Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

I said other than their sex lives... No two people are exactly the same... You're nitpicking, Spike.

Not at all, it's just that you do not view it a seriously as I do. It's one hell of a difference.

Again, I bothered to read your post, and you DID call me insecure. You said and I directly QUOTE: "If I were insecure I would be like you..." Inferring that I am insecure. I bloody read it.

Lets put it this way then, I said if I were like you, it would make me insecure, no mention of you being insecure, I was alluding to the fact that your system of belief would make me insecure, I have no idea how it affects you. Obviously you can live with it.

It's 0530 here and getting close to my breakfast and that's all I have time for.

But given time I will debate any question you have that has not been covered before.

Originally Posted by senojekips

Not at all, it's just that you do not view it a seriously as I do. It's one hell of a difference.

So homosexuals are somehow a different type of human being than you or I?

Originally Posted by senojekips

Lets put it this way then, I said if I were like you, it would make me insecure, no mention of you being insecure, I was alluding to the fact that your system of belief would make me insecure, I have no idea how it affects you. Obviously you can live with it.

It's 0530 here and getting close to my breakfast and that's all I have time for.

But given time I will debate any question you have that has not been covered before.

But if you were like me, my beliefs would be your beliefs, and it wouldn't make you insecure.


Enjoy your breakfast.

Originally Posted by Del Boy

Yes, but if they are actively and continuously encouraging our infants to become homosexual then they are hitting on us.

Del Boy

Not matter what the far right says, it is simply impossible to encourage someone to be homosexual, not even a impressionable child. Homosexuality isn't a religion or a football club you can join or quit. You are either born gay or streight thats it. Its simply genetics and therpy, prayer, education isnt going to teach anyone different than how their DNA is coded.

There is no "cure" to homosexuality like a disease because there is nothing wrong with the person to begin with. The idea that some can you can teach someone to be gay is like saying I can teach you to have blue eyes and blond hair.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

No no, it's states that just because it's not SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE CONSTITUTION. Just because something isn't specifically said in the Constitution doesn't deny it to the people.

I think you are saying the right to decide belongs to the people.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

But what I'm saying is the State has no right to give it to the people! Even if the people wanted something done, the States have no right to pass legislature either way.

Here you are saying the people have no right to decide. You also say the State has no right to do anything.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

The right of the individual is what The United States is all about man... Freedom... Individuality... Anything ringing a bell here? Look, if this was ONE PERSON complaining about wanting to marry another person of the same sex, it probably wouldn't matter, but homosexuals are becoming a larger and larger portion of our population, we can either be stubborn old fools and not accept the inevitable; or we can learn to live with these people because other than their sex lives, THEY'RE NO DIFFERENT.

Here, I have not the slightest idea of what you are saying. I may be an old fool, but I do not have to accept this as inevitable.

I believe it was Voltaire who once said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

To this I would like to add "I may not have the slightest idea what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say whatever you just said, I think?"

Quote Rob Henderson, "but homosexuals are becoming a larger and larger portion of our population,"

Could you give supporting documentation for this statement?

I think I will refrain from any further comments on this topic as I have expressed my reasons for supporting the gay marriage ban. I will continue to read for the entertainment value this topic provides. And to see the source of Rob's assertion that homosexuals are becoming a larger portion of the population.

A few shops away from mine was a hairdressers owned by two gays, all too often they get involved in a fight of some sort resulting in a lot of screaming, slapping and hair pulling in the street. If thats their lifestyle then fine, but keep it to themselves. It might be amusing to some, but I really don't want to witness such going's on.

The fact of the matter is, many heterosexuals are uncomfortable with homosexuality.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

A few shops away from mine was a hairdressers owned by two gays, all too often they get involved in a fight of some sort resulting in a lot of screaming, slapping and hair pulling in the street. If thats their lifestyle then fine, but keep it to themselves. It might be amusing to some, but I really don't want to witness such going's on.

The fact of the matter is, many heterosexuals are uncomfortable with homosexuality.

Of course people are uncomfortable with it, for many of us it was something we were raised to oppose (hell I went to a school where if it was even suspected you would have been beaten on a daily basis) but lets face it there are thousands of things other people do that we are uncomfortable with but at no stage should that be an excuse not to give them equal rights.

To a large degree we don't even have to tolerate it, if you don't want a gay hairdresser go elsewhere, if they live across the street don't go to the house warming but like it or not you have to accept that they are what they are, people with a different lifestyle to yours.

Trust me I know how uncomfortable it is, the wife still has hysterics about me helping a blind friend across a street, he grabbed my arm and apparently all the way across the street I was leaning as far away as possible and rigid as a board but this was my problem caused by my social conditioning that "guys don't generally touch each other in any way shape or form".

Originally Posted by Chukpike

I think you are saying the right to decide belongs to the people.

Very good. The right to marry someone should not be up to the mass populous. It should be between the couple getting married.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

Here you are saying the people have no right to decide. You also say the State has no right to do anything.

No, I'm saying the States cannot decide for the people. The States shouldn't be allowed to say anything in the matter, be it yay or nay. They shouldn't be allowed to give the authority to the MASS POPULOUS either.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

Here, I have not the slightest idea of what you are saying. I may be an old fool, but I do not have to accept this as inevitable.

I believe it was Voltaire who once said, "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it".

To this I would like to add "I may not have the slightest idea what you said, but I will defend to the death your right to say whatever you just said, I think?"

Well, homosexuals will forever exist, until there is a way to deprogram DNA... So it IS rather inevitable, so why not try and be open minded about it instead of just turning a blind eye to the happenings of the HERE and NOW.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

Quote Rob Henderson, "but homosexuals are becoming a larger and larger portion of our population,"

Could you give supporting documentation for this statement?

I think I will refrain from any further comments on this topic as I have expressed my reasons for supporting the gay marriage ban. I will continue to read for the entertainment value this topic provides. And to see the source of Rob's assertion that homosexuals are becoming a larger portion of the population.

Absolutely. There are no OFFICIAL figures, because the Census of 2000 didn't include any directly homosexual questions on it, so nothing was recorded officially, but "The census forms did not include any questions regarding sexual orientation, making it impossible to compile data comparing heterosexual and homosexual populations. However, two questions were asked that allowed same-sex partnerships to be counted. The questionnaires asked the sex of each person in a household and they asked what the relationship was between each of the members of the household. Respondents could check "Husband/wife" or "unmarried partner" or a number of other relationships.[6][7] Responses were tabulated and the Census Bureau reported that there were more than 658,000 same-sex couples heading households in the United States. However, only about 25% of gay men and 40% of lesbians are in shared-household partnerships at any one time, according to non-Census surveys.[8] For every same-sex couple tallied in the census, there could be three to six more homosexual un-partnered individuals who wouldn't be counted as gay. The Census reported that same-sex male couples numbered 336,001 and female same-sex couples numbered 329,522.[9] Extrapolating from those figures and the surveyed partnering habits of homosexuals, as many as 4.3 million homosexual adults could have been living in the U.S. in 2000. The exact number can't be known because the Census didn't count them specifically. Bisexual and transgendered populations weren't counted, either, as there were no questions regarding this information. Missing, too, are data from additional couples living under the same roof as the first, though this lack applies as well to additional heterosexual couples under the same roof."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census,_2000


And you'll notice that even though it IS Wikipedia, all the statements are cited.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Very good. The right to marry someone should not be up to the mass populous. It should be between the couple getting married.

Despite what you think should be. The simple truth is the mass population has the right to decide. Remember, "We the people"

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

No, I'm saying the States cannot decide for the people. The States shouldn't be allowed to say anything in the matter, be it yay or nay. They shouldn't be allowed to give the authority to the MASS POPULOUS either.

I agree the States cannot decide for the people. The State gives nothing to the people, they all ready have the authority. This is a Democracy.

Originally Posted by Rob Henderson

Well, homosexuals will forever exist, until there is a way to deprogram DNA... So it IS rather inevitable, so why not try and be open minded about it instead of just turning a blind eye to the happenings of the HERE and NOW.
Absolutely. There are no OFFICIAL figures, because the Census of 2000 didn't include any directly homosexual questions on it, so nothing was recorded officially, but "The census forms did not include any questions regarding sexual orientation, making it impossible to compile data comparing heterosexual and homosexual populations. However, two questions were asked that allowed same-sex partnerships to be counted. The questionnaires asked the sex of each person in a household and they asked what the relationship was between each of the members of the household. Respondents could check "Husband/wife" or "unmarried partner" or a number of other relationships.[6][7] Responses were tabulated and the Census Bureau reported that there were more than 658,000 same-sex couples heading households in the United States. However, only about 25% of gay men and 40% of lesbians are in shared-household partnerships at any one time, according to non-Census surveys.[8] For every same-sex couple tallied in the census, there could be three to six more homosexual un-partnered individuals who wouldn't be counted as gay. The Census reported that same-sex male couples numbered 336,001 and female same-sex couples numbered 329,522.[9] Extrapolating from those figures and the surveyed partnering habits of homosexuals, as many as 4.3 million homosexual adults could have been living in the U.S. in 2000. The exact number can't be known because the Census didn't count them specifically. Bisexual and transgendered populations weren't counted, either, as there were no questions regarding this information. Missing, too, are data from additional couples living under the same roof as the first, though this lack applies as well to additional heterosexual couples under the same roof."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Census,_2000


And you'll notice that even though it IS Wikipedia, all the statements are cited.

Thank you but this doesn't answer the statement you made:

Quote Rob Henderson, "but homosexuals are becoming a larger and larger portion of our population,"

Where did the data come for this?

From the data you did give I found where the population in 2000 was 281.4 million people. The number of gay and lesbians was estimated at 4.3 million. That works out to 1.53% of the population. I would still like to see the data to support your statement "larger and larger portion of the population".

I was surprised at such a small percentage of the population being gay. I have seen data from Gay and lesbian organizations that imply a higher percentage. Apparently they are not above exaggeration.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Del Boy

Not matter what the far right says, it is simply impossible to encourage someone to be homosexual, not even a impressionable child. Homosexuality isn't a religion or a football club you can join or quit. You are either born gay or streight thats it. Its simply genetics and therpy, prayer, education isnt going to teach anyone different than how their DNA is coded.

There is no "cure" to homosexuality like a disease because there is nothing wrong with the person to begin with. The idea that some can you can teach someone to be gay is like saying I can teach you to have blue eyes and blond hair.

MM, I would like to direct this post to MontyB and to Rob Henderson as well as yourself.

Guys, try telling me something I don't know. These are not matters of right or left wing. I am speaking of the indoctrination of tiny kids, and if you insist that this does not amount to the promotion of homosexuality as a life-style then you are trying to avoid the issue. Of course this is teaching, and of course it encourages children in making choices, at an age which is unacceptable. This is political promotion by pink politics, diminishing the place of heterosexual marriage. These children are being introduced to homosexuality at a time when they should have no interest in such matters.

To say this is wrong is not to be homophobic; it is far more a question of denigration being applied to the position of partnership between a man and a woman in our society. It should be sufficient that children grow up knowing that homosexuals should not be persecuted or discriminated against.

It is not correct to say that homosexuality cannot be taught, encouraged, persuaded etc. It seems I have not presented sufficient evidence in support of my concerns .

Originally Posted by MontyB

I see the pot is still calling the kettle black.

Actually I think I was always somewhere in the middle, willing to change my mind and such. But lately I've decided it's completely pointless because in any case, it's irrelevent whether or not my argument is valid or flawed, those who disagree will always disagree, no matter what.
So I've just decided to go back to what I normally believe in and stick to it, and not change my mind because no one else changes their mind anyways so since I realize the whole point is not seeing who's argument is valid and flawed, rather is simply a bitching contest in which the first to give up loses, I'd rather repeat myself and not lose.
Basically it goes down to this: before I used to change my mind and re-think my opinions based on discussions with others. Now I've decided not to do that anymore.