user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
I believe in it and support it.
No, I'm against it. Heterosexuals are lousy at marriage. Let's give someone else a try, and see if they can do better.
I believe they would do just as well and no better. It depends on the particular man and woman and how much they actually love each other, or don't. The problem is many of them get into a marriage when their isn't even true love there, and that's what results in either divorces, or unhealthy, bitter marriages.
I love the way they worded it so carefully.
I gotta copyright the word "Marriage" so I can use it to mean whatever I want. It's a silly law to let religion dictate to the government - I oppose it... vehemently.
by LCD on Mon May 22, 06 11:02am
[+]
What's the big deal???
by mojo on Mon May 22, 06 11:16am
[+]
With all that is going on in the country and the world, our fearless leaders decide to propose an amendment to yet again take rights away from some Americans. If we are exempt from marriage and openly joining the military, we should be exempt from paying taxes.
We had a revolution because of taxation without representation, I don't feel I'm being represented, do you?
Viva La Revolution
I see no constructive results of such an act.
You would think that the government would have something better to do.
^they have much better things to do, we are at war, we have no health care, we have people living on the streets, we have the largest deficit in the history of the world, but let's forget all those things and take away some freedoms.
I'm opposed to anything that unreasonably limits the freedom of the individual.So long as the people who are getting married are of legal age and can making decisions for themselves we should allow them to marry.cranky I don't think that gays would be much better at marriage then straight people.Hell have you seen what goes on at gay clubs?!They get more action then most hetero's I know.
Crap.
2 ppl love ea. other?
I'm just glad as hell they DON'T HATE ea. other
(that'll come in time!)
it's just a way to stamp out someone's rights.
by Jyl on Mon May 22, 06 12:03pm
[+]
I really don't understand why people are against gay marriages. If it's a religious thing, that is something they can object to in their place of worship or home, condemn it all they want in those places, but religion is not suppose to play a part in policy making, is it?
How would me marrying another man affect Ma and Pa kettle in Idaho?
What is the point of supporting a pointless amendment to the constitution, kentucky_yankee?
Gay marriage is already illegal just about everywhere. Most states have passed laws banning it. All this amendment would do is institutionalize pointlessness and stupidity.
I strongly oppose it. It's just another way for the Bush government to push its own religious dogma onto others. I hope it doesn't last. This bill along with any other bill of the same nature is a pure desecration of democracy and freedom. It's pathetic how the people in charge want to push their "moral" values on the public.
Sooner or later they're going to implement the 'American Protect' ammendment and have a written definition on what makes an American and what doesn't.
"I believe in it and support it."
What makes you believe that other's believe in it? And why do you think that it's okay for the government to force their own personal morals onto others?
Didn't they vote for this already 2 years ago and it was voted down?
Because I've heard others say they believe in it. Most of them voted for the Federal Marriage Amendment. Not all Democrats opposed it, either.
And there are millions of Americans who are opposed to this bill, what about them?
Federal Marriage Amendment is the same thing as the Marriage Protection Amendment, it's just that the neo-cons found a way to twist the description that way it can get another shot at congress.
Atleast the government wasn't stupid enough to pass this back in July '04.
kentucky_yankee, you believe in it and support it. So, you are against gay marriage. Don't have one then. Go to a church that won't perform one. You or those who think like you do on this issue have no right to force your views on others.
BTW, I am rather surprised that you would make a ballot about this. Aren't there more important issues to deal with? Poverty, lack of health care, homelessness, genocide, etc.
I'd rather see a constitutional amendment banning poverty and homelessness. That would be far more productive and beneficial to society as a whole than this amendment would be.
^My point exactly. If you're anti-abortion, don't have an abortion. If you're anti-gay marriage, then don't get married to the same sex. Just because you're against it doesn't mean that you should prevent others from doing it.
I don't like clowns, does that mean that I should push an amendment in congress to ban all clowns?
The stuff that fools dream of.
I oppose it and its supporters.
granted, but unfortunately, you can never end poverty, and homelessness is probably the same I'm sad to say.
Kentucky, impossible is nothing!
If the government weren't so focused on all of these pointless amendments then they'd have more time to at least lessen poverty?
These kinds of amendments are only pointless to some. I know not everyone agrees with it and I can kind of see your point why, but because of my own convictions and the things I know and have found about homosexuality and gay marriage, it only makes sense for me to support the amendment. You are of course entitled to your own opinion, so you can disagree if you wish.
Please do tell us what you "have found out about homosexuality". I would love to hear your "expert" opinion on the matter.
Certainly, FiddleFaddle.
For starters, there is the Holy Bible. Now I know that not everyone believes in God and/or is a Christian or Jew, but here it is. Three verses tell you that it is obviously wrong, through the words of men writing on behalf of the inspiration of God. In other words, they were writing basically what God told them, not just biased, personal opinions. The verses are as follows:
1. "Do you not know that wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." -- 1 Corinthians 6:9,10
2. "God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." -- Romans 1:26,27
3. "If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable." -- Leviticus 20:13 (I believe different versions say it is an abomination, though.)
In addition, Jesus never said anything about homosexuality, but He knew what His Father felt about it. However, He would surely condemn the hateful persecution, especially the violent kinds, against homosexuals. But that doesn't mean He approves of homosexuality. The opposition to homosexuality is not limited to Christianity. As I previously mentioned, Judiasm is also against it, and Islam condemns it as well.
Outside of religion, there have been no studies that have successfully proved people are born gay, and that it's okay. No scientific study in genetics and biology can confirm that homosexuals are born that way. It is obviously a choice; I find that to be even more true when I see numerous ex-homosexuals on TV being interviewed on how they changed to being straight. If you are born that way, then how can you change? Granted, many people will ask "When did you choose to be straight?" I believe the answer is simple: during puberty, when your sex drive developed. Like I said, there's no evidence to prove gays are born that way, and young children can't determine what sexual orientation they are, for they have not hit puberty or sexual attraction to either gender, which is overwhelmingly attraction to the opposite gender.
There are several theories that have been developed over the years about the cause of homosexuality or why a person would become gay. These are just a few that I have discovered:
1. Pornography 2. Spousal abuse in the home 3. Child molestation and pedophilia 4. Parental adultery 5. Influence by peers 6. Influence by the media.
It has been found out by many that homosexuals apparently have a decreased life expectancy. Many people also realize that homosexuals are a lot more susceptible to STDs and illnesses, especially AIDS. Outside of the victims of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, homosexuals have a higher rate of AIDS contraction that anyone else. Stephen Bennett, a former homosexual, confirms this truth; "For the fact that I was gay. I lived the gay lifestyle until I was 28 years old, probably for about 11 years. Well, with over 100 men sexually, many of whom are dead today from AIDS. I've buried countless boyfriends in the ground because of AIDS." He also said in the interview with Lee Webb of CBN: "I am living proof that homosexuals can change, that no one is born gay. We need to equate homosexuality with that of drug addiction or alcoholism. They are destructive behaviors that we would never encourage people to continue a life in -- we need to say the same exact thing about homosexuality."
As for myself, I believe all of these things even more as I have read about, heard of, and seen on TV multiple cases about the disease susceptibility of homosexuals and how ex-homosexuals became straight. As a Christian, as the son of two parents formerly involved in medicine and nursing who worked at the hospital, and an individual who has done a substantial amount of research, I know these facts to be accurate and trustworthy. Even still, I know there will be people who refuse to accept these facts and deny them.
I also know that they cannot have kids. Yes, I realize that some heteroseuxal couples can't have kids, but sometimes women turn out to be infertile or sterile, but that's sometimes because of excessive use of contraception, and sometimes its natural. However, all homosexuals can never have kids, making it obviously abnormal. That is one of the primary purposes of marriage is procreation a.k.a. reproduction.
What a bunch of bullsh*t.
Here is the difference between you and others on this site who are religious and have deeply held moral values: You use YOUR interpretation of YOUR religion and try to FORCE YOUR interpretation of this down everyone else's throats. You try to legislate your religious views into law. This is why people cannot stand the religious right
There are numerous studies that have strongly suggested a biological and genetic link to homosexuality. This has been shown in twin studies where they have been separated from birth. Pheromone studies show significant difference in responses of homosexuals and heterosexuals. Pheromones aren't something that you consciously smell. The preponderance of scientific studies in PEER reviewed science journals shows this.
I also know some "ex-gay" people. I knew them before and after. What I know to be true of almost everyone of them is that they were extremists in behavior. Huge numbers of sexual partners, outrageous transvestites. Extremists in every way. They have serious mental issues. They are not typical of the average homosexual.
"and seen on TV multiple cases about the disease susceptibility of homosexuals and how ex-homosexuals became straight." Yes, on the 700 club from which you posted your quote. A one side biased network with no intention of ever showing the other side.
"The opposition to homosexuality is not limited to Christianity. As I previously mentioned, Judiasm is also against it,"
Once again, you are incorrect in your facts. Numerous Christian denominations are supportive of homosexuals including Methodists, Presbyterians, and others. Judaism isn't opposed to. Reform Judaism supports marriage for homosexuals and performs commitment ceremonies. Conservative Judaism is welcoming in almost every way to homosexuals. Even Orthodox Judaism is fairly tolerant. They don't throw you out.
Regarding your Leviticus verse. The Hebrew for that verse is: "Ve-et zachar lo tishcav mishkevei isha to'evah hi". Translated this means: A man who lies with a man lying with a woman, both are being led astray. Mishkevei is referring to anal sex. Other Jewish religious documents state: A man may be led astray from his wife and home by having anal intercourse with men or go astray from the foundations of creation--from procreation. It says absolutely nothing about other forms of sex. Jews believe that every word is in the Torah for a reason, the absence of words is significant as well. Jews also believe that everyone has shortcomings, no one is perfect. Homosexual Jews by and large are not treated any differently than any other Jew. A significant believe in the concept of "ones" which means: one can only be responsible for things that he or she can control - and relying on evidence that homosexuality is innate and therefore not under a person's control.
See.... you are wrong again.
"believe the answer is simple: during puberty,". This is an outdated view not accepted by any legitimate scientist in the study of sexual behavior.
"Outside of the victims of the AIDS epidemic in Africa, homosexuals have a higher rate of AIDS contraction that anyone else."
Nice try shading the facts. Heterosexual transmission is responsible for AT LEAST 95% of the world-wide total of HIV/AIDS cases. Here are the leaders in percentage of population infected (source CIA Factbook): 1. Swaziland 38.80, 2. Botswana 37.30 3. Lesotho 28.90 4. Zimbabwe 24.60 5. South Africa 21.50 6. Namibia 21.30 7. Zambia 16.50 8. Malawi 14.20 9. Central African Republic 13.50 10. Mozambique 12.20 11. Guinea-Bissau 10.00 12. Tanzania 8.80 13. Gabon 8.10 14. Cote d'Ivoire 7.00 15. Sierra Leone 7.00 16. Cameroon 6.90 17. Kenya 6.70 18. Burundi 6.00 19. Liberia 5.90 20. Haiti 5.60 21. Nigeria 5.40 22. Rwanda 5.10 23. Congo, Republic of the 4.90 24. Chad 4.80 25. Ethiopia 4.40
USA rank: 71 0.06
US Cases by mode of transmission among men: Men who have sex with men (MSM)47%, Injection drug use (IDU) 25%, heterosexual sex 10%, Other 18%
Transmission among females: Heterosexual sex 75%, Injection drug use (IDU) 25%
Source: THE WHITE HOUSE
There has been a dramatic swing in HIV infections towards heterosexual infections. It used to be 90% homosexual. Now, it obviously is not.
Looks like you might be wrong again.
"an individual who has done a substantial amount of research, I know these facts to be accurate and trustworthy"   Try doing some real research instead buying everything hook, line and sinker that Pat Robertson and his ilk try to sell you on.
Granted, you might be right on the AIDS infection rates amongst heterosexuals here and the people in Africa. But you still can't deny the considerable rate of AIDS infection amongst homosexuals; its still there. Call me a religious right-wing nut if you want, but surely you can see how much more "sexual freedom" is being accepted. As a result, sexual promiscuity is more common and accepted, and this could be a reason for these high rates of AIDS contraction. Bisexuality is also becoming more common as well as accepted. I believe that bisexuality is one of many avenues through which so many people have contracted AIDS, if not one of the primary reasons, because they are having sex with both men and women regardless of the person's gender. This causes the person and people they have sexual intercourse with to be more prone to contracting AIDS and STDs.
I doubt your research on the pheromone studies is completely accurate. Keep in mind that most of the people being studied are adults who have already been gay for quite a while, and peoples' minds and ways of thinking are prone to change after living a particular lifestyle for a considerable amount of time, as well as their brains changing over their development and growth from childhood to adulthood. I've never heard of pheromone nor "homosexual brain" studies done on babies, much less toddlers and older children. The brain is prone to change and not all brains have the same "wiring" if you will. One expert, Dr. Jeffrey Satinover, M.D. who is a psychoanalyst in adult and child psychiatry has an opinion on the matter. "This study (pheromone) says nothing about homosexuality being innate," he says. "There is an automatic knee-jerk assumption that if there is a difference in the brain, that difference has to be innate," he added. "Changes in the hypothalamus could be caused by repetitive sexual behavior," Satinover said. "The brain is extremely plastic, like a muscle. There have been dozens and dozens of studies attempting to show a genetic or biological basis for homosexuality," Satinover said. "Not one has ever succeeded in doing so." So these pheromone (chemicals or set of chemicals, often unscented odors, produced by a living organism that transmits messages to another organism; in this case, humans) studies would have to be done on people of all ages on many different people many times over with almost completely concurring results in order to confirm that this can truly be a biological factor in determining sexual orientation at birth.
There is also evidence that people aren't born gay when you look into ethnicity. There are more white homosexuals than black homosexuals. The overwhelming majority of Native Americans are also heterosexual. The Cherokee Nation has banned gay marriage as well. If you are born gay, then why aren't all groups of people more equal in number of homosexuals?
^ and you learned all that living under a rock? wow! i'm impressed dude!
I appreciate the "positive" comment, Kev. Thank you.
Regarding your comment on me "buying everything hook, line and sinker that Pat Robertson and his ilk try to sell you on." First of all, I don't even like Pat Robertson. His calls for the assasinations of world leaders (such as Hugo Chavez) are despicable and wrong. I definitely do not believe everything he says or thinks. I also find your implying of my using my religion to force stuff down people's throats quite hypocritcal. "You use YOUR interpretation of YOUR religion and try to FORCE YOUR interpretation of this down everyone else's throats." How do you know it is MY interpretation of MY religion. Who am I, Martin Luther? I do not interpret Christianity in my own way; I follow the original interpretation of the Bible and Christianity that was done by the Catholic Church. To reinterpret Christianity or the Bible in your own fashion to fit specifically in every way by what you want would be considered blasphemy and heresy. I may APPEAR to be forcing my "self-interpreted" form of Christianity down other people's throats as you say, but what about gay and lesbian advocates and all of their organizations that throw THEIR agendas in our faces all the time? How is that better? Furthermore, I did provide a "No, I oppose it" choice on the ballot, didn't I? Still, you made a few good points, Fiddle.
"If same-sex attraction were genetically determined, then one would expect identical twins to be identical in their sexual attractions. There are, however, numerous reports of identical twins who are not identical in their sexual attractions." (Bailey 1991; Eckert 1986; Friedman 1976; Green 1974)
Dr. Robert L. Spitzer, the psychiatrist who removed homosexuality from the records of mental disabilities now believes that changing from homosexuality to heterosexuality is possible. "Like most psychiatrists," says Dr. Spitzer, "I thought that homosexual behavior could be resisted--but that no one could really change their sexual orientation. I now believe that's untrue--some people can and do change." In a panel discussion at the 2001 annual A.P.A. (American Psychiatric Association) meeting, Spitzer released the evidence for his conclusions. He reported interviewing 200 subjects (143 men and 57 women) who were willing to describe their sexual and emotional histories, including their self-reported shift from gay to straight. To be eligible for the study he conducted, the subjects had to experience a significant shift from homosexual to heterosexual attraction which had lasted for at least five years. Most had sought change because a gay lifestyle had been "emotionally unsatisfying", according to them.
"Contrary to conventioned wisdom," Spitzer concluded, "some highly motivated individuals, using a variety of change efforts, can make substantial change in multiple indicators of sexual orientation, and achieve good heterosexual functioning." This study is believed to be the most detailed investigation of sexual orientation change to date, in that it assessed a variety of homosexual indicators. Previous studies have usually assessed only one or two dimensions of sexual orientation, such as behavior and attraction.
Dr. Spitzer agreed that this study should not be used to justify coercion. Nor should it be used as an argument for the denial of civil rights. "But patients should have the right," Spitzer stated, "to explore their heterosexual potential."
^The words of an expert.
I appreciate the "positive" comment, Kev. Thank you.
by Kentucky_Yankee on May 31, 2006 1:46pm
anytime. and i always appreciate straight people who feel they know more than gay people about why we're gay, how we feel, what we experience, the whole bit. so thank you sport!
Another study has been done in the past as follows: "A research team consisting of nine practicing psychoanalysts and two psychoanalytically trained psychologists published the findings of a nine-year study of male homosexuals (Bieber, et al. 1962). The team psychiatrist and 77 respondents to a 500-item questionnaire were members of the Society of Medical Psychoanalysts, whose roster consisted of faculty and graduates of the Psychoanalytic Division of the Department of Psychiatry of New York Medical College. The research sample consisted of 106 male homosexuals and a comparison group of 100 male heterosexuals, all in psychoanalytic treatment with members of the Society. The data obtained were analyzed statistically in consultation with statistical experts and the clinical applications were carefully analyzed and evaluated. The results of treatment were as follows:
'Of the 106 homosexuals who started psychoanalytic therapy, 29 were exclusively heterosexual at the time the volume was published. This represented 27% of the total sample. Fourteen of these 29 had been exclusively homosexual when they began treatment: 15 were bisexual. In 1965, in a follow-up study of the 29, I was able to reclaim the data on 15 of the 29. Of these 15 men, twelve had remained exclusively heterosexual; the other three were predominantly heterosexual, but had occasional episodes of homosexuality when under severe stress. Of the twelve who had remained consistently heterosexual, seven had been among the 14 who had been exclusively homosexual when they started treatment. Thus, seven men who started treatment as exclusively homosexual had been exclusively heterosexual for at least six or seven years.' (Englehardt and Kaplan 1987, p. 424)
Dr. Charles Socarides said the following:
"My own clinical experience with homosexual patients in private practice may well be, with the exception of Bergler, one of the most extensive. During a 10-year period from 1967 to 1977, I treated psychoanalytically 55 overt homosexuals; 34 of these patients were in long-term psychoanalytic therapy of over a year's duration (average 3.5 years). The number of sessions ranged from three to five per week. In this group, there were only three females. The remainder (eleven) were in short-term analytic therapy (average six to seven months) at two to three sessions per week. Three were female.
In addition, full-scale analysis was performed on 18 latent homosexuals in which the symptoms never became overt, except in the most transitory form. Thus, the total number treated in long-term analysis, whether overt or latent, was 63. In addition, over 350 overt homosexuals were seen in consultation (average one to three sessions) during this 10-year period.
I can report that of the 45 overt homosexuals who have undergone psychoanalytic therapy, 20 patients, nearly 50 percent, developed full heterosexual functioning and were able to develop love feelings for their heterosexual partners. This includes one female patient. These patients of whom two-thirds were of the preoedipal type and one-third of the oedipal type, were all strongly motivated for therapy.
In addition, similar positive therapeutic results have occurred during the period from 1977 to 1988 in which I have treated over 50 more overt homosexuals in psychoanalytic therapy.
In answer to those who say a successful treatment has never been demonstrated in homosexual patients, I also report a seven-year follow-up of a patient who achieved full heterosexual function and the ability to love his opposite-sex partner."
we can all site studies bud.
yeah. I know.
^ apparently quite well. 
ok.
Many Jews are actually opposed to it, Fiddle. Take this for example:
Rabbi Abba Cohen, Agudath Israel of America: "It has become increasingly clear that our state laws defining marriage, and state marriage amendments like the one struck-down by a federal judge in Nebraska, face grave danger from the multiple challenges to the legal status of marriage that have been -- and will continue to be -- unleashed in both the state and federal courts. Within my own community -- the Orthodox community -- the Marriage Protection Amendment has the strong and abiding support of its rabbis, lay leadership, adherents, institutions, and major national organizations, including the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America."
It's bigotry, plain and simple.
|
|
