Gay Marriage.

koan · Post by **koan** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 5:44 am

I think that is a brilliant idea, weeder!

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 6:05 am

koan wrote: I think that is a brilliant idea, weeder!
Thank you Koan. Ive harbored that concept for a long time....I usually however

avoid getting on this subject.There is so much hatred towards homosexuals

here where I am living now... that it is a good topic to avoid. I do advise the gay people here to keep a low profile. I feel Im doing my part to keep them safe.

Anyone ever seen the movie Torch song Trilogy? Its old, Great food for thought.

Look for it. Its worth it. Has swayed many a homophobic mind.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 6:55 am

The Sunday People today reported that Elton John & his partner David Furnish are to be married in a private ceremony.

http://www.people.co.uk

Fear not Paula, be assured, the invite is not in the post. :rolleyes:

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 10:14 am

Ouch! and ouch again!

Ok, I think I am over my initial reaction, and can speak to what was posted here. Atlanta contains a large homosexual population. It also has a lot of transplants from other parts of the country due to its economic growth.

Rural GA is a whole 'nother story. It is bible-belt, it is prejudiced, and the people there don't waste a lot of time with new-fangled ideas. I haven't visited those areas in 20 years, since I went home for the last family funeral.

I can speak to what I remember, to impressions I had growing up there. I was rasied in a more liberal home than most. We were Presbyterian, not Baptist. My dad earned his degree through Northwestern Univ in Chicago, so he had different ideas than many of our neighbors.

The people who surrounded me growing up were very loving people. Quick to get on my case when I needed it, and even quicker to give me cookies and hugs. They had firm beliefs, it was expected that you would have firm beliefs. Agricultural life is demanding. Most of the people I knew flat out didn't have the luxury of time - they couldn't sit on their front porch at night and discuss philosophy. You worked from the minute you got up until shortly before bed. Even relax time at night on the porch was filled with shelling beans, mending clothes, etc. (Except for me - I was a spolied little girl and our family was business, not farming. I had the luxury of time, except in summers when I was "farmed" out.)

This does not excuse prejudice. I'm not remotely suggesting that. But it does make it difficult for people to consider the impact of their decisions beyond the world that they know. I would think this holds pretty well true for rural people anywhere.

Having been nurtured and loved by these people, I can't routinely dismiss them or their notions as wrong/evil. It works for them even if it doesn't work for everyone. Of course, I state that with a clear delineation between belief and active violence.

A lot of the creation vs evolution laws that are passing are a knee-jerk reaction to a world that presses in on them, affects their children, and in their minds, endangers their traditions. How differently would we act in the same circumstances?

I don't believe in prejudice, I don't understand targeting a people for their thoughts and values, and I don't believe in it no matter which side of the fence they live on. Meaning, they have the right to be prejudiced, but they do NOT have the right to harm others because of it. They have the right to be Christian, but they do NOT have the right to impose it on anyone else.

(Consequently, I am against removing evolution from schools. It's reasonable to think that both could be taught side by side. Yet, having only been taught creationism myself, and later finding out about evolution in my teens I can safely state that it's not the end of the world if it happens that way.)

The point is that if we cannot understand and respect another point of view, then we have no hope of finding peaceful resolution. It is forced to a point of anger and violence where one side must win and the other side must lose.

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 11:04 am

Olly wrote: You live in Georgia, which is one of the most unenlightened states, for instance the state recently banned the teaching of evolution in schools, saying it was just a theory. This is patently ridiculous, all of science is theory, there are no absolutely confirmed facts, it's just like philosophy and theology, you have to effectively have faith that the theory works, and that it is backed up by experimental data.

Sorry, I digressed a bit there, I really think that anywhere where homosexuals have to keep a low profile is not a place worth living in, it shows that the people are sufficiently stupid and ignorant to be afraid of something they don't understand or feel threatens them. :-5
I agree with you. I am appalled at what I have found here in Georgia. Not only regarding homosexuality... Many days I feel like Im on the movie set of Porgy and Bess. Originally from New York, I lived in a multi cultural, opened minded enviorment all of my life.. So its a shock. I can only believe that life has carried me here for a reason. Make the most of it and perhaps wrought some change. However small that may be.... I can promise you this........They wont forget I was here.

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 12:21 pm

Be careful!! Please! We don't have songs about missing people and gator swamps for nothing.

That sounds alarmist, and I apologize.

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 12:54 pm

A Karenina wrote: Be careful!! Please! We don't have songs about missing people and gator swamps for nothing.

That sounds alarmist, and I apologize.
I am laughing and laughing. Ive been here for a year... Have had a date that

said to me... "We shoot you people, and leave you in the woods to die."

When I came here I though I might meet a man like the character Richard Gere

played in Sommersby. Ha! I am careful. Believe me I am careful. I know what I am

dealing with. But again..things can always change.

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 1:12 pm

Yes, (grin) things can always change. I believe in that, too. I was able to witness some of it firsthand as the Civil Rights workers duked it out with people like your date.

But I still reserve the right to worry and to offer a few silent thoughts for your safety and success. :-6

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Sun Dec 12, 2004 1:57 pm

I am not worried about my safety as I have been on my own for a very long time.

However, I too am concerned about the success part. I purchased a business down here underestimating the differences of my surroundings. Lets just say....

many of the locals are not responding kindly to my personality, my sence of humor,

or my business tactics. Quite frankly.. if I give up,, this will be the first time in my life that I have conceeded to anything. If I fail, I go home to Virginia... my life financially in shambles. So I am attempting to take on the lions. Thank You

again... You are wise and kind

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 12:34 pm

I believe Pork in the Rear is why people want Gay Marriage...hahahahaha, and you like sheep too? you are an animal pediphile? oh my god...

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 1:49 pm

Paula wrote: I believe Pork in the Rear is why people want Gay Marriage...hahahahaha, and you like sheep too? you are an animal pediphile? oh my god...

So let me get this amazing, deep and profound statement correct that Paula has decided to share.

"Pork in the rear, is why people want to get married" Did'nt realise you had to have a marriage licence to have sex??

You not only accuse J.Sprat of Bestiality, but of being a phaedophile also

Are there any depths that you won't sink to Paula??

Nice one love, you have officially sunk to an all time low. :yh_clap

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 2:51 pm

Paula wrote: I believe Pork in the Rear is why people want Gay Marriage...hahahahaha, and you like sheep too? you are an animal pediphile? oh my god...

What aterrible thing to say.... If you knew anything, you would know that many homosexual couples do not necessarily have a physical relationship at all. Other than pure affection. Affection, and kindness.. two things all humans need to be human. I have never heard a gay friend say such a disgusting thing, and Ive worked alongside them my entire life.

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:01 pm

if you put your finger in a tigers mouth, what happens, right--it will bite you? How about sticking your finger in an electrical outlet, you get shocked.... :wah: let-go. :sneaky:

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:37 pm

Paula wrote: I believe Pork in the Rear is why people want Gay Marriage...hahahahaha, and you like sheep too? you are an animal pediphile? oh my god...

Paula, please. it is not necessary to sink to vulgarity and provocative attacks to get your point across. please don't imply that someone is into bestiality because they don't share your world view. please don't suggest that anal sex has something to do with gay marriage. you know they don't - you're just trying to get people's goat, no pun intended.

yes, you are free to express your opinions, but forumgarden has no obligation to provide a platform for you to do so if you are abusive to others. you disagree with gay marriage. that's fine. please stop derailing the conversation with offensive comments such as these.

we (forumgarden) have an obligation to all people here on the board to foster the growth of this community, stress on *community*. please don't treat your neighbors like punching bags, or worse.

i by no means am pretending that i've never sunk to ad hominem myself. but i believe the worst i've done is dismiss other's opinions as 'nonsense', not hurled derogatory and offensive "jokes" at them as retorts.

adding smiley-faces does not mitigate the words. please show your interlocutors the respect they, and you, deserve.

minks · Post by **minks** » Mon Dec 13, 2004 3:56 pm

Paula wrote: Should Gay Marriage be Passed into Law?

Gays should have to pay support to ya know

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:57 am

I've gone off you lot, you *all* want your heads knocking together. Why not all eff right off and find an on-line community called "Kindergarten" ?

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 6:03 am

The Gay Marriage Thread is Experiencing a High Volume of anger..insults & my heart is damaged now...that is so terrible...what should i do? Do you believe everything you hear & read? I see an over-reaction which is completely unnecessary? May your day be "merry" and bright. :-6

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:47 am

Olly wrote: Okay, I'm sorry for snapping like that. I just got really annoyed at Paula's immature suggestion, there seems to be a general perception in the world today that gay men are paedophiles, which (of course) is utterly wrong.

Like the rest of the population, some are - I don't know that it is a recent perception - it is in general an inaccurate one, though.

Olly wrote: I have been known to punch holes in walls when I get severely angry

Yeah, everyone does that - doors, too. It's not good for the knuckles, though. Neither is a straight right to the computer screen, it won't bust it, but it's effin' hard, and the monitor shoots off the back of the table dragging the rest of the gubbins with it. That's a PITA.

Olly wrote: and am taking anger managment lessons, so forgive me for my outburst earlier. Again: sorry, let's all be friends... please

Count to 10. Ignore it. Think around it. Drink beer, unless you're the sort of person who gets "punchy", of course. Have friends!

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:53 am

Bill Sikes wrote: Like the rest of the population, some are - I don't know that it is a recent perception - it is in general an inaccurate one, though.

homosexuals constitute approximately ten percent of the human population. heterosexuals constitute approximately ninety percent. If we assume that an equal percentage of each subpopulation is child sexual abusers, then there are nine times as many heterosexual pedophiles as homosexual pedophiles.

this i believe is borne out in the statistics. homosexuals have no greater tendency to pedophilia than heterosexuals. however, because there are ten times as many heterosexuals out there, the population of heterosexual child sexual predators is much, much larger than that of homosexual child sexual predators.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 11:58 am

anastrophe wrote: If we assume that an equal percentage of each subpopulation is child sexual abusers

That's an assumption. I do not know the details, but that the perception is, in general, inaccurate.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:01 pm

Bill Sikes wrote: That's an assumption. I do not know the details, but that the perception is, in general, inaccurate.
uh, yeah bill. i know it's an assumption. that's why i prefaced it with "if we assume". sheesh.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:08 pm

anastrophe wrote: homosexuals constitute approximately ten percent of the human population. heterosexuals constitute approximately ninety percent. If we assume that an equal percentage of each subpopulation is child sexual abusers, then there are nine times as many heterosexual pedophiles as homosexual pedophiles.

this i believe is borne out in the statistics. homosexuals have no greater tendency to pedophilia than heterosexuals. however, because there are ten times as many heterosexuals out there, the population of heterosexual child sexual predators is much, much larger than that of homosexual child sexual predators.
SEEMS LIKE A FAIR ASSUMPTION TO ME.

Bill Sikes · Post by **Bill Sikes** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:10 pm

anastrophe wrote: uh, yeah bill. i know it's an assumption. that's why i prefaced it with "if we assume". sheesh.

Well WTF did you take issue with my statement and come out with a load of assumptions? 'kinell.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:19 pm

Bill Sikes wrote: Well WTF did you take issue with my statement and come out with a load of assumptions? 'kinell.
whatever you say bill. if you would reread what i wrote, you'll see that i was providing my perspective on the matter. i did not say "bill, you're full of it up to the hairline". i provided a different take on it. your post was a guess, as was mine. neither of us has posted any valid data.

*my* point is that, even if we assume (got that bill?) that 100% of homosexuals are child sexual predators, and if we assume (got that bill?) that only 10% of heterosexuals are child sexual predators, well, add it up.

fake numbers for example:

90 million heterosexuals

10 million homosexuals

100% of homosexuals child sexual predators for the sake of argument - 10 million

10% of heterosexuals child sexual predators for the sake of argument - 9 million

so even under the most ridiculous scenarios, the raw number of child sexual predators would be almost the same. under almost any other scenario the numbers will weigh more heavily on heterosexuals in terms of the actual number of predators out there.

but hey. you know, we both have access to google. we could just quit blowing smoke out of our respective arses and post some real data, or links to same, ay wot?

:p

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:46 pm

Jack Sprat wrote: I assume using similar research (numbers picked out of a hat) we can say more gay people (by percentage) ride bikes, read books, have cats as pets, and take walks in parks.

Let's agree on one thing: either more gay people go to gay bars than non-gay people or then again perhaps not.

While generalities prove nothing, they do make the people creating the generalities sound as if they are making things up.
sigh. i don't understand how "these are fake numbers" could be misconstrued as "sounding as if they are making things up" - i am stating quite clearly that i'm making them up! there's absolutely nothing wrong with using a pure hypothetical to advance a discussion. the point i seem to be unable to get across is that homosexuals are a tiny fraction of the human population. *under almost any scenario* when you are talking about a group of ten people next to a group of 90 people, the ninety people are in raw numbers going to be *more likely* (not *are*) to outnumber the minority in *any* activity, be it reading books, having cats as pets, or being child sexual predators.

Thereafter we tend to give less weight to such people's statements. One reason many of us visit FG is because of the high standards set by the earliest members. Let's follow their example and rather than use generalities, look up the facts and show us the links. We love good arguments, but only if there is evidence to back them up.

ignoring me or dismissing my opinions is, of course, your choice. the presentation of a pure hypothetical is consistent with examination, inquiry, discovery, and probative discourse, however. columbus had to believe in a pure hypothetical to decide to sail directly off what was believed to be the edge of the earth.

the other reason i'm using the pure hypothetical is because the data pertaining to extremely volatile issues such as child sexual abuse are concommitantly extremely difficult to obtain with accuracy. shame plays a huge role in child sexual abuse. so much so that a great many victims may have _no recollection whatsoever_ of the abuse. and for those who do remember, the shame may yet still keep them silent for fear of further degradation, or reprisal. gathering accurate data is damnably difficult.

most child sexual abuse in the priesthood appears to be male predator and male victim. does that mean that that provides a good sample from which to extrapolate the trends? not at all. there are so many ancillary factors mixed into it that one cannot come to a hard and fast conclusion from this very specific population. a population of men ostensibly committed to celibacy, and service to god, yet with a high incidence of the most fiendish, degrading activity that can be perpetrated upon another person - non-consensual sex. prospective pedophiles may be drawn to the priesthood due to their own shame about it and hope for redemption, but are unable to control their sexual tendencies - human sexual drive being one of the most difficult behaviors to control of all. at the same time - this 'doubling up' of shame - a person who should be an example of higher trustworthiness than others going virtually to the 'dark side' and committing heinous crimes against innocent others - because of this ironic evil, it may be that their victims manage to break through their own shame due to the doubled-up anger at this abuse of trust. so the *reporting* of sexual abuse by priests may be higher than for the general population - but the actual rate of abuse may be quite the same.

who knows? i'm just speculating for the sake of discussion.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 3:32 pm

Jack Sprat wrote:

Not when you get to my age.

:yh_rotfl

bada-bing! ladies and gentlemen, Jack Sprat! Jack will be appearing at the laff-shakk thursday through saturday, no cover charge!

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Tue Dec 14, 2004 4:39 pm

A good percentage of people are very nervous about homosexuality. I have found this to be true more amongst men than women. We dont examine it, we dont think about it. We are as you all know... more spontaneously , physically affectionate with each other than men are. Deep down somewhere.. all adults realize that given the right circumstances, they could possibly encounter SOMEONE

of the same sex that they could love. And its frightening. Responsible people draw boundrys for themselves and they live within the boundrys. There are things they dont allow themselves. It is called being civilized. Homophobia

is the first indicator of latent homosexual tendencies. Homosexuals are born homosexual, there is nothing they can do about it. And believe it or not.. many

of them are not happy about it. Ive had many afriend admit to me that they though about killing themselves upon discovering it in themselves at a very young age.

Child molestors are sexual deviants. They are in a catagory all their own. The are found amongst all types of people. Male Female, Gay, Straight, Young Old, Black

white. I dont necessarily agree with it However there are gay couples that make better parents , than many straight couples Ive encountered. Ive met some real trash amongst the heterosexual population. If you want to chew on a real

interesting sexually related topic..... we should move on to incest.. which is so prevaliant in our society.. that it is falling into the realm of being considered

normal. Big Strapping HETEROSEXUAL male daddys molesting their own daughters or sons. They get away with it in the privacy of their own homes.

We dont pay any attention to them because their not swishing around singing

the musical score from Oklahoma. No their weilding chain saws, and coaching the local football team.... so we think their A OK. Id like to gather a group of them together in a corral... put them in dresses, make them up, and watch them tear each other to pieces. really coming out of my shell arent I?

weeder · Post by **weeder** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:45 pm

Adolescents go through a period when they contomplate the prospect that they may be gay. Often in the course of a lifetime ,a person has had some kind of a encounter that might be considered homosexual. They dont remember it, or they dont acknowledge it, or it influences them to believe they are gay. As I said Im not an expert but my very good friends who are gay knew it from an early age. It wasnt a choice. Often they were not happy about it. And some faced with the prospect of dealing with difficultys in life because of it.. contemplated suicide. Im hapyy for you that you are well adjusted, happy, and have your parents support. However the experience is not the same for everyone.

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 2:38 pm

In my heart, and i have one too, no-one should be ashamed to be gay. Gay people are no different than any of us. Some of the most notable people are gay, I sincerely aplologize if i used the topic as a hammering site, you are human.. I am not anti-gay in the least. I hope all your dreams come true, you are cared about and derseve treatment as every one else, rejoice, its okay. :-6

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:24 pm

WELL SAID... :yh_peace

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:18 pm

abbey wrote: WELL SAID... :yh_peace

Abigail, I am not a bad person in the least, good wishes to those--appreciate!

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:23 pm

Paula wrote: Abigail, I am not a bad person in the least, good wishes to those--appreciate!

Life is about FREINDS, Not enemys...I am not that.. Cheerio, I love you all...I will help if needed...thats what FRIENDS are FOR... :-1

A Karenina · Post by **A Karenina** » Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:09 pm

Paula, your sweet side is my favorite part of you.

Paula · Post by **Paula** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:17 pm

this is your 6th. post? congratulations, you are on my ignore list. have fun, enjoy. :-1

lady cop · Post by **lady cop** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:22 pm

PatrickB1979 wrote: Paula Is A Total Idiot!!!!!!!
10 posts and you're calling people names? we can disagree without ad hominem attacks.

anastrophe · Post by **anastrophe** » Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:26 pm

ad hominem is my favorite kind of argument. the minute a person uses it they have implicitly lost the argument!