California Proposition 8

[top gun]

There is no more evidence supporting that polygamy would be harmful than homosexuality in marriage, particularly where children are involved. Polygamists are no more predisposed than the general population to child predation. You have no other real evidence to support that polygamists are somehow inherantly bad beyond your prejudice against them and now quite glaringly apparent bigotry.

It's interesting how "human rights" and "equality" fall by the wayside when it isn't your pet cause.


Once again, shame on you..

There's no pet cause to it.

I have a connection with fairness... not the homosexual community. It's just the right thing to do to tell homophobic people off when they're wrong and striving to hurt people who's action are hurting no one. Simple as that.

I've already several times posted the research that gay people raise perfectly normal children on par with any healthy functioning straight family.

And of course I posted the independent research on who is damaged by polygamy.

Ten Reasons Why Polygamy Should Be Illegal

1) In all polygamous cultures on the planet, women have extremely low status. All must obey their husbands, fathers, or brothers at all times. All are poor with few or no rights. In many, the women are virtual prisoners of their family compounds. Almost none get to choose who they marry, and many are married against their will to much older men. Moreover, the religions in these cultures assign women very low status, which teaches women not to expect more out of life for themselves. Thus, despite the polygamists' arguments, polygamy is not about rights: it's about the power over and control of one group by another.

2) Polygamy is almost never polyandry. It's not about women's freedom to choose who they marry or how many spouses they have: it's about women being owned by men.

3) Polygamy skews the natural ratio of marriageable men and women. If one man can take 20 women as spouses, then 19 men must do without spouses entirely. For this reason, polygamous cultures have to deal with the problem of excess males, either through wars and conflicts or through ostracization. This skewing of the natural ratio would create conflict in Canada.

4) Most North American "families" in polygamous situations are on welfare or food stamps. The men in these "families" cannot financially support all the women and children, and the women are generally not permitted the freedom to choose a career and work outside the family compound. This shows that in a modern society, polygamous marriages are neither healthy nor stable institutions.

5) The media has shown some polygamous women claiming that they are happy in their multiple marriages. But these statements have to be viewed carefully. According to the religion of these cultures, women are only permitted into heaven by permission of their "husband." In addition, if these women make a statement that could be construed as anti-polygamy, the leadership of the religious community will take away their children. Thus, women in these cultures are afraid to reveal their true thoughts and feelings or to jeopardize their fragile status. Meanwhile, many women who have left these polygamous cults describe the complete subjugation they had to endure. For this reason, the statements of polygamous women cannot be taken at face value.

6) Legal polygamy would turn immigration into a nightmare. An immigrant can claim to be wed to half a nation of women and demand that all these women be brought to Canada. Polygamists can arrive at the border and demand refugee status because of persecution. Sorting out these claims would be impossible, since most nations refuse to give legal status to such marriages.

7) Legalized polygamy would reduce women's rights. Polygamous cults from all over the world would start immigrating to Canada to take advantage of a right to live this lifestyle. Once they take citizenship, they would be able to vote for the values they believe in – low status for women. Moreover, they would raise their enormous families of children to believe these same values, which would further add to the anti-women voting pool. In a short period of time, 200 years of struggle for women's rights would vanish.

8) The issue of same-sex marriage is not at all in the same category as polygamous marriage. First, same-sex marriage is still a partnership and relationship of two people, most often with the objective of starting a family.

9) Second, nonheterosexuality is a biological state, not a choice. In contrast, nobody is born a polygamist. Thus, polygamy is not a rights situation in the same sense that nonheterosexual marriage recognition is a rights situation.

10) Third, same-sex marriage does not affect anyone except the two people involved; whereas polygamous marriage affects all of society because of its impact on women's status. Marriage is a partnership and a relationship. Polygamy turns marriage into a cattle drive.

Like I said... you've been scorned by a gay man and I feel your pain.

But fabricating false pretenses is really unfair. There isn't even any real argument because polygamy is not any threat. The states that allow gay marriage are having no problem either with gay marriage itself or a polygamist movement.

It's like you saying... You know if we let people drink flavored water they're going to like it and then some group is going to come along and push to have people drink it until they drown! It's irrational and frankly stupid...

 

[Sihouette]

That's just silly. I've seen more "enslaved" women in the US in normal marriages that make your argument moot as to polygamy being "inherantly abusive". All the statutes that go to domestic violence for regular marriage would apply to polygamy and gay marriage as well. In fact, in my area there is an alarming rise of homosexual domestic violence in civil partnerships. I think per capita it's proportionately higher than it's hetero counterpart.

Moot argument friend.

I've seen a polygamist union of three, one man and two wives, both sisters and all their collective children happily playing on vacation. The women were fussing happliy and telling the man what he needed to load in the car and so on. He meekly obeyed...lol..In fact, I'd imagine a man might run for the hills if both were PMS at the same time. Talk about being outnumbered..



That alone might dissuade most men from going for it. As to polyandry. I've known hippie couples where there were two or more men and one woman sexually engaging and living together in threesomes and foursomes. You never know where this might go? As long as they're consenting adults in love, what right does the State have to tell them they cannot be united in marriage?

Right? Isn't that how "the argument" goes? The one that's setting precident in state after state...

 

[Sihouette]

Actually it looks like gay domestic is about on-par with heterosexual. Not sure where I read the article where it reported its incidence as higher. If I find it I'll quote it. "Equality" isn't always a pleasant concept it seems..

No More Secrets: Violence In Lesbian Relationships

Myths: Violence is a male biological trait. When women fight, no one gets seriously hurt. Lesbians don't abuse their spouses. The truth revealed in Janice Ristock's groundbreaking book is that lesbian relationships sometimes do turn violent. Based on interviews with more than one hundred lesbians who have suffered abuse and seventy-five case workers, No More Secrets is the first in-depth account of this startling phenomenon. Although one in four gay and lesbian couples are affected by domestic violence, the problem has remained hidden for several reasons. First is the fear of homophobic backlash should lesbian violence be acknowledged. More significantly, Ristock argues, the lesbian feminist culture has readily adopted the idea that men are more violent than women in order to validate lesbian relationships. Recognizing abuse among lesbians would undermine the cemented belief that domestic abuse is an expression of patriarchy and gender bias. The definitive book on the subject, No More Secrets combines extensive research on the nature of lesbian battering with close-up analysis that will change our understanding of crimes of intimacy in heterosexual and homosexual couples alike. By giving voice to the victims, Ristock helps women to address violence by breaking silences, sharing secrets, and naming the forms of abuse.
Source: http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/gay.shtml

From the 2001 report of the National Coalition Of Anti-Violence Programs (NCAVP)

Special Issues in LGBT Domestic Violence
While LGBT domestic violence may be as prevalent as heterosexual domestic violence, it is not in all ways identical. Perpetrators often attempt highly specific forms of abuse, including:

• “Outing” or threatening to out a partner to friends, family, employers,
police or others.
• Reinforcing fears that no-one will help a partner because s/he is
lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender, or that for this reason, the partner
“deserves” the abuse.
• Alternatively, justifying abuse with the notion that a partner is not
“really” lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender; i.e., s/he may once have had
or may still have relationships with other people, or express a gender identity,
inconsistent with the abuser’s defi nitions of these terms.
• Telling the partner that abusive behavior is a normal part of LGBT
relationships, or that it cannot be domestic violence because it is occurring
between LGBT individuals.
• Portraying the violence as mutual and even consensual, especially if
the partner attempts to defend against it, or as an expression of masculinity
or some other “desirable” trait.

The latter point merits additional discussion. There is a frequently held doctrine that abuse in same-sex relationships cannot express a “power differential,” because in theory, individuals who share the same gender have the same amount of power bestowed on them by a sexist society. As a result (this line of thinking goes) domestic violence in same-sex relationships must be “mutual,” especially if the victim attempts to defend against the abuse.

Again, while NCAVP acknowledges the unique role of gender inequality in
many cases of domestic violence, it does not believe that the former is intrinsic to the latter. Rather, power differentials between same-sex partners may be expressed in many other ways—including, for example, one partner’s economic sufficiency, class, race/ethnicity, education, social background, or health status relative to the other. NCAVP can even cite cases in which birth order among adult siblings became the primary fulcrum of power seized upon by one of them to abuse the other. In other words, NCAVP’s view is that domestic violence always stems from some kind of power differential (and the ways in which an abuser learns to exploit it), such that the very idea of “mutual abuse” is founded on a false premise.

It follows that a comprehensive response to domestic violence, especially between individuals who share the same gender identity, requires an assessment of power dynamics as experienced by both partners in the relationship as well as according to more generalized theories of social, political or economic oppression. This assessment is absolutely necessary, in fact, to determine the actual abuser and survivor in many domestic violence situations.

Another important point is that the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the LGBT
community tends to lead to other fairly specifi c outcomes in some cases of LGBT domestic violence, similar to those observed between heterosexual couples when one or both partners has HIV illness. For example, HIV illness can act as a potent emotional stressor that precipitates some incidents of abuse. In addition, the outcomes of domestic violence can become more serious when they directly or indirectly affect an HIV-positive person’s health status, as in some of the examples below:

• The abuser may threaten to tell others that the partner has HIV/AIDS.
• An HIV-positive abuser may suggest that s/he will sicken or die if the
partner ends the relationship (or alternatively, that the abused partner’s health
will fail). The threat may have the ring of truth, if the HIV-positive partner is
dependent on the other for housing, nutrition, health care or other forms of
support.
• An abuser may withhold, throw away or hide a partner’s HIV medications,
cancel medical appointments, or prevent the HIV-positive partner from
receiving needed medical care. An HIV-positive abuser may even do the same
things to him/herself, in an attempt to blackmail the partner.
• An abuser may take advantage of an HIV-positive partner’s poor health
by using it as a rationale to limit contact with other individuals, assume sole
power over a partner’s economic affairs, and foster a partner’s utter dependency.
• The threat of physical violence can become more potent to HIV-positive
victims, who may be too weak to defend themselves or may fear the HIVrelated
complications (easy bruising, infections, slow or diffi cult healing) that
can result from being subjected to physical harm.
• An abuser with HIV/AIDS may infect or threaten to infect a partner
Source: http://www.aardvarc.org/dv/gay.shtml

.

 

[top gun]

That's just silly. I've seen more "enslaved" women in the US in normal marriages that make your argument moot as to polygamy being "inherantly abusive". All the statutes that go to domestic violence for regular marriage would apply to polygamy and gay marriage as well. In fact, in my area there is an alarming rise of homosexual domestic violence in civil partnerships. I think per capita it's proportionately higher than it's hetero counterpart.

Moot argument friend.

I've seen a polygamist union of three, one man and two wives, both sisters and all their collective children happily playing on vacation. The women were fussing happliy and telling the man what he needed to load in the car and so on. He meekly obeyed...lol..In fact, I'd imagine a man might run for the hills if both were PMS at the same time. Talk about being outnumbered..



That alone might dissuade most men from going for it. As to polyandry. I've known hippie couples where there were two or more men and one woman sexually engaging and living together in threesomes and foursomes. You never know where this might go? As long as they're consenting adults in love, what right does the State have to tell them they cannot be united in marriage?

Right? Isn't that how "the argument" goes? The one that's setting precident in state after state...

Still running on that old hamster wheel eh?

It's bizarre your love of poligamy... I don't get it... maybe it's just the mental strain from loosing a lover to the gay community. I must say you do often tend to demonstrate some interesting quirks.

STILL... you really can't run from the facts though. And I've easily posted the facts. Not one incedent I saw on vacation or something... the real independent reasearch. Poligamy as a institution compared to 2 person marriage adversly affects women and their children.

Furthermore... there is off the charts waaaaaay waaaaaay more heterosexual domestic violence cases than gay domestic violence cases.

And... polygamy is not an issue of gay marriage anyway... it's simply your floundering to find a diversion.

IT'S NOT HAPPENED ANYWHERE GAY MARRIAGE HAS BEEN ALLOWED FOR YEARS & YEARS & YEARS NOW!!!

You are narrow minded but certainly not mentally retarded. You must realize that saying over & over again that something is going to happen when the opportunity for that exact thing to happen has been around in some states for a very long time and it hasn't happened even at all... makes you look ridiculous casting that plea.

We could waste everybody's time saying those who participate in barnyard sodomy with animals would want more marriage rights if gays continue to be allowed to marry. It's totally unfounded and stupid... but we could say it.

The important precedent that's being set state by state is the continuing precedent just set in Conservative Iowa by the Iowa Supreme Court... gay marriage is and should be legal because it hurts no one and it is on the same exact plane as heterosexual marriage. .

 

[Sihouette]

Poligamy as a institution compared to 2 person marriage adversly affects women and their children

Either you present evidence that supports that polygamy itself, instead of the individual participants, breeds adverse conditions to women and children or stand accused of providing couch references. That and of being a bigot.

I've heard it said that those who accuse others of things routinely, knee-jerk like you do toppy, when the wind of evidence isn't blowing your way, are themselves guilty of the very thing they accuse.

It's something you hear and think, "yeah, I think that feels true". But until you really see the evidence of it, like your prejudice against people who want to marry two or more people they're in love with, you don't get the depth of the sentiment..

Now I do. Now I do..

 

[Sihouette]

A couple of men were indicted in Canada for polygamy. One of them prepared to defend himself in court:

Mr Blackmore's lawyer, Blair Suffredine, said his client will plead not guilty and will not dispute most of the evidence.

He will argue that polygamy for the purposes of religion should be legal and that gay marriage, legal in Canada since 2005, supports that position.

North Shore News reports that the prosecution may not be straightforward.

"The same-sex marriage reference to the Supreme Court in 2004 did away with the old definition of marriage, from the 1866 decision of the British House of Lords in Hyde vs. Hyde: "the union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others."

"If the Supreme Court could substitute "two persons" for "one man and one woman," it may be hard to find an argument for retaining "to the exclusion of all others."

"And there lies the perfect Catch-22: if the definition stands, Blackmore's last eighteen "marriages" — and Oler's second — are shams, carried out contrary to the very definition of the rite; and if the "exclusion" phrase is excised, then the "crime" of polygamy is in fact sanctioned by law, at best an awkward situation and at worst, absurd."
Source: http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-11036.html

Yes, the dissolution of "between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others" has factually kicked the barn door down.

We need to take back our definition of marriage. It isn't a religious matter, it's a matter of preserving foundational structure of a society. It's our right to weigh in on these matters as a populace since the populace is what will be affected. Other unions exist for other arrangements. "one man and one woman only" must be preserved as the norm to shoot for.

Yes, the prosecution could get dicey. As they say to the plaintiff or prosecutor, "The burden is upon you."

 

[Sihouette]

Returning back to homosexuals praying for marriage rights..

An article I read talked about how republicans should have "courage" to stand up for gay marriage. It cited how youth of the new generation are at a loss to understand the politics against gay marriage and how that would be bad for GOP ranks in the future..

My response:

Interesting you would bring up youth in the argument...

My daughter who is young explained in detail to me one day how two of her friends who used to be interested in boys were aggressively stalked and seduced by a lesbian repeatedly. She was of the girls age and a peripheral to their group. Repeatedly if one of the girls would dare to try to date a boy, the lesbian became openly hostile to them, menacing and would belittle them daily for their choice. The girls to this day are now confused, bisexual and wrestling with what happened to their sexuality.

I'll tell you what happened to it: aggressive recruitment. Having left the only other school in her district because of a stalking incident, my daughter said (after-the-fact) that the new school she went to had a "gay culture" that consisted of members who actively and aggressively sought to "initiate" heterosexual kids into their fold and that an informal point-system or bragging rights existed wherein homosexuals who "converted" the most number of heteros were held in high esteem amongst their friends.

She was sickened by this "cultural" phenomenon in her school and watched as friend after friend got sucked into this web. Apparently it is common knowledge spreading amongst kids that of the two high schools in this certain district, one is the "normal" school and one is the "gay school". And the kids know and will tell you of their prediction that if a kid goes to the gay school, no matter what their orientation going in, they will emerge bisexual at the very least and most likely homosexual. It's unfortunate because so many of the kids know this but the parents don't believe them, or there simply is the normal teen/parent communication breakdown. And because the school is located in a more yuppie area and has the (undeserved) reputation of a better staff, many well-meaning parents send their kids into boot camp for homosexuality.

And I have found too amongst several lesbian women I know of and have heard chatting amongst themselves, that they consider conversion of heteros to their preference something of a sport. Several open lesbians were allowed to TA (teacher's assistant) at my kids school K-8. The 8th grade had one as the TA. Constantly she chided the girls to stay away from boys, "why would you want anything to do with them?". Comments like this daily when she was out of earshot of other staff and only in the presence of kids (who naturally have second voice next to an adult staff member). She patted girls on the rump and openly lusted after one of them in class, making inappropriate comments to her in the presence of the other girls. Why my daughter felt reticent to tell me all this while it was going on is pretty clear. She knew how I felt about this type of thing and knew I wasn't shy in making my opinions known. So to keep from being likely 'punished' by this staff member who clearly would not be dismissed due to the pervasive politically-correct mandate in my area, she simply waited until she was out of the school to let me know. Same with high school. She "knew' no one would listen, that it wouldn't matter even if they did..

These are all factual accounts, told to me by my daughter with a few of her friends standing in the conversation and agreeing, nodding their heads and looking concerned. Now I'll await being called a "homophobe". According to my daughter, that's one of the beating clubs they used in the highschool to whip straight kids into line first before they went for the seduction later..

Gay men have a phenomenon similar. The street word I've heard commonly is "Twinks" or "Twinkies". It is a word for vulnerable young men who are sexually charged but frustrated in their drives for girls who are harder to get in bed. So they are easy prey for gay men to seduce and fixate into homosexual release for their drives. "Young meat" is another word I've heard. The conversion kudos are similar and again, for a homosexual to convert a vulnerable (usually young adolescent) heterosexual is considered almost a sport and those who acheive this inappropriate contact and successfully bend the normal sexual drives of adolescents to fixate in homosexual conditioning are considered something of folk heros in gay culture.

Any gay who looks you in the eye and tells you that they firmly believe that social coercion has nothing to do with their sexual preference is either baldfaced lying to you or has so completely blacked-out a molestation memory that they actually believe they are telling you the truth. Allowing them to normalize homosexuality in the bigger high school of life, our society, without anyone reacting or pushing back is wholly asinine. It's the naked emperor who everyone is coerced into agreeing has a fine set of clothes on. I'm saying "the emperor has no clothes".

Of course, not all gays behave this way. Some believe in allowing others to fixate their own preferences and will tell of how they became gay honestly. But I can tell you that a vast majority of them I've seen, heard of and talked to personally will laugh and agree that in a perfect world everyone would be homosexual, or at least bi and that they (fingers crossed behind their backs) were "born that way"..*snicker*. It is the "sport" they won't tell you about; especially not now. And I'll tell you that their pleas for marriage rights are a smokescreen by and large, again with some exceptions. Civil unions would suffice but they don't when it comes time to go to the adoption agencies. And that is why they want the "right" to marry, to adopt a new generation to rear...

The title of this article infers too, via psychological clubbing I've become so familiar with in PC-land, that if you're not in support of homosexual marriage you are "chicken" [not courageous] by default. And I also sense a manipulation attempt in that it finds a weak spot in the GOP armor. They are worried about losing ranks in future elections. Using the "we've turned the youth against you" argument looks a little seedy considering the preceding..

So if you aren't in support of gay marriage, in the gay view, you are either "homophobic" or "chicken" or [insert derogatory phrase here intended to whip]. And it follows logically that if you are against gay marriage you are completely without merit and always basing that opinion on hatred, whim, or religious dogma and absolutely NOT on known sociological phenomenon, hard science [see the AI industries findings that sexuality in mammals is malleable], or real anecdotal accounts of homosexuals attempting to recruit as a cultural sport.

Ask yourself, what exactly is the term "Bi-curious" when used to invite youth to gay-sponsored events in your community? Is it not a de facto admission on behalf of the gay culture that sexuality is learned and that youth are impressionable? And that inviting youth [implied as the events are tailored towards youthful activities] to explore homosexuality via the gateway of bisexuality is active recrutment of youth?

Bi-curious. A term they invented, not me..

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Silhouette Said:

Of course, not all gays behave this way. Some believe in allowing others to fixate their own preferences and will tell of how they became gay honestly. But I can tell you that a vast majority of them I've seen, heard of and talked to personally will laugh and agree that in a perfect world everyone would be homosexual, or at least bi and that they (fingers crossed behind their backs) were "born that way"..*snicker*. It is the "sport" they won't tell you about; especially not now. And I'll tell you that their pleas for marriage rights are a smokescreen by and large, again with some exceptions. Civil unions would suffice but they don't when it comes time to go to the adoption agencies. And that is why they want the "right" to marry, to adopt a new generation to rear...

While the meaning behind your comments/remarks are not shocking...they do repulse me to a great degree:
1. exactly what percentage of gays/lesbians have you discussed this topic with {5 - 10 - 15 - 50}???, that {while you do allow that "Of course, not all gays behave this way"} you could offer your input into their life style as though they are on a secret/mission to convert us all to bi-curious {gay/lesbian life style} so that they can adopt children to rear into another new generation!!!

EXCUSE ME FOR THIS OUTBURST BUT>>> WTF...are you kidding ME??? You can't be serious...right, your just putting us on to stir up a conversation about 'CIVIL UNIONS'/separation of church & state! Why, the goings on in the privacy of adult bedrooms around this great nation needs to be any of our businesses???'

Young people today get more sexual information/visual aides/visual stimulation from shows like 'Girls Gone Wild', Utube, face-book, Internet chat rooms, other web sights, cell phone sex-ting!!! I know this is a horrifying thought but they have much more information readily available at their finger tips then my generation ever did {granted not all of the information is factual or precise or safe for them}...but it is what it is! My generation {the end of the Baby Boomer era} were told to be seen and not heard and we weren't allowed to ask any sexual questions and when we found adults that could/would talk to us about those 'unmentionable topics' they rarely knew the correct answers either!!!

So in a 'nut shell' to encapsulated the true feelings that you have on this subject Prop.#8 {lets see if I'm getting your true meaning here} Your homophobic and trying to explain this radical lifestyle that is so subversively creeping into our public schools in a way that you'll be able to understand has frightened you into this irrational thought process that "the real reason behind gays & lesbians wanting to have equal rights of a civil union is so they can adopt children and continue the spread of the subversive lifestyle that they have??? {did I capture the jest of your feelings and true meaning behind your written statements}. Please feel free to correct anything that you've typed for better clarity...I'm all ears!!!

Single people have been allowed to adopt...single gay people have been allowed to adopt. And let us not forget that as a human factor of loving another human-being as fully and completely as they do {shock/horror/dismay} yes they do 'FEEL LOVE' so deeply fully that they want to be able to leave their loved ones the same inheritance that any other wedded couple would be allowed too, and for matters of work benefits/health insurance etc., etc., etc., they would be equal under the law of 'Civil Unions'.

But go ahead and continue the **snicker** anal retentive mindless thought process that has led you into that brick wall at high speed..."they just want to keep breeding/raising a new generation of gays" OMG.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Silhouette Said:

While the meaning behind your comments/remarks are not shocking...they do repulse me to a great degree:
1. exactly what percentage of gays/lesbians have you discussed this topic with {5 - 10 - 15 - 50}???, that {while you do allow that "Of course, not all gays behave this way"} you could offer your input into their life style as though they are on a secret/mission to convert us all to bi-curious {gay/lesbian life style} so that they can adopt children to rear into another new generation!!!

EXCUSE ME FOR THIS OUTBURST BUT>>> WTF...are you kidding ME??? You can't be serious...right, your just putting us on to stir up a conversation about 'CIVIL UNIONS'/separation of church & state! Why, the goings on in the privacy of adult bedrooms around this great nation needs to be any of our businesses???'

Young people today get more sexual information/visual aides/visual stimulation from shows like 'Girls Gone Wild', Utube, face-book, Internet chat rooms, other web sights, cell phone sex-ting!!! I know this is a horrifying thought but they have much more information readily available at their finger tips then my generation ever did {granted not all of the information is factual or precise or safe for them}...but it is what it is! My generation {the end of the Baby Boomer era} were told to be seen and not heard and we weren't allowed to ask any sexual questions and when we found adults that could/would talk to us about those 'unmentionable topics' they rarely knew the correct answers either!!!

So in a 'nut shell' to encapsulated the true feelings that you have on this subject Prop.#8 {lets see if I'm getting your true meaning here} Your homophobic and trying to explain this radical lifestyle that is so subversively creeping into our public schools in a way that you'll be able to understand has frightened you into this irrational thought process that "the real reason behind gays & lesbians wanting to have equal rights of a civil union is so they can adopt children and continue the spread of the subversive lifestyle that they have??? {did I capture the jest of your feelings and true meaning behind your written statements}. Please feel free to correct anything that you've typed for better clarity...I'm all ears!!!

Single people have been allowed to adopt...single gay people have been allowed to adopt. And let us not forget that as a human factor of loving another human-being as fully and completely as they do {shock/horror/dismay} yes they do 'FEEL LOVE' so deeply fully that they want to be able to leave their loved ones the same inheritance that any other wedded couple would be allowed too, and for matters of work benefits/health insurance etc., etc., etc., they would be equal under the law of 'Civil Unions'.

But go ahead and continue the **snicker** anal retentive mindless thought process that has led you into that brick wall at high speed..."they just want to keep breeding/raising a new generation of gays" OMG.

Don't bother with Siho, she's a liar (claimed to have a degree in biology) and she's hysterical about homosexuality. She's been posting the same nonsense since the beginning of this thread despite the fact that she's come up with nothing of substance to support her wild claims--even some her sources contradict her hysterical fear.

In her favor I guess I would have to credit her with being consistent. Of course Einstein said that a foolish consistency was the hobgoblin of a small mind, so draw your own conclusions.

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Don't bother with Siho, she's a liar (claimed to have a degree in biology) and she's hysterical about homosexuality. She's been posting the same nonsense since the beginning of this thread despite the fact that she's come up with nothing of substance to support her wild claims--even some her sources contradict her hysterical fear.

In her favor I guess I would have to credit her with being consistent. Of course Einstein said that a foolish consistency was the hobgoblin of a small mind, so draw your own conclusions.

Well, at least I wasn't far from my suspicions of her ability to write a diatribe about other humans and it was loaded with bigotry & gross exaggerations about another woman who her daughter should look up to and not be looking for 'reasons to distrust/ridicule/put down/smear her good name' because of her 'MOTHERS' insensitive/bigotry/narrow-minded views of other human beings...OMG

Obviously Shilo, is out of touch with reality, or she would know that that age group is renowned for the best of the 'Bitc* & MOAN' crowd and hormonal/reactionary/going from saint to physco bitc* from hell in nanoseconds is rife at that age!! But carry on with the bigotry and Bull Shi* about a topic that fills your need to screech like a banshee...you'll find a following of some more of your ilk!!!

Good grief people that write crap like that {diatribe of Shilo's} should be sterilized and not allowed a tongue/voice with which to spread their vile/hatred to other unsuspecting young people!!!

 

[Sihouette]

Hey Mare! Nice to see you again..

BTW I said I took biology in college, not that I have a degree in it. However, many of the people involved in the AI industry have biology degrees and a keen knowledge of mammalian sexuality....and of its ability to be molded at the onset of puberty.

I agree that there is far far too much emphasis put on sexuality of all types, hetero included in way too many media outlets. If you look back at my posts I have lamented repeatedly about both hetero and deviant fixations on sex being equated with "love" especially. The two are not the same and many people not only don't realize this but have been trained to believe, via social pressures, the exact opposite.

In a way you have just made my case for me. We all agree that there is a known social-contagion factor in all human behavior...not just deviant sexuality.

So now that we are in agreement about that, surely you can understand why the majority of the voting public who heard about my daughter's accounts above and many others just like it might decide that it's better to err on the side of caution instead of political correctness when it comes to the deviant marriage issue.

I live in a community where I encounter gay and lesbian couples on a daily basis. In one town nearby where I shop a lot, I'd say about 1/3 of the populace there is gay, lesbian, or bi in nature and those numbers keep going up for two reasons. 1. Gays outside the area have heard that it is a haven for deviant sexuals and 2. More and more parties are thrown there for the youth in the area (in an area otherwise devoid of youth activities and hence youth boredom soars) inviting "bi-curious" to "come and have fun" with the GLBT community...And of course the bragging-rights in the culture of the local high school there pitches in..

So...

I still want one of you to explain, in detail, why your GLBT events cater to youth and advertise on TV and radio to vast audiences of young people and invite them to experiment with homosexuality at parties rife with deviant sexuals? One would have to assume they're not just there for the punch and cookies... but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Do explain "bi-curious" to me and how also people are born fixated either straight or gay..

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Sihouette said:

I still want one of you to explain, in detail, why your GLBT events cater to youth and advertise on TV and radio to vast audiences of young people and invite them to experiment with homosexuality at parties rife with deviant sexuals? One would have to assume they're not just there for the punch and cookies... but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. Do explain "bi-curious" to me and how also people are born fixated either straight or gay..

1. your ASSumption that I'm Gay/Lesbian or have ever attended 'GLBT' {whatever the hell that is} is so far from the mark as to be seriously one of the most hysterical things I've ever been called...ROTFLMAO Excuse me but I'm thinking that your 'homophob' is showing...LOL

2. I can't speak for the media/commercials/sitcoms/reality TV shows...but here's a thought...It's what the younger generation is watching and if they weren't then those shows would be canceled...hmmm not a great stretch of the brain cells but I'll help you out when ever you get stuck!!!

3. "invite them to experiment with homosexuality at parties rife with deviant sexuals"...Here's a suggestion: as with all things that we adults need to make our children aware of: drugs/alcohol/huffing/puffing/cigarettes/sexual predators...it is YOUR responsibility to protect your children from the perverts/predators that prey upon them in all of those areas...your daughter is more likely to be prey/sexually assaulted by a male member of some distant or close friend or family member then a lesbian looking for a 'playmate'. Open your eyes & ears to the greater wide world of humanity that is getting the media/statistical criminal records for those crimes...you might find that your homophob attitude is blinding you to the greatest dangers that are lurking out there waiting to claim another victim.

4. "Do explain "bi-curious" to me and how also people are born fixated either straight or gay.." Can't touch that with a TEN FOOT POLE!! You remind me remarkably of a fellow student that spent her time in Family Physiology class trying to get free mental health from our professor...after several verbal warnings about "NOT BRINGING HER FAMILY PROBLEMS INTO CLASS FOR DISCUSSION EACH AND EVERY DAY, HE FINALLY ASKED HER TO DROP HIS CLASS."

Listen, I don't know what you've read, who you are listening to, who you 'really' come in contact with, where you live and what you eat. But there are a plethora of well documented, highly educated authors who have written books on understanding our hormonal urges & sexual growth and what we all should & need to know to be better prepared to know our bodies. The better prepared to understand those sexual sensations and feelings the better prepared your daughter will be to understand the difference between LUST & LOVE and all of that gray area in between.

But for Christ Sakes...go get an education on that before you foul her mind with anymore hysterical rantings about deviant sexual urges and life styles...PLEASE.

 

[Sihouette]

Well you are perceptive enough to note that someone is ranting hysterically around this thread...lol... Maybe a mirror would help. As narcissistic as your posts look, I think you're no stranger to a mirror.


Still haven't heard from anyone how "bi-curious" and "innate homosexuality" are compatible within the same community that are supposedly all united behind deviant sexuality being inborn instead of learned.

I'll wait. Surely someone has ideas on the oxymoronic term.."bi-curious". Either your born bi or you aren't right? Or maybe the GLBT community just needs to help you "draw out" your "natural" bisexuality at one of their youth events?

 

[ASPCA4EVER]

Maybe you need to get a clue and get off your lazy arse and STFW and open your mind and your favorite web sight and do your own research...anyone can and will tell you what you want to hear...I'll not waste anymore of my time trying to eclaircissement your narrow mind when all you do is obfuscate the topic.

Education is such a terrifying thing for some clearly close minded sheepal humans...that's why they cling to their religion, out of 'fear'. The horror that eats away at your brain won't sustain you when your judgment day has arrived...you'll have plenty to answer for, I hope you'll have your justification clearly written out and explained in great detail!

ENJOY, your brief time on earth and PLEASE do try to not hurt many innocent young people with your vitriolic and deviant thoughts about sex! BTW...My signature has your name written all over it!!! LMAO

 

[Sihouette]

I see by your calm demeanor that you are not guilty of that which you accuse..lol..


In any event a response to this article on "Conditioning And Sexual Behavior: A Review" http://www-psychology.concordia.ca/fac/pfaus/Pfaus-Kippin-Centeno%282001%29.pdf with almost as many pages of references as the body, was that it was "inconclusive" as to the malleability of sexuality.

My response was thus:

The thing is that article does conclude that sexuality is malleable. That's the whole hub of my argument and my concerns about gay marriage becoming mainstream in a culture of animals (in this case homo sapiens) who are the apex of social-learners. It flatly supports the social-contagion component of the fears on the right. Now they are a paranoid bunch to be sure but often paranoids sense something at a gut level, don't know how to put it to words and then just "hate" to get their feelings out about it. Those of us who use our minds instead and follow the breadcrumbs, have a moderate grasp of language and how to express ourselves tend to take a more balanced approach.

As I said before, I agree with homosexuals in that once they are fixated, they are pretty much unchangeable. And the AI industry has found similar results in that once bulls are trained via their first few orgasms to release onto steers (castrated male cattle), they tend to ignore the cows from then on and become excited only in the presence (sight morphology, smells) of a steer. Same with dummy mounts, the animals learn to run to the dummy mounts when they are initially excited by the pheremones of an estrus female. They won't even mount the female standing just next to the dummy for stimulation. And they only become erect for the dummy and will lose the erection if forced to mount the female, like "what the hell are you having me mount her for?".

With my stallion I made sure to have his first few experiences with a live mare. Then he was trained AI just shortly afterwards. So he will mount either a dummy or a mare. So he is bisexual..lol... Wasn't born that way though I can assure you..loved the mare the first time around.. But then another herd invited him over to their weird barn where the mistress there guided him to mount a stuffed dummy on poles and now he "swings both ways"..lol...OK, I'm totally serious about this but having fun with it all the same..

In any event even if you find ways to belittle the substance of the article, the AI industry is already leagues ahead of these guys in that mammals of several different species are already BANKED ON to have demonstrated malleable sexuality at the onset of puberty. So it's a done deal. The link the article was to bridge over to human behavior; which is of course even more suggestable clear up into young adulthood than any species we know of to date...