I am still waiting for your answer. Were you born straight or gay? Also, if you have more than 10 people in your total family, I will be that at least one of them is gay.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on May 24, 2004 08:51:16 PM new
Linda, are you there?
Now, I think that you and I can both agree that any survey take by the religious right or any gay rights group might be slanted. I also think that you and I can agree on the fact the American Psychological Association (APA) would be a disinterested third party in this discussion. It would be fair to say the APA study was done to further the understanding on the subject, and not to side with any one group.
Here is the APA says on the parenting of children by gay and lesbian people.
D. Conclusion
In summary, there is no evidence to suggest that lesbians and gay men are unfit to be parents or that psychosocial development among children of gay men or lesbians is compromised in any respect relative to that among offspring of heterosexual parents. Not a single study has found children of gay or lesbian parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents. Indeed, the evidence to date suggests that home environments provided by gay and lesbian parents are as likely as those provided by heterosexual parents to support and enable children's psychosocial growth.
Also, there have been gay and lesbian parents raising children for centuries. You don't think they just popped out of the woodwork yesterday, do you? They were married to a straight spouse.
I dug this up just for you, because me and my people are nice folks. Who would of thunk it?
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on May 24, 2004 08:54:15 PM new
NearTheSea - I've read - quite awhile ago - that many rich Catholics would ask for annulments after many years of marriage and with their children grown or almost grown. I don't know....always seemed like it was a way for the rich to be able to re-marry with the consent of the church, which they wouldn't be able to after getting a divorce. Think you know I was a Catholic in my younger days.....many, many, many moons ago.
posted on May 24, 2004 08:58:47 PM new
What has rich Catholics asking for annulments after many years of marriage got to do with gay marriage hurting society?
posted on May 24, 2004 09:22:54 PM new
Yeager - No....no one in my whole family is or has been gay.
Here are MY figures for what percentages of gays there are: want to show where you get your 1 in 10 number from?
1.51% of total U.S. population identifies themselves as gay, lesbian or bisexual, or 4.3 total million Americans. 2.8% of males age 18 or older, and 1.4% of females age 18 or older divided by 284,800,000 total population (2003 figures). 0.9% of women identify themselves as lesbians (excluding bisexuals), which equates to 0.32% of total U.S. population being lesbians. 2 percent of men identify themselves as gay (excluding bisexuals), which equates to 0.7% of total U.S. population being gay men. Source: National study published in Laumann, et al., The Social Organization of Sex: Sexual Practices in the United States (1994), cited in Amicus Curiae in support of petitioners. Lawrence and Garner v. State of Texas, No. 02-102 (U.S. March 26, 2003), pg. 16. This friend of the court brief was filed by a coalition of leading pro-GLBT activist groups, including: Human Rights Campaign, National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), National Center for Lesbian Rights, Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAAD), Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Pride At Work AFL-CIO, People For the American Way Foundation, Anti-Defamation League, Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, Soulforce, Stonewall Law Association of Greater Houston, and others. See also: Peter Sprigg, 28 January 2004, "Homosexual Groups Back Off From '10 Percent' Myth", InFocus (Family Research Council), Issue No. 260; URL: http://www.frc.org/get.cfm?i=IF04A01. From Sprigg:
A coalition of leading pro-homosexual activist groups has now admitted in a legal brief that only "2.8 percent of the male, and 1.4 percent of the female, population identify themselves as gay, lesbian, or bisexual."... in an amicus curiae (or "friend of the court" brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Lawrence v. Texas. In the case, which was decided in June of 2003, homosexual activists successfully sought to have a Texas law barring homosexual sodomy declared unconstitutional.
posted on May 24, 2004 09:43:54 PM new
Then....you want info on gay relationships....on 'promiscuity in the gay community'? Do a google search on those words and you'll be able to read forever....about promiscuousness in the gay community.
posted on May 24, 2004 10:14:58 PM new
kiara, it was me who commented a page back or so on Kerry.
It all came from 'the Pope doesn't approve of gay marriages' and went from there. (Kerry being Catholic etc etc) Kerry asked for an annullment through the Church is how it all got in this thread.
posted on May 24, 2004 10:16:04 PM new
Now here's a quote from a gay CA man...running for the office of Governor - when Davis was being outted.....that I can/could agree with.
A Los Angeles businessman, and former Beverly Hills BMW salesman, the 40 year old [Jim] Vandeventer describes himself as 90% Democrat and 10% Republican despite his registration.
But even though he supports same-sex couples, Vandeventer who has been in a committed relationship for more than seven years, says he is not in favor of gay marriage.
"Let marriage be a sanctity for heterosexuals. The gay community has to come up with another vocabulary word," he says.
posted on May 24, 2004 10:26:24 PM new
NTS - Yes...different groups use different methods of calculating their 'guess'.
Some use the 2000 US Census...taking 'male/male' partners on their tax forms...etc.
but one of the reasons for a part of the difference is that some gay groups who claim it's 10% are counting all children [their population numbers too] in their figures.
Nobody in your family ever?? I would bet there is, and you just don't know about them. I think they might not want you to know about it. And with you as a relative, I can see why!
Your figures on the gay population are flawed. The reason is that many many gay and lesbian population never come out of the closet. The reason is an intolerant society.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on May 25, 2004 01:25:51 AM new
yeager - You're like a scratched record with a needle just stuck in one place that can't get out of its groove. You continue making assumptions about me and so far you haven't been right on anything. You're batting a BIG "0".
So now instead of producing your own stats on the 10% figure...you're saying it's because 'some haven't come out of the closet yet'? Well....heck why don't you just say it's 50%-75% then...'cause after all...we don't really know using your method of guessing.
Gay activists have inflated the numbers so as to appear to not be as small of a group as they really are. Then out of that same small group there are only a fraction of those same gays who even want to get married anyway. And as I have discussed, gays tend to have an understanding that they won't be monogamous even in their 'committed' relationships.
And it doesn't surprise me one bit that you don't accept the percentages from the PRO-gay community/groups - the ones involved in the USSC sodomy case in Texas either. Not surprising at all....you're in your 'groove'. You didn't accept the other information from the other gay sites/articles/personal admissions either.
If one of my sons told me he was gay it wouldn't change how much I love him, how I would treat him nor any aspect of my relationship with him. Because my relationship with him isn't based on his sexual preference. That's what you're not 'getting' - it's not about that. I still would not agree to gay 'marriage'. If you're asking would I 'shun' him....no...never.
I agree fully with [I believe] neroter who said...it appears this is about gay's wanting acceptance.
The ability to have equal rights doesn't appear to be what this is really all about....otherwise civil unions would have been enough. It's about forcing people to accept - say they approve of - their alternative lifestyle. To approve of all the alternative lifestyles that anyone wishes to take part in.
If anything....this push for gay marriage is turning more against your cause that it's bring into the fold, imo. You're not going to *force* anyone to accept it who doesn't want to accept it.
posted on May 25, 2004 08:43:38 AM new
I know he didn't ask me, but I really can't think of even 1 in my family. All my sisters (including me, thats 4) are married, and have been for sometime, 1 brother, who is married to his second wife now, he was widowed before that, now if he was gay, he wouldn't have remarried a female, I would assume. My father is not gay, its his second marriage. My cousins on my fathers side, all have been married or remarried. The only ones that there may be a question about is my mothers side, since she was an only child of two only children!-All three deceased now. And they were from Ireland, so I would have to go to Ireland (doesn't sound too bad and my daughter has always bugged me to take her there) to find out.
And both my children are straight, one getting married, one dating a guy (for quite some time now)
If one did turn out to be gay, like Linda, she would be my daughter no matter what, and I love them both no matter what.
Do I know or have I met gay people? Of course. Throughout my life I have met gay people, but not 50% of the people that I know or met have been gay.
posted on May 25, 2004 09:06:25 AM new
Linda says,
The ability to have equal rights doesn't appear to be what this is really all about....otherwise civil unions would have been enough. It's about forcing people to accept - say they approve of - their alternative lifestyle. To approve of all the alternative lifestyles that anyone wishes to take part in.
Helen the fact is, Rosa Parks could get to the same place riding in the back of the bus as she could riding in the front of the bus. She still would have reached her destination. But she wanted to be treated EQUALLY! Is that hard for you to understand. Gay men and women want to be treated the same as everyone else, that's all. They DO NOT want to be classified as a separate group of people, or be assigned a different set of standards. All Americans should be able to have the same societal standards. After all, doesn't the US Constitution allow this?
You also pulled up some web pages concerning the promiscuity of gay men. I am wondering if those figures include the MARRIED GAY MEN that cheat on their wives with other men.
Linda, on a more personal note, I am glad to hear you say that about your son. There are so many parents that treat their gay child like an outcast when they tell them they are gay.
True Americans do not exclude anybody. They recognize that everyone should have the same rights. Bigotry, intolerance and hatred are cancers of the mind.
posted on May 25, 2004 09:27:24 AM newHelen the fact is, Rosa Parks could get to the same place riding in the back of the bus as she could riding in the front of the bus. She still would have reached her destination. But she wanted to be treated EQUALLY! Is that hard for you to understand. Gay men and women want to be treated the same as everyone else, that's all. They DO NOT want to be classified as a separate group of people, or be assigned a different set of standards. All Americans should be able to have the same societal standards. After all, doesn't the US Constitution allow this?
It certainly is NOT hard for me to understand Yeager and I resent the hell out of you inferring that it does.
posted on May 25, 2004 09:43:58 AM new
Yeager, Your information is completely false. I have only made two comments in this thread. There is no indication in either thread that I fail to understand the bigotry in the anti-gay position.
The first comment that I made.
Kerry doesn't have the same position as George Bush. As Cheryl pointed out, neither Kerry or any of the other candidates want to ammend the constitution as George Bush does. Kerry has made it clear that he opposes amending the US Constitution, because he believes the issue of marriage should be left to the states.
John Kerry has also addressed what Cheryl has called the human issue. He supports same-sex civil unions so that gay couples can benefit from the health benefits, inheritance rights, or Social Security survivor benefits guaranteed for heterosexual couples. He believes that they should have all rights and legal protections that all families and children need. Although I don't understand his reason for opposing marriage, I do see a significant difference between his position and that of George Bush.
The second comment that I made
It can be nothing but a form of bigotry to deny marriage to those who are not heterosexual. The fact that politicians have supported that bigotry does not change the nature of the belief. I would rather think that by choosing not to support same sex marriage that Kerry is doing what may be politically expedient than believe that he really believes in such a bigoted position. Unlike Bush, he has supported the rights of gays by proposing the civil union option. And as I have pointed out before, he opposes the amendment of the constitution.
Yeager, You may continue to send unanswered questions to Linda and if you are bored, go after another neocon. Their number here is overwhelming.
Then you say, You also pulled up some web pages concerning the promiscuity of gay men. I am wondering if those figures include the MARRIED GAY MEN that cheat on their wives with other men.
I have pulled up NOTHING concerning the promiscuity of gay men. Edit your comment to indicate who really pulled up that information.
The only comments that I made on this thread are listed above.
posted on May 25, 2004 11:50:24 AM new
What a mistake, Nearthesea. LOL!
Maybe you are right. It just makes no sense otherwise. He did once suggest that the Marines were coming to get me because I was renting a room to Saddam and serving him Kraftdinner for lunch.
posted on May 25, 2004 01:59:01 PM new
Oh brother.....another hysterical moment from helen.
------------------
NTS - Tell your daughter you're saving the money for the wedding expenses.
----------------
yeager - All Americans should be able to have the same societal standards. After all, doesn't the US Constitution allow this?
Want to show me just where in our Constitution it speaks of 'societal standards'. lol And there is a *huge* difference between enjoying equal rights vs acceptance of behaviors. Just like pediphiles...they deserve/have equal rights too...that doesn't mean people accept their sexual behavior either.
posted on May 25, 2004 02:15:08 PM new
argh, don't remind me....... and she is the one that has to have the 'everything done just right' attitude .....ugh.... hopefully they will put it off a year or so, but he is looking at a transfer to Utah, so they would before then.....
posted on May 25, 2004 02:42:01 PM new
And I believe that Yeager would be similarly upset if I ascribed Bear's beliefs and statements to him. If I made such an error, I would apologize to Yeager and edit the incorrect post. It will be interesting to see if Yeager apologizes to me as I would to him if the situation was reversed.
posted on May 25, 2004 05:06:22 PM new
helen - No one other than yourself would even consider *demanding* an apology for such a simple mistake. Others might mention 'I didn't say that yeager, so and so did'....not demand he grovel at your feet because of a simple error.
And in all my time on the boards I sure can't remember ONE time when you appologized to anyone. LOL If it ever did happen....I'm sure it wasn't to anyone who holds a different opinion on the issues than you do.
You make such a big deal out of absolutely nothing. I've always wondered how you'd react if anything important really happened in your life when you are so prone to over-reacting as it is.
posted on May 25, 2004 05:19:02 PM new
Linda says,
The ability to have equal rights doesn't appear to be what this is really all about....otherwise civil unions would have been enough. It's about forcing people to accept - say they approve of - their alternative lifestyle. To approve of all the alternative lifestyles that anyone wishes to take part in.
Linda there is a big difference between "accept" and "approve".
Approve means you agree with something or are in favor of ie gay marriages. (I know this is not the case).
Accept means you acknowledge there is a difference compared to your own belief - ie you acknowledge there are homosexuals in this world who are different from your own beliefs but you dont have to like their lifestyle.
The gay rights movement has always been about acceptance and equal rights. There was never a time where gays have been forcing you to APPROVE of our lifestyle.
I wish you and your people would stop making this argument. It is completely false. It is this attitude that contributes to the hate and bigotry against gays.
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
posted on May 25, 2004 05:24:48 PM new
What does the number of HIV/AIDS cases have to do with marriage?
Re-defeat Bush
------------------------------
In the words from Cher:
We’re gonna love one another ’til morning comes
Sweet salvation for what we’ve done
Give up resisting one by one one by one
We’re gonna love one another
This topic is 11 pages long: 1new2new3new4new5new6new7new8new9new10new11new
