Cocheese Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 My Uncle is a Dr. He studies genetics and works for a company that does intense research for new medications at a genetic level. There is no doubt in his mind that homosexuality is part of someones genetic make up, that cannot be changed, and is set before birth durring development. It is also possible that it could be caused by improper hormone levels at certain times durring fetal development also. So he has no proof, just his opinion? I seem to remember there are people out there who think there is a genetic make up that causes people to become mass murders and rapists. Are we as a society now suppose to accept their actions because it's in their genetics? I don't care if you think you are gay. That's your life. But, the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. Case closed. Call it whatever you like, but don't call it marriage. Just a question, if gays want to change the definition of what marriage is, then why don't they push to allow polygamy? Oh yeah, because it's not about equal rights, it's about pushing their agenda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron W. Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) Hmm, remember when gay meant happy? Edited May 31, 2009 by Ron W. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I don't care if you think you are gay. That's your life. But, the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. Period. Case closed. Call it whatever you like, but don't call it marriage. Don't you live....where I live? If you do, then the definition of marriage is: 2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. Period. Case Closed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Just a question, if gays want to change the definition of what marriage is, then why don't they push to allow polygamy? Oh yeah, because it's not about equal rights, it's about pushing their agenda. WTF, that makes absolutely no sense. Polygamy is marriage between multiple people where as homosexuality is the marriage of two people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mettech Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Don't you live....where I live? If you do, then the definition of marriage is: 2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. Period. Case Closed. You do know that the above is not the original diffinetion..... Do you? And I don't like the Homosexuals using the word 'gay". Someone surly can make a new word for the dictionary to reflect the new emerging homosexual lifestyle. (Not that there isn't anything wrong with it..) And I don't want any slanderous words used either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 You do know that the above is not the original diffinetion..... Do you? So? We have changed many things throughout history in the pursuit of human rights. We stopped segregation, we eliminated slavery, etc,etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I hope none of your children is gay, cause they will probably go through alot of trouble if they are. But it would be a good eye opener for you, maybe get you to think out side your narrow little world. My Uncle is a Dr. He studies genetics and works for a company that does intense research for new medications at a genetic level. There is no doubt in his mind that homosexuality is part of someones genetic make up, that cannot be changed, and is set before birth durring development. It is also possible that it could be caused by improper hormone levels at certain times durring fetal development also. I know you can not even fathom this, and are so stubborn you probably couldn't even take the time to just think about this. What if homosexuality is something that is genetic? what if God did make people this way? How could that possibly make them a sinner when it is outside of their control? And what would you do if your son said dad I like boys. Are you going to banish him? When you are done being angry and done telling me who I am... This is the guy that presided over my wedding. So perhaps my world is not so narrow. Perhaps it is yours. I tried to even show you a very positive and nice reply earlier. Clearly you want non of that. So be it. I actually have have doctors in my immediate family. Thanks for sharing his 'opinion'. Thanks for repaying me with personal attacks. I know better what to expect from you now. God clearly did make people this way. And I am not calling for their destruction in any way, shape, or form. It is you that is calling for the destruction of those that disagree with you. Will that make you happy? Will you finally be happy when homosexuality is more mainstream then heterosexuality? You and I both know that won't be the case. And that is the actual concern and challenge. Homosexuality is a sin. No greater or worse then my own sin of being irritated by your personal attacks on this forum. I have many other sins. Perhaps 10x more than you. But just because sin is out side of our control is no excuse. Further, one can not gain a foot hold over sin by living in sin and having an authority of our own making. So explain it away any way you like. That is your business. But when you desire to force it on society and societies children know that some of us will not sit quietly by and watch you. If my children grew up to be gay so be it. However, they understand that there is a difference between being gay and practicing it. They know that they can not have two or more authorities in their life and be blessed from it. They know that blessings do not come from computer games, candy, a new bike, etc., but that they come from God and that one can not disobey God and expect to be blessed. So no. I would not banish them. I love my children very much. Luckily they are wiser than their years and are being well prepared by God to live their own lives. Do not wish ill on them because they have strong loving parents that watch over them and protect them and teach them ethics, morals, and God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Preying on children, right cause trying to open other peoples eyes about the cause of homosexuality is preying on children. Most kids don't care. If they are straight they will not turn gay, and gay will not turn straight. I love how discussing the cause of homosexuality or educate children that there are people out there who have different sexual orientation is preying on them. The books and instruction is very simple and not graphic. they are picture books. They are not showing kids gay porn, and if they were I can tell you I would be discusted by that. A picture book about two dads or moms is not going to scar them. One day they will have to accept that there are people out there different from the narrow little world mom's and dad's like you talk about. My cousins grew up like that, and were totally freaked by every little thing outside the sheltered little wolrd they grew up in, everything from homeless people, to mentally ill people, to other races etc. Oh and there are lots of straight men who do inject sperm in to womens rectums, I'm not sure but I think that makes your point mute. It's funny to me that the one gay man here willing to talk about homosexuality is the only one who doesn't bring up disgusting references to sexual acts, and has tried to be factual and scientific, and open minded...yet the relgious zelots are focused on the porn aspects and can't saeem to stop thinking about anal sex. So some things perhaps you fail to understand. Parents often teach children things as the children ask about them. We don't march down the hallway of education and fee them today what they will need to know years from now. That is not wise and can be devastatingly painful. However, the gay agenda says there is nothing to learn about homosexuality other than the sex itself that can not be taught to kindergartners. I guess the only deciding point is that they are not Your kids. My son just started to ask about what divorce is. He was very concerned about what that was and what it meant and is still somewhat concerned about it and what it means to our family and him. He is not old enough to really understand the concepts that brings about marriage let alone divorce. So we talked about it. But I do not want nor need the schools teaching about divorce just because so many people get divorced. When he has questions we talk about it. I ask probing questions along the way to see if there are things he would like to talk about. I also reasure them of their love, their parents love for them, and their parents love for each other. There is no shortage of love in my family. What I don't need or want is the schools teaching kindergartners about homosexuality when they don't even grasp the concept of what a mother and father really means. But you do. Because it works the indoctrination agenda. Our world is not narrow at all. Simply by your postings my children are more mature, wise, logical, objective, and fair than you present yourself to be. I feel very sorry for your cousins. They sound like they were raised in a cabin in the woods. But I would not take their parents rights to raise them as they see fit away. Yes, you have been noting but scientific and factual and pleasant. Just us bigots and narrow minded religious zealots here with all the problems. You have little to no respect for others that oppose your view on this topic. It shows through in your anger. But you want to be respected for your opinion and view? You want to be respected while not respecting? It is an alien concept to me. When I disagree with someone and I want to change their minds or dialog with them I do my very best not to come at them for a fight and call them names and attack them personally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephenhawkings Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Hmm, remember when gay meant happy? way before being PC politically correct Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CurtisH Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 WTF, that makes absolutely no sense. Polygamy is marriage between multiple people where as homosexuality is the marriage of two people. Actually, polygamy is not a marriage between multiple people. Each marriage is between one man and one woman.The most common form of polygamy is that of one man having multiple wives. However, he marries each wife in a separate ceremony. The wives are not married to each other. They simply share a husband. They usually also share a home. In some polygamous societies, women have had multiple husbands. However, this form of polygamy is not as common. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Ok, but that would involve multiple contracts. There can only be one marriage contract at a time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Ok, but that would involve multiple contracts. There can only be one marriage contract at a time. Not trying to open a can of worms, but what makes a marriage contract any different from any other contract? I can have a contract with the bank to finance my car, and a separate one to finance my house. What makes the marriage contract special that it's limited to one at a time? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 I don't really know that, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works...well..it is how it works. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerM Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 (edited) I don't really know that, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works...well..it is how it works. I'd conclude that you'd prefer the marriage contract remain separate (in status), by virtue of its uniqueness. I'd prefer the term 'marriage' pertain to a male-female couple because of it's uniqueness, too. Edited June 1, 2009 by RangerM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cocheese Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Don't you live....where I live? If you do, then the definition of marriage is: 2. Marriage, for civil purposes, is the lawful union of two persons to the exclusion of all others. Period. Case Closed. The definition has been changed from what it was, and what it should be. I don't recogize the left wing hippy version of it. Again, I don't care what they call it, just don't call it marriage. You can have all the rights in a relationship that a married couple has, but again, you can't call it marriage. Plain and simple. They want it because they can't have it. I guarantee you if they came up with a term that only applied to homosexual relationships, and a straight couple wanted to change the definition so that they could use it, there would be one hell of a fight from the gay community to block it. It's not about equal rights, it's about their agenda. WTF, that makes absolutely no sense. Polygamy is marriage between multiple people where as homosexuality is the marriage of two people. The definition of marriage has been, and what I recognize it as, is between a man and a woman. Gays want to change that. If you change the definition to allow for homosexuals to marry, why can't you change it to allow 3 or more individuals to marry each other? At the end of the day, you want to change the definition. So why is it you aren't supportive to others who want it changed to what they believe in? If a man and a man want to "marry", why can't a man, a woman and another woman "marry" each other? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Because marriage is a commitment of to eachother, something I believe you can't have with mroe than two people. I would think that gays are just as capable of feeling love for eachother as anyone else...I don't belive that it would be so for multiple people. Although....when the current court case involving polygamy is through, you may get your wish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cocheese Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Because marriage is a commitment of to eachother, something I believe you can't have with mroe than two people. I would think that gays are just as capable of feeling love for eachother as anyone else...I don't belive that it would be so for multiple people. That's a crap reasoning. You are changing the definition of what a marriage is to allow homosexuals to be included. Why aren't you willing to change it to allow more then two people to share it? Saying you can't love more then one person at a time or be committed to them, is like saying you can't give equal love to more then one child at a time. Although....when the current court case involving polygamy is through, you may get your wish. To be clear, I don't support polygamy marriage. I don't support gay marriage. As far as I'm concerned, marriage should only be between and man and a woman. And I don't think the government has the right to change the definition of it. But I am all for free rights. If you want to be gay, that's your choice. If you want to be a polygamist, go ahead. And to be honest, if you think you are in love with your dog, and you think it's in love with you, all the best to you. I fully support these people's rights to share benefits with their significant other. But in no way do I think they should be able to marry. But like I said, they don't want marriage. They want to shove their agenda down everyone throat's. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 But like I said, they don't want marriage. They want to shove their agenda down everyone throat's. Yeah...their 'gay agenda'... Anyway, the Supreme Court thought that marriage was a right....as did many lower Canadian courts...that's why we're where we are, not because of the belief of one person or another. http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2004/2004.../2004scc79.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 News just gets sadder by the moment. GLSEN founder overseeing safety of nation's schools? "One book called Growing Up Gay, Growing Up Lesbian -- it's an anthology; they've had this on their site for years, even after I reported on it and others have," Harvey explains. "[The book describes] a man looking back on his youth [who] said that he had had sex with one of his father's gay friends when he was a young teenager -- and he talks about it in graphic terms and that this was a great experience in his life." Recommended for 7-12 graders. Day of Silence Ally Day Gay Marriage All part of an indoctrination planned for our kids. Peace and Blessings Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 News just gets sadder by the moment. GLSEN founder overseeing safety of nation's schools? "One book called Growing Up Gay, Growing Up Lesbian -- it's an anthology; they've had this on their site for years, even after I reported on it and others have," Harvey explains. "[The book describes] a man looking back on his youth [who] said that he had had sex with one of his father's gay friends when he was a young teenager -- and he talks about it in graphic terms and that this was a great experience in his life." Recommended for 7-12 graders. Day of Silence Ally Day Gay Marriage All part of an indoctrination planned for our kids. Peace and Blessings Mac You are blowing it. Let men marry men. Let women marry women. In 20 years, there will be no Democrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
macattak1 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Mac You are blowing it. Let men marry men. Let women marry women. In 20 years, there will be no Democrats. Ha. You are right. Even sooner as a generation is 15 to 18 years. Adoptions and IVF will potentially give them some more numbers, but not the numbers they would need. Peace and Blessings Oh. And see obama's new selection for #2 DOJ spot. Pro pornography, Pro child pornography, Pro 14 year old abortions with no parental notification, Pro no spouseal abortion notification, etc. But he is a changed man now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DUCKRACER Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Ha. You are right. Even sooner as a generation is 15 to 18 years. Adoptions and IVF will potentially give them some more numbers, but not the numbers they would need. Peace and Blessings Oh. And see obama's new selection for #2 DOJ spot. Pro pornography, Pro child pornography, Pro 14 year old abortions with no parental notification, Pro no spouseal abortion notification, etc. But he is a changed man now! 2 thoughts get me through these times of declining into a Goddless, Socialist country. #1 It took a Jimmy Carter to get us Ronald Reagan #2 It's in God's hands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suv_guy_19 Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 If you want to believe that children are being indoctrinated and that you can teach people to be gay, go ahead. Ignorance is bliss I suppose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted June 1, 2009 Author Share Posted June 1, 2009 (edited) If you want to believe that children are being indoctrinated and that you can teach people to be gay, go ahead. Ignorance is bliss I suppose. I wouldn't say indoctrinated...but I would pull my kid out of a school toot sweet if i found that classes were being taught embracing the ways of the gay community....ESPECIALLY if there was NO choice....not being given a choice as to WHAT my childs school subjects were i find offensive. And being told to embrace a lifestyle, that whilst most accept it, but are not comfortable with, I beleive is wrong...after all its hypocritical....where is the freedom of choice there?. Edited June 1, 2009 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.