Texas GOP party platform: You can pray the gay away!

[onions!]

The first issue of gay being bad isn't as much the norm anymore.

The second, well, talk to some of the resident parents around here. Gay, straight, doesn't matter. Those issues abound with all adult children, regardless of orientation.
In fact, the one most likely to pose such an ultimatiam is a daughter of any orientation. Seriously. That's a girl thing.

I understand that the current norm,for all the points I mentioned,has changed to become more accepting(too accepting in some cases-again,a different conversation).

The girl thing though?That's what I was thinking too.I'm just too wimpy to say it first!

[BlueStarLizzard]

You assume that she'd want a test tube kid as opposed to just adopting a child(children)?
If I'm infertile(and I know I'm not)I'd be happier with an adopted child.
To get waaaaaay off topic a second(   ),what would you,as a woman,rather have?Some other mans child(not from a different relationship mind)?Or an adoptee?

A pound puppy or a test tube?I'm curious.

For myself,I'm a single 44 year old guy that won't date a woman with kids.The reasons aren't germane to the conversation except that I'm unlikely to match up with a woman that wants kids anyways.
As for being shearly stupid?   See my earlier comment about personal experiences.Mine are different than yours.My feelings and perspective are also different.

Test tube.

Adoption would be last resort. I want to actually do the whole thing, even though it's supposed to suck ass. It's about the experiance. Part of it is to prove to myself that I'm that tough. Part of it is sheer curiosity (and yes, I know, curiosity killed the cat. I've been killed many times over in my life and many more to come, I presume. Such is my nature) Part of it makes no real sense, but I want to.

And yes, stupid. There are A LOT of reasons a woman would go through such for a child and lesbians are the least of it. Lesbians can (and do) have children from natural insemination.
To even bring it up as a reason to oppose gay marriage is stupid.

[Perd Hapley]

Then, seriously, what is it about a piece of paper with a WORD on it so bothersome?

What does the WORD change?

"marriage" is a word. As with a lot of high impact words it means a lot of diffrent things to a lot of diffrent people. You don't find that word invalid when used by people of other religion who don't swear before your god. You don't find that word invalid for hetrosexual couples who swear before NO god. You don't find it invalid for those who swear it to multiple people (and I'm talking in a historical context. I belive the Bible even has mention of men married to more then one woman at a time) You don't find it invalid when it's sworn to God (nuns are married to god)

So why does this one (of a GREAT many) definition get you in a lather?

You've just explained why marriage is not "just" something done privately, for religious reasons (not that religion is especially private, but anyway). While it is very meaningful in religious traditions, it has a social significance which is just as important.

Of course, trying to dismiss the controversy by claiming that marriage is just a word, or just a piece of paper, is specious and a cop-out. Marriage is "a word," in the sense that fatherhood is a word, or fairness. Those are real things, identified by words.

As an evangelical, FWIW, I don't consider the vows of a religious order to be a marriage. I don't know whether the Catholics consider it to be equivalent or not, even if they may use the term.

[onions!]

Test tube.

Adoption would be last resort. I want to actually do the whole thing, even though it's supposed to suck ass. It's about the experiance. Part of it is to prove to myself that I'm that tough. Part of it is sheer curiosity (and yes, I know, curiosity killed the cat. I've been killed many times over in my life and many more to come, I presume. Such is my nature) Part of it makes no real sense, but I want to.

And yes, stupid. There are A LOT of reasons a woman would go through such for a child and lesbians are the least of it. Lesbians can (and do) have children from natural insemination.
To even bring it up as a reason to oppose gay marriage is stupid.

Really?Even if your partner were opposed and wanted to adopt?In a perfect world it'd be something that should be discussed beforehand but...

Now this seems silly.I understand the experience want/need.I understand the curiosity too.(I've no desire to be in the delivery room BTW,again for a different reason than you'd assume).Tough enough though?Really?LOL,what woman isn't tough enough?Giving birth is basic,fundamental part of life.Yooouuu caaannn doooo eeeeeettt!

Did I use that as banning reason?I thought we had side stepped the main topic?

[BlueStarLizzard]

You've just explained why marriage is not "just" something done privately, for religious reasons (not that religion is especially private, but anyway). While it is very meaningful in religious traditions, it has a social significance which is just as important.

Of course, trying to dismiss the controversy by claiming that marriage is just a word, or just a piece of paper, is specious and a cop-out. Marriage is "a word," in the sense that fatherhood is a word, or fairness. Those are real things, identified by words.

As an evangelical, FWIW, I don't consider the vows of a religious order to be a marriage. I don't know whether the Catholics consider it to be equivalent or not, even if they may use the term.

You're talking to a chick that calls her mother's ex boyfriend "Dad" and considers him a father. Or are you going to tell me that he can't be my Father because he's not the one who knocked up my mother? Fistful, the one word you should have not offered as an example to me and you know it. I think you want to lose this fight.

Marriage is a word with a meaning. So is Love, Faith, Honor, Moral and a whole lot of other words that are both simple concepts and highly complicated with varied concepts at the same time.
Just because you don't recognise it as "marriage" doesn't mean a whole lot of other people think the same thing. Hell, you just gave an example of your own. You may not recognise that the nuns arn't married to god, but the catholics sure do.

Government sactioned marriage has to include all of society, not just what you recognise as legit. And if the Catholics can figure out how to get God to sign the papers, I'd support their right to legally marry off woman to God.

[Perd Hapley]

Oh, Balog, no one thinks you hate the gayz.

I, for one, think you're grossed out by men kissing men and just can't stand seeing it so you'll do anything in your power to make it stop.

Do you get a little barfy when you see gay men hold hands?
>:)

I also note that the lot of you whinging about gay marriage seem uber focused on the gay men, but ya'll don't say much about the lesbians.

I'm guess you don't find two woman getting it on nearly as gross as the men. It's hard to be grossed out by something that turns you on, isn't it?

Meh. I have always supported the rights of homosexuals to be homosexual, even though I find many of its traits to be revolting. And FWIW, it's mainly the effeminate behavior/dress/speech from men, and butch behavior/dress from chicks. The sexual aspect is repellant to me, but less so.

[Balog]

Meh. I have always supported the rights of homosexuals to be homosexual, even though I find many of its traits to be revolting. And FWIW, it's mainly the effeminate behavior/dress/speech from men, and butch behavior/dress from chicks. The sexual aspect is repellant to me, but less so.

I think I know more effeminate straight men than gay men. Damn metrosexuals.

[onions!]

I think I know more effeminate straight men than gay men. Damn metrosexuals.

From an outside perspective they do tend to blur the lines,don't they?

[Perd Hapley]

You're talking to a chick that calls her mother's ex boyfriend "Dad" and considers him a father. Or are you going to tell me that he can't be my Father because he's not the one who knocked up my mother? Fistful, the one word you should have not offered as an example to me and you know it. I think you want to lose this fight.

  I'm actually not wrapped up enough in your issues to remember what your situation is. You're also proving my point, that words represent real things. That's why it matters to you whether he is considered a father, and that is why you brought up the significant fact that you call him Dad.

Just because you don't recognise it as a "marriage," doesn't mean a whole lot of other people think the same thing.

Oh, yeah, 'cause I'm the one arbitrarily making up my own definition for marriage. A union that excludes one of the two necessary sexes has not generally been recognized as a marriage. Not in thousands of cultures, thousands of religions, and thousands of years. Maybe that means something.

Hell, you just gave an example of your own. You may not recognise that the nuns arn't married to god, but the catholics sure do.

I was honestly unaware that nuns were getting marriage licenses from the state, and suing bakers for not making their wedding cakes.

Government sactioned marriage has to include all of society, not just what you recognise as legit.

Actually, no. Government is under no obligation to include people who refuse to actually get married (by choosing someone of the same sex.) And just FYI, I agree with Jesus, who said that second marriages are un-legit, while the first spouse is still living. You don't see me pressing for those to be prohibited.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I'm actually not wrapped up enough in your issues to remember what your situation is. You're also proving my point, that words represent real things. That's why it matters to you whether he is considered a father, and that is why you brought up the significant fact that you call him Dad.


Oh, yeah, 'cause I'm the one arbitrarily making up my own definition for marriage. A union that excludes one of the two necessary sexes has not generally been recognized as a marriage. Not in thousands of cultures, thousands of religions, and thousands of years. Maybe that means something.


I was honestly unaware that nuns were getting marriage licenses from the state, and suing bakers for not making their wedding cakes.


Actually, no. Government is under no obligation to include people who refuse to actually get married (by choosing someone of the same sex.) And just FYI, I agree with Jesus, who said that second marriages are un-legit, while the first spouse is still living. You don't see me pressing for those to be prohibited.

You are a broken record and, what's worse, you can't provide any reason beyond an antiquated definition of word that has been thrown around haphazardly for centuries.
Gays getting married has no direct impact on you, other then they tick you off and gross you out. You keep clinging to a word and moaning "but it's for just a man and woman because history says so!!" which just doesn't cut it.
How many words have changed? How many societies have changed? How many socially constructed instatutions have changed over the course of human history have changed to the point of being nearly unrecognisable from the originals?
Hell, you would be Catholic if not for Luther's challenging what it meant to be a Christian. Today, it's accepted to be Christian but not Catholic, but in the past, you'd have been ostrasized, excumincated and possible stoned or burned to death because of a acceped word and a definetion that had ment a specific thing throughout a culture and their history.

[Perd Hapley]

You are a broken record and, what's worse, you can't provide any reason beyond an antiquated definition of word that has been thrown around haphazardly for centuries.

Between the two of us, I'm not the one using logic by assertion. Nor am I insisting on the definition of a word. We've already been over this, but marriage is not a word, it is a thing, and it has certain limits that cannot be exceeded, and still be that thing. As an example, let's go back to fatherhood. If my biological father were a bad, abusive person, who left when I was ten; he would still be, in some way, my father. If another man raised me, he might be considered a father, as well, in another sense. But that doesn't mean I can legally claim anyone off the street as my father, in a legal sense. Someone you call your father, informally, may qualify by a different set of characteristics. A father has certain characteristics that must be met, or no one's going to take you seriously, when you say he's a father. All I'm telling you is that a same-sex couple, no matter how much they love one another, or how committed, or how much we may approve of their situation, is ever going to be a marriage. Not because anyone disapproves of them, but because that's not what marriage is. The world can disagree, but they'll just be wrong.

Gays getting married has no direct impact on you

Exactly why the government need not be involved.

[charby]

Exactly why the government need not be involved.

So how do you feel about government getting involved with the movement that lead up to the Civil Right Act of 1964?

[charby]

I'd say that our country is not supposed to be run by mob rule.

I'm glad we are not run by mob rule, I think America would have folded a long time ago if it was.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm really not sure what you think I "said it would do."

If anyone in this thread were trying to stop same-sex couples from doing anything, then they might feel obligated to explain such. As has been pointed out at least a dozen times over the past few years, it is the other side that wants to change the law, change an ancient concept, change our culture, etc. They are the ones who must explain why the government should care that two men are pretending to marry one another. The traditionalists, at this point, have shown themselves perfectly willing to let the two men live their own lives as the two men see fit. The traditionalists owe no one an explanation, as they are not the ones proposing bizarre changes.

I think what's happening is that the culture is changing and people are trying to change the laws to follow suit, rather than trying to change the law in order to force the culture to change.  Seems to me the anti gay marriage side is trying to force the culture to conform to the laws.

Wow, Balog really had your number on that one. The facts are not what you thought they were. As he pointed out, same-sex marriage did terribly at the polls (in California), and succeeded in the seats of power (the courts). Government has led this fight. If the public is actually supporting it now (that's if), it's probably because they've been beaten over the head with it just enough to surrender.

When I talked about changing the culture, I didn't mean that I was afraid the gayzors were going to change our culture. What I mean is that supporters of the movement are trying to force change through the government. This is why they must explain their position to us skeptics, and not the other way around.

[Perd Hapley]

Yeah, call me a racist. That's a snappy and original response.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm glad we are not run by mob rule, I think America would have folded a long time ago if it was.

Aren't you the guy that keeps telling so-cons to drop their social causes, because unpopular? 

[charby]

Aren't you the guy that keeps telling so-cons to drop their social causes, because unpopular? 

No because we bigger problems to solve, the run away national debt, under and unemployment, etc.

[BlueStarLizzard]

Between the two of us, I'm not the one using logic by assertion. Nor am I insisting on the definition of a word. We've already been over this, but marriage is not a word, it is a thing, and it has certain limits that cannot be exceeded, and still be that thing. As an example, let's go back to fatherhood. If my biological father were a bad, abusive person, who left when I was ten; he would still be, in some way, my father. If another man raised me, he might be considered a father, as well, in another sense. But that doesn't mean I can legally claim anyone off the street as my father, in a legal sense. Someone you call your father, informally, may qualify by a different set of characteristics. A father has certain characteristics that must be met, or no one's going to take you seriously, when you say he's a father. All I'm telling you is that a same-sex couple, no matter how much they love one another, or how committed, or how much we may approve of their situation, is ever going to be a marriage. Not because anyone disapproves of them, but because that's not what marriage is. The world can disagree, but they'll just be wrong.

Exactly why the government need not be involved.

My father is my father because of his actions, not biology, and there were plenty of legal option that could have been taken to make him such.
A husband is a husband due to his actions, not the gender of his partner.
A wife is a wife due to her actions, not the gender of her partner.

And I agree, government shouldn't be involved at all. You don't need government to validate your marriage anymore than anyone elses, but since it does, accept that there is a large portion of the population that thinks "marriage" is something the LBGT can and should have, because they don't define that word or instatution the same way you do.

Move beyond your personal feelings on the subject and be the bigger man. Accept that the fact that others beliving diffrently does not invalidate your opinion and accept the validity that they have the right to redefine the word "marriage" if they want to.
It's no skin off your back if they do. It doesn't diminish your marriage. If you think it does, well, you might want to rethink your own marriage.

and you never addressed the fact that once "Christian" meant Catholic and nothing else.

[BlueStarLizzard]

No because we bigger problems to solve, the run away national debt, under and unemployment, etc.

Can you just make this repost over and over and over and over?
Because this is the ultimate problem with most of the social issues at hand.

Again, people vote on what affects them personally. Controversaly issues draw voters. If politics was boring and focused on the stuff that actually matters, the voters who come out on the social issues and teh feelz are mre likely to stay home and the people who pay attention will vote.
I don't know how it will turn out in the end, but I have a feeling it would cut down on the BS.

[Ron]

BSL, you may want to brush up on your history of Christianity before trying to "teach" others.

Christian sects and practices outside of the Roman Catholic sphere numbered in the dozens even before the reformation.

American Evangelicals share much of their fundamental theology with the Waldensians who we have records of dating back into the second century. The Waldensians and many other groups often united in fellowship with those who left the Roman Catholic Church. So they are considered Protestant even though they existed prior to the protestant reformation.

[BlueStarLizzard]

BSL, you may want to brush up on your history of Christianity before trying to "teach" others.

Christian sects and practices outside of the Roman Catholic sphere numbered in the dozens even before the reformation.

American Evangelicals share much of their fundamental theology with the Waldensians who we have records of dating back into the second century. The Waldensians and many other groups often united in fellowship with those who left the Roman Catholic Church. So they are considered Protestant even though they existed prior to the protestant reformation.

Yet the majority of the christian world wouldn't know that at the time. It was the middle ages and the majority followed the Catholic church and had no clue other sects exisited.
The Protestent Reformation is what matters. This is when you have a larger portion of the population debating what defines a Christian, and among them people who insisted that anyone who was not of the Catholic faith was not Christian.

It's kind of like getting all fussy about the Roanoke colony. Yes, it's a great historical mystery, but in the big scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. It exisited and it was mearly further proof that settling the New World was going to be a challenge to settle, but it's actual impact on the history of the world is minimal at best.

Talking down to me and throwing around historical trivalties doesn't negate my point, Ron.

[Ron]

Yet the majority of the christian world wouldn't know that at the time. It was the middle ages and the majority followed the Catholic church and had no clue other sects exisited.
The Protestent Reformation is what matters. This is when you have a larger portion of the population debating what defines a Christian, and among them people who insisted that anyone who was not of the Catholic faith was not Christian.

It's kind of like getting all fussy about the Roanoke colony. Yes, it's a great historical mystery, but in the big scheme of things, it really doesn't matter. It exisited and it was mearly further proof that settling the New World was going to be a challenge to settle, but it's actual impact on the history of the world is minimal at best.

Your anglocentric view of Christianity is showing.

Your obvious lack of knowledge about the various sects persecuted by the Roman Church in Europe is showing.

Where do you think the nascent protestants got their ideas from? Maybe the rich history of non Roman Christian thought?


-snip-

 

[Ron]

I would contend that the historical lineage of what we now call the evangelical movement here in America is not a historical triviality.

It speaks to both the OP and your contention that before the reformation there was no church other than the Roman Catholic Church.

Your point is negated by a casual knowledge of the history of Christianity. I'm sorry if you take offense at my pointing that out. I'll try to post in a nicer tone when responding to your disparaging of the christian religion    

[roo_ster]

I take it you've never had sex with a woman? Because, you know, we can get hurt down there during sex, and it's not exactly uncommen.

I would bet good money that more woman end up at the doctor due to a sex related UTI then gay men from rough anal sex.

If it's purely a question of health risk alone, hetrosexual woman risk more, and you don't even need to count anything more than pregnacy related risks to beat out everyone else.

So, that arguement was dead before you even typed it out, dude.

I take it you've never studied the issue of transmission of disease via the various modes of intercourse?  Or the differences in the number of sexual partners between those who practice heterosexuality vs those who practice homosexuality? 

WARNING: Math content ahead.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/risk.html 

Code: [Select]

Estimated Per-Act Probability of Acquiring HIV from an Infected Source, by Exposure Act

Type of Exposure                                                              Risk per 10,000 Exposures

Parenteral3
Blood Transfusion                                                                                  9,250
Needle-sharing during injection drug use                                                              63
Percutaneous (needle-stick)                                                                           23

Sexual3
Receptive anal intercourse                                                                           138
Insertive anal intercourse                                                                            11
Receptive penile-vaginal intercourse                                                                   8
Insertive penile-vaginal intercourse                                                                   4
Receptive oral intercourse                                                                          low
Insertive oral intercourse                                                                          low

Other^
Biting                                                                                      negligible4
Spitting                                                                                     negligible
Throwing body fluids (including semen or saliva)                                             negligible
Sharing sex toys                                                                             negligible

Adding Probabilities.  With Coin Flip and 1/1000 Chance to provide perspective.

Code: [Select]

Exposures             1         5        10         25         50        100         200
Prob_Acq_HIV_%     1.38      6.90     13.80      34.50      69.00     138.00      276.00

Coin_Flips            1         5        10         25         50        100         200
Prob_Tails_%       50.00    250.00    500.00    1250.00    2500.00    5000.00    10000.0

One_in_1000           1         5        10         25         50        100         200
Prob_%             0.10      0.50      1.00       2.50       5.00      10.00       20.00

Here is a digest of studies regarding the number of partners homosexual males claim:

"A.P. Bell and M.S. Weinberg, in their classic study of male and female homosexuality, found that 43 percent of white male homosexuals had sex with 500 or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners." [1]

"In their study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven et al., found that only 2.7 percent claimed to have had sex with one partner only. The most common response, given by 21.6 percent of the respondents, was of having a hundred-one to five hundred lifetime sex partners." [2]

"A survey conducted by the homosexual magazine Genre found that 24 percent of the respondents said they had had more than a hundred sexual partners in their lifetime. The magazine noted that several respondents suggested including a category of those who had more than a thousand sexual partners." [3]

"In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, M. Pollak found that 'few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.'" [4]


1. A. P. Bell and M. S. Weinberg, Homosexualities: A Study of Diversity Among Men and Women (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1978), pp. 308, 9; see also Bell, Weinberg and Hammersmith, Sexual Preference (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1981).

2. Paul Van de Ven et al., "A Comparative Demographic and Sexual Profile of Older Homosexually Active Men," Journal of Sex Research 34 (1997): 354. Dr. Paul Van de Ven reiterated these results in a private conversation with Dr. Robert Gagnon on September 7, 2000.

3. "Survey Finds 40 percent of Gay Men Have Had More Than 40 Sex Partners," Lambda Report, January/February 1998, p. 20.

4. M. Pollak, "Male Homosexuality," in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, edited by P. Aries and A. Bejin, pp. 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991), pp. 124, 25.

Now, all that ^^^ is a bit too supportive of my assertion and horrifyingly destructive of yours for me to be entirely comfy.  I am very wary of data that looks too supportive.  Sort of like I am very wary when I write some code and it runs without error the first time.  Time to dig some more.

In that vein, I deliberately sought out data that tried to minimize homosexual male partner numbers.  Pretty common approach: to seek out upper and lower bounds (by those who are interested in understanding the problem).

http://humbumbershoot.wordpress.com/2009/06/09/are-gay-men-more-promiscuous-than-straight-men-analyzing-research-results/

Code: [Select]

        Number of partners in last five years (expressed in % of N)

        sex of partners              0           1           2           3           4       5-10       11-20       20-100       100+       1+ DK #
        Exclusively Male             0          12           8        12.8        12.8        19.2        14.4        14.4           4         2.4      N=   125
        Exclusively Female           0        17.8        14.2        14.4        14.4        23.3         9.3         5.1         0.4         0.7      N= 1,903


My conclusion, then, is that (according to the GSS data) there is a segment of gay men (roughly 13% of the total of gay men) who are promiscuous to a degree that straight men are not....

In my view, the fact of this 13% is of grave concern. Our society needs to address this problem. 

This last source is not conservative, politically or theologically I would bet.  The author considers this a problem of grave concern and he is correct.  Because even if "only" 13% of the homosexual male population are walking door knobs,  it will take a very, very short time for disease to tear through the population of less-active homosexual males and then spill over to other populations. 

========

To sum up, if one looks at probabilities of transmission and opportunities for transmission of even just one sexually transmitted disease, the health damage caused by homosexual sex is much more than that of heterosexual sex.  Even if one assumes the lowest number of partners reported.

This assumes that pregnancy is not considered "damage," in the way an incurable and fatal sexually transmitted disease would be, but an expected and natural occurrence when engaging in heterosexual relations.

[roo_ster]

Second, I hope you end up with a woman who desperatly wants children and you are infertal, so you end up having to decide weither to break her heart or suck it up and deal with "unnatural" children.