Steve Young's family up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

.....your just being silly.
BUT, you cannot state societal definition of progress as you do not know what "it" is. You know what "yours" it....nothing more.
....nuthin' but quality!

I am being objective. What is silly is you thinking we haven't made progress since the days of killing the gays. You should lookup progress before attempting to play the part of an intellectual.

Question...would any of you who don't like the idea of gay marriage vote against a proposition similar to prop 8 if it were on your state ballet?

Yeah, I know. I expected such a response. When I say glorification, what I mean is you can't turn on the tv without some obviously gay dude prancing around, setting a miserable example of how a man is supposed to act. I know, I know, if you don't like it, turn it off. The point is if you ask me should this be, I would say no, it should not. But... rationally you have to accept the world as it is.

And to Matty's point... teaching acceptance is exactly what I plan to do, but I'd really prefer it if I didn't have to worry about them seeing it before I felt they were ready. Put it this way, I don't personally care for those that use drugs either, but I feel it's their right to do so. I still don't want anyone smoking a blunt or shooting heroine in front of my kids. Sure, i can explain to them what drugs are and what addiction is, but there are some realities that can wait.

What would you do if you had a gay child, or if you found out a close friend or relative was gay?

And to the point in bold, there are plenty more jerkoff hetero guys out there setting bad examples of how a man should act. I would probably be more concerned about that if you ask me, because if your child isn't gay, a gay person isn't likely to have much of a direct influence on them. He or she is going to be influenced by people they can relate to.

And what channels are you watching? I really can't recall the last time I turned on the TV to see a gay guy 'prancing around' setting bad examples.

I didn't make them. It's not my part to figure out why they're effed up. I am of the opinion that many of them were sexually abused as children, some of it's a choice, and some were born sexually retarded. I don't know? You'll have to ask God.

No, you have reached the point to where you think two perverts sodomozing each other is normal. They don't call themselves queer (AKA strange) because they think they're normal. Why should I? If you can look at Dennis Rodman and think he's normal then well, I guess we've crossed over into the Twilight Zone.

We in Virginia have made it law that we will not recognize another state's marriage licenses for two perverts. If you don't like it, don't move here.

First of all, it's clear you hate homosexuals, and that makes you a big jerk. They're people just like the rest of us. I take offense to you saying my gay friends are effed up, or sexually retarded. You don't know them, so **** off with that shit.

Second, let's see if you can understand this example:

If you cut too many leaves off a female plant, you can cause a hormone imbalance, which will lead to a gender change. This is a plant. Does it make sense to you that a hormone imbalance could cause homosexual behavior in humans? Could a hormone imbalance appear after birth? Maybe as a result of our heavily processed diet or poor air quality or some other unknown agent? Think about it.

Just a question. Do you think its just a coincidence that homosexuals have 5 times the chance of contracting an STD than a heterosexual? Or do you think that its just a coincidence that the life expectancy of a homosexual individual is almost 20 years SHORTER than that of a heterosexual person? How about, it must be a coincidence that homosexuals have 4 times the chance of being medically diagnosed with a mental disorder than heterosexuals? It must all be Rush Limbaughs fault, right? We conservatives just put too much pressure and spew too much hate for the homosexual to take, right?

I dont know about you, but with those statistics, homosexuality is definitely not a lifestyle that the stats say would enable you to live a long and healthy life, and its not one that I would choose for the ones I love, like my children. And I definitely wouldn't want the government condoning such a self destructive lifestyle like homosexuality by okaying it in the court systems because gays like to twist around our constitution to say it protects them, but in the same breath, say that government should have no say on what constitutes a marriage. I also find it interesting that the suicide rate among homosexuals is staggering when compared to the suicide rate of heterosexuals. Again, its all Fox News' fault, right? Not a lifestyle I would want for anyone............

Well, you don't get to choose the lifestyle for everyone else. That kind of attitude disgusts me.

I think we all just want to shape the world in which we live to some extent. Some of us have feelings/beliefs that compel us to say this or that should not be allowed, others extol an "anything but violence goes" philosophy. It's pretty clearly a prejudice, which I'm using in the sense of "a preconceived judgment or opinion," (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prejudice) to say that homosexuality is wrong. That said, all prejudices aren't necessarily incorrect or built upon ignorance. I believe people hold this prejudice because our society has largely taught since it's inception that these alternative lifestyles are wrong. That view point has helped shape our culture to this point in time. Revoking that view likewise changes the culture of our society going forward and not in a way in which the current majority (http://www.gallup.com/poll/118378/majority-americans-continue-oppose-gay-marriage.aspx) seems to desire. I don't think it's as simple as "what two people do in their bedroom is their business" because there are collateral effects which impede on the wishes of most Americans, i.e. the inclusion of homosexuality in elementary education (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,521209,00.html).

I think the crux of the debate is does a society have a right to establish social guidelines and thus enforce said guidelines on a dissenting minority? That's a hell of a hard argument to make from a logical standpoint, much easier from an emotional one. In the end, the point is moot, people can object all they want but evidence shows this fight is just about ove (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20007144-503544.html)r...

just my :twocents:

This is a good post, but I will never understand those who would shelter their kids from being educated about the world -- all parts of it, good and bad -- out of fear they may some day grow up to make their own decisions and be influenced by what they learned.

Advocates for gay rights need to change people's attitude towards gays and the court system is one of many tools to exert social influence. We aren't there yet but we will be in a decade or so and people's attitudes will change...they have to in order to cope with the stress of living in a society where gays are in your face.

I'm not necessarily a fan of court rulings influencing society, but I believe you are right. I can only wonder what the majority of Americans would have said about Brown vs Board of Education. Seems like that could be an example of the courts exerting good social influence, regardless of popular opinion. I didn't live in the 50's so maybe I'm wrong and everyone was on-board, but I doubt it.

Edit: Yeah, what DRave said.

I am being objective. What is silly is you thinking we haven't made progress since the days of killing the gays. You should lookup progress before attempting to play the part of an intellectual.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz..............zzzzzzzzz zzzzzz

This is a good post, but I will never understand those who would shelter their kids from being educated about the world -- all parts of it, good and bad -- out of fear they may some day grow up to make their own decisions and be influenced by what they learned.I think the problem most parents have is that they don't want their children taught about controversial subjects by someone other than them, especially for the introduction to the topic (sex ed. and things that may counter a family's religous teaching). The other issue is when subjects are taught in public school, obviously the sex ed for 5 yr. olds is ridiculous, same as HS juniors/seniors not being made aware of contraception.

Having a 17 yr. old and being involved in coaching from 6yrs old. into HS, I can tell you one thing is for sure. Normal, rational folks from all walks of life can quickly go completely bat-shit crazy over something to do with their kids.

This is a good post, but I will never understand those who would shelter their kids from being educated about the world -- all parts of it, good and bad -- out of fear they may some day grow up to make their own decisions and be influenced by what they learned.

Fear feeds the ignorance, and vice versa.