saying that as if all heterosexual people have children simply because they forgot to put on a condom when they were with their partner. Besides, they could just put the child up for adoption if they didn't want him or her. But having a baby by accident is due to immorality, which is another obscenity right along with homosexuality. I'm sorry, but a man with a man and a woman with a woman, is just wrong. No, I take that back. I'm not sorry. Homosexuality is wrong and there are no exceptions. The only reason that this isn't opposed in the Constitution is because the founding fathers never thought that it would come to the point where it would be needed to be declared that a man MUST get married to a woman. The time the Constitution was written, homosexuality was unthinkable. And don't say that change to this point is good cause that's bull. I don't know if I'm the only one that realizes this, but America is travelling down the same road that Rome travelled. It happens to the most powerful countries. And it does not end well. Eesh... you'd think that people would learn. |
That really is the greatest nonsense I have ever seen. Gee... You'd have to be insane to say that.
I'm very, very sorry for y'all, but I think everyone who thinks homosexuality is bad really is an a-hole. I mean, if a man wants to marry a man, or a woman a woman, why not??? Just give me a good reason. And I don't mean all kinds of religious an morality nonsense.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:09 pm |
|
| Gondor Girl wrote: |
What the HECK is all this gibberish?!
You're saying that as if all heterosexual people have children simply because they forgot to put on a condom when they were with their partner.
What the heck are you smoking there? That is NOT true, in most cases, because when parents have babies, they WANT them (in most cases). That is nonsense, and is NOT true!
Besides, they could just put the child up for adoption if they didn't want him or her.
Exactly, I know, but children shouldn't be raised by gay parents.
But having a baby by accident is due to immorality, which is another obscenity right along with homosexuality.
No, it's not an immorality, well, it depends on the situation, but sometimes parents have sex and yet they don't want another baby, but they get one, but that isn't immoral. Sometimes, though, it is.
I'm sorry, but a man with a man and a woman with a woman, is just wrong. No, I take that back. I'm not sorry. Homosexuality is wrong and there are no exceptions.
I agree with that.
The only reason that this isn't opposed in the Constitution is because the founding fathers never thought that it would come to the point where it would be needed to be declared that a man MUST get married to a woman.
Agreed. 
The time the Constitution was written, homosexuality was unthinkable.
That's not true--it's been around for many years--but it was NOT nearly this big.
And don't say that change to this point is good cause that's bull. I don't know if I'm the only one that realizes this, but America is travelling down the same road that Rome travelled. It happens to the most powerful countries. And it does not end well. Eesh... you'd think that people would learn. |
I agree.
| Quote: | | I'm very, very sorry for y'all, but I think everyone who thinks homosexuality is bad really is an a-hole. I mean, if a man wants to marry a man, or a woman a woman, why not??? Just give me a good reason. And I don't mean all kinds of religious an morality nonsense. |
Alright, you must not have been reading things clearly.
1. We'd have to change the definition of centuries of non-gay marriage.
2. The proper family would be gone.
3. We would have to allow triads, and 4-somes, and 5-somes, and so where does it end?
And
| Quote: | | And I don't mean all kinds of religious an morality nonsense. |
My God! Nonsense! You may not believe in it, but you shouldn't say that it's nonsense. I take that as an attack.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:30 pm |
|
And I could call your saying "My God" an attack, 
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Founder
Dominion Leader
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 12755
Location: Gamma Quadrant
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:55 pm |
|
If you don't believe in it than how can it be an attack?
|
|
|
WeAz
Commodore
Joined: 03 Apr 2004
Posts: 1519
Location: Where you aren't
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 5:58 pm |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | For goodness sakes just let the poor people marry. Is it harming anyone? I don't think so. Just let them marry. I don't think they should be allowed to have kids, but my gosh, what is sooooo terribly wrong about letting them marry? |
exactly!!!!
-------signature-------
At Least In Vietnam, Bush Had An Exit Strategy
It was Bush, not Clinton, who ignored the warning signs for 9/11.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:32 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | And I could call your saying "My God" an attack, |
Hey, it's a phrase there! "RELIGIOUS NONSENSE" is an attack!
| Janeway_74656 wrote: | | JanewayIsHott wrote: | | For goodness sakes just let the poor people marry. Is it harming anyone? I don't think so. Just let them marry. I don't think they should be allowed to have kids, but my gosh, what is sooooo terribly wrong about letting them marry? |
exactly!!!! |
You can't just let them marry and not have kids!
And we shouldn't let them marry--we should NOT be forced to change the definition of marriage that has been around for CENTURIES!!!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 7:47 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | 3. We would have to allow triads, and 4-somes, and 5-somes, and so where does it end? |
Why would we have to do this? Society already allows triads, foursomes, and fivesomes[/b]. Obviously such a thing is already happening. To completely exterminate it, you'd need to lock down on society.
But right now we are dealing with the issue of homosexuality, and homosexuality alone. "One door closes, and another one opens", but this has been the case for every decision ever made. We shouldn't assume that just because the majority of society disagrees with homosexuality that it is automatically associated with three-or-more groupings.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:32 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | 3. We would have to allow triads, and 4-somes, and 5-somes, and so where does it end? |
Why would we have to do this? Society already allows triads, foursomes, and fivesomes[/b]. Obviously such a thing is already happening. To completely exterminate it, you'd need to lock down on society.
What the--it is NOT happening, at least not in America. If we give into Gay marriage then we have to allow that such things, and it's not right.
But right now we are dealing with the issue of homosexuality, and homosexuality alone. "One door closes, and another one opens", but this has been the case for every decision ever made. We shouldn't assume that just because the majority of society disagrees with homosexuality that it is automatically associated with three-or-more groupings. |
Yes, we ARE dealing with homosexuality, but I am using that statement to back up my opinion, okay? It FITS IN with this topic, my friend.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:15 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | What the--it is NOT happening, at least not in America. If we give into Gay marriage then we have to allow that such things, and it's not right. |
It's not happening openly, no. What I meant is that it occurs in secret. To completely root out such behaviour would require a police-state establishment, or something similar.
If we give into gay marriage, we don't have to allow such things. Ontario allows gay marriage, yet no legislation has been proposed to allow three-somes. No court has been approached with a case to change the definition of marriage to a three-some.
You aren't "giving in". "Giving in" is not a sign of moral weakness. It's finally letting homosexual couples have that heterosexual couples have. Until this happens, equality is more than a facade--it is a farce.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:18 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | What the--it is NOT happening, at least not in America. If we give into Gay marriage then we have to allow that such things, and it's not right. |
It's not happening openly, no. What I meant is that it occurs in secret. To completely root out such behaviour would require a police-state establishment, or something similar.
Give me proof of this, because it is illigal to do so, and two women but a man getting married into a triad is NOT happening in secret.
If we give into gay marriage, we don't have to allow such things. Ontario allows gay marriage, yet no legislation has been proposed to allow three-somes. No court has been approached with a case to change the definition of marriage to a three-some.
It's just a statement--although ridiculous--because you would have to make other support if gay marriage were allowed.
You aren't "giving in". "Giving in" is not a sign of moral weakness. It's finally letting homosexual couples have that heterosexual couples have. Until this happens, equality is more than a facade--it is a farce. |
It IS giving in.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:23 pm |
|
Ah, I see now. I wasn't talking about three-some marriage . . .
Yes, same sex marriage would set precedent. And yes, it would open more doors, more questions, layers and upon layers. But society claims to be tolerant, yet the moment someone asks for change they get shot down (not literally).
It's giving into what? Immorality and decadence? I seriously doubt that having a married homosexual couple living next to you would affect you much.
Think about it this way. Right now, homosexual couples are allowed to live together. The only difference between living together and marriage is that marriage entitles them to legal rights they would otherwise not have, and that it is a symbol of their unity.
I asked this question before, and I'll ask it again. How would allowing same sex marriage harm the stability of a nation? I doubt that same sex marriage would increase the amount of decadence, there is plenty decadence in society already.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:53 pm |
|
| Founder wrote: | | If you don't believe in it than how can it be an attack? |
I never said it was an attack on me, just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean that it doesn't matter anymore.
| Republican_Man wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | And I could call your saying "My God" an attack, |
Hey, it's a phrase there! "RELIGIOUS NONSENSE" is an attack!
|
"religious nonsense" is a phrase. You're degrading "god" by using him in that way, not to mention violated one of the commandments,   Not that care, but it's all relative, isn't it?
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:55 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | "religious nonsense" is a phrase. You're degrading "god" by using him in that way, not to mention violated one of the commandments, Not that care, but it's all relative, isn't it? |
Yeah, you're right there. God forgive me.
| Quote: | | I never said it was an attack on me, just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean that it doesn't matter anymore. |
Still.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:57 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | "religious nonsense" is a phrase. You're degrading "god" by using him in that way, not to mention violated one of the commandments, Not that care, but it's all relative, isn't it? |
Yeah, you're right there. God forgive me. |
Oh well.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Five - seveN
Rear Admiral
Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 3567
Location: Shadow Moon
|
| Fri Aug 27, 2004 5:31 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | Alright, you must not have been reading things clearly.
1. We'd have to change the definition of centuries of non-gay marriage.
2. The proper family would be gone.
3. We would have to allow triads, and 4-somes, and 5-somes, and so where does it end? |
1. What the hell do you mean? If you change that definition, so what? Will it hurt you or something?
2. �the proper family`, what does that mean? A married couple with 12 children, he working himself to death, she taking care of the children and being bored to death? There are already so many married couples without children, so what�s your point?
3. And why would that be?
Ok, sorry about the religious nonsense phrase, it wasn�t meant as an attack. please forgive me
|
|
|
Sonic74205
Rear Admiral
Joined: 01 Feb 2004
Posts: 4081
Location: England
|
| Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:00 am |
|
| Gondor Girl wrote: | | You're saying that as if all heterosexual people have children simply because they forgot to put on a condom when they were with their partner. Besides, they could just put the child up for adoption if they didn't want him or her. But having a baby by accident is due to immorality, which is another obscenity right along with homosexuality. I'm sorry, but a man with a man and a woman with a woman, is just wrong. No, I take that back. I'm not sorry. Homosexuality is wrong and there are no exceptions. The only reason that this isn't opposed in the Constitution is because the founding fathers never thought that it would come to the point where it would be needed to be declared that a man MUST get married to a woman. The time the Constitution was written, homosexuality was unthinkable. And don't say that change to this point is good cause that's bull. I don't know if I'm the only one that realizes this, but America is travelling down the same road that Rome travelled. It happens to the most powerful countries. And it does not end well. Eesh... you'd think that people would learn. |
You know what. You are sayin that we are wrong and that it is just unacceptable.
Well yu know what! ive got one thing to say to you. 
| Quote: | | WE'RE HERE, WE'RE QU EER, GET USED TO IT!!!!!! |
Last edited by Sonic74205 on Fri Aug 27, 2004 11:50 am; edited 1 time in total
-------signature-------
<a href="<img>http://sonic.11.forumer.com</a>
|
|
|
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
| Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:31 am |
|
I think what RM is trying to say is that if we allow homosexual marriages because they love each other then we have to allow 3somes and so on, if they love each other as it doesn't affect others. I agree with this, although I don't think it should be allowed to happen.
|
|
|
gilbert3729
Commander
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 390
Location: New England, USA
|
| Fri Aug 27, 2004 3:24 pm |
|
| Gondor Girl wrote: | | Chakotay1988 wrote: | Because it takes alot of effort and money for a gay person just to have a child. Whereas in hedersexual relationships, alot of the time these days it's cuz the ppl were too anxiouse to do it and couldnt be bothered to put a condom on.
But with a gay couple you would have to really think hard about having a child. It costs a hell of alot of money and there all the tests they have to go through and then they have to find someone that will carry there baby (Most likely in another country) and the travel costs and thee are just so many things. To go through everyhing just to have a baby then they would have to be really determined and it's a choice to have a baby and there willing to put lots of money in it. and not to have a baby by accident and then not believe in abortions etc etc.
This was all on a program that was on a few month ago called "Making Babys The Gay Way" |
You're saying that as if all heterosexual people have children simply because they forgot to put on a condom when they were with their partner. Besides, they could just put the child up for adoption if they didn't want him or her. But having a baby by accident is due to immorality, which is another obscenity right along with homosexuality. I'm sorry, but a man with a man and a woman with a woman, is just wrong. No, I take that back. I'm not sorry. Homosexuality is wrong and there are no exceptions. The only reason that this isn't opposed in the Constitution is because the founding fathers never thought that it would come to the point where it would be needed to be declared that a man MUST get married to a woman. The time the Constitution was written, homosexuality was unthinkable. And don't say that change to this point is good cause that's bull. I don't know if I'm the only one that realizes this, but America is travelling down the same road that Rome travelled. It happens to the most powerful countries. And it does not end well. Eesh... you'd think that people would learn. |
Homosexuality didnt just start recently; It has always been around. There were many famous people throughout history who were gay.
-------signature-------
Soylent Green is people!!!
John Kerry...
Bringing complete sentences back to the White House.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Fri Aug 27, 2004 5:54 pm |
|
| Five - seveN wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | Alright, you must not have been reading things clearly.
1. We'd have to change the definition of centuries of non-gay marriage.
2. The proper family would be gone.
3. We would have to allow triads, and 4-somes, and 5-somes, and so where does it end? |
1. What the hell do you mean? If you change that definition, so what? Will it hurt you or something? SO WHAT? It's been the definition for a LONG time! It would NOT be good to change it!
2. �the proper family`, what does that mean? A married couple with 12 children, he working himself to death, she taking care of the children and being bored to death? There are already so many married couples without children, so what�s your point?
The "proper family" does NOT mean 12 children, for cripse sake! The proper family is a mom and a dad and a child--NOT two moms and two dads.
Ok, sorry about the religious nonsense phrase, it wasn�t meant as an attack. please forgive me |
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Fri Aug 27, 2004 5:57 pm |
|
Hummm... I take it I don't come from a proper family then (my parents divorced, and I'd rather have lived with a gay couple than my parents).
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
