NCclimber 0 #51 January 10, 2007 Quote>What you claim runs completely counter to what regularly transpires on this forum. Oh, you mean on this forum? We have racists, anti-gay activists, and anti-jewish, muslim, christian, and atheist people.... The attacks here, in other words, are against everything and everyone; think of it as equal-opportunity bashing. People would be at each other's throats day and night if it wasn't against the forum rules. Kind of runs counter to: QuotePosts that contain material that we deem to be blatantly or unnecessarily racist, sexist, homophobic, bigoted, pornographic, or otherwise offensive, may be removed. Of course, equally hostile posts about Christianity is just fine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pajarito 0 #52 January 10, 2007 QuoteMaking comparisons between homosexuals and adulterers is pretty odious. Although, some of these types of tendencies may be learned and acquired from one’s cultural environment, I have no doubt that others originate from natural impulses which they were born with (heterosexual & homosexual). It doesn't matter. Both are still wrong and sins against God. One chooses to feed the impulse in each case either in thought or deed. However, the sin is the same stemming from human selfishness. Why is heterosexual infidelity different from homosexual fidelity at its root? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #53 January 10, 2007 You're right; my bad. I should have written "we have people here who post racist, anti-gay, anti-muslim etc material." For all I know, they could be perfectly nice people who are putting on a persona for SC. Wouldn't be the first time! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #54 January 10, 2007 >Both are still wrong and sins against God. In the 1950's, most christians felt the same way about interracial marriage. Virginia's Supreme Court had this to say about the issue: "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." There were plenty of biblical references that were used to support this popular position: Deuteronomy 7:1-4 Genesis 24:3-4 Exodus 34:12-16 Christians also used the practical argument that such a marriage was selfish, and would expose their children to abuse and ridicule for being "mongrels." Fortunately, the US Supreme Court eventually reversed this decision. And nowadays only people we consider nuts still think that interracial marriage is a sin against God. We're still in the 1950's when it comes to gays. We will someday look back on today's anti-gay sentiments the same way we look back on the anti-miscegenation laws of the 1950's. I hope that day comes sooner rather than later. >Why is heterosexual infidelity different from homosexual fidelity at its root? Because they are opposites, per the dictionary definition of fidelity and infidelity. Unless you add in a provisio like "gays can't have trusting relationships" or something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jarrodh 0 #55 January 10, 2007 Quote We're still in the 1950's when it comes to gays. We will someday look back on today's anti-gay sentiments the same way we look back on the anti-miscegenation laws of the 1950's. I hope that day comes sooner rather than later. For the sake of all the good people out there who are being denied their rights as Americans, I hope that day comes sooner rather than later also.2 BITS....4 BITS....6 BITS....A DOLLAR!....ALL FOR THE GATORS....STAND UP AND HOLLER!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #56 January 10, 2007 QuoteIf churches want to enter the business world, they should have to follow the same rules as any other business. Why should a church get special treatment? That would be the double standard! How about the "we reserve the right to refuse service" bit? I guess that doesn't fly when you're one of the 'protected classes', hm?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AFFI 0 #57 January 10, 2007 QuoteHow about the "we reserve the right to refuse service" bit? I guess that doesn't fly when you're one of the 'protected classes', hm? Don't think you can use the "we reserve the right to refuse service" bit on a specific group of people based on race/religon and stuff like that. Don't know if it's legal to not allow gay's into your resturant. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #58 January 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf churches want to enter the business world, they should have to follow the same rules as any other business. Why should a church get special treatment? That would be the double standard! How about the "we reserve the right to refuse service" bit? I guess that doesn't fly when you're one of the 'protected classes', hm? The "We reserve the right to refuse service" bit is not a legal leg to refuse and cannot not be used to refuse service to someone soley because a business does not like a particular person for any reason. The 1964 civil rights act deems it to be discrimination and any type of business can be sued for refusing service based on race, religion, sex, sexual orientation, color of your hair, size of your feet... All businesses must abide by the same rules or face legal action for not doing so. Don't believe me? Look it up in the law journals. I did."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #59 January 10, 2007 Sure - I'm not disputing that. BUT - they still have the right to refuse service on other grounds, correct?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #60 January 10, 2007 Yes, businesses in the UK will still be able to refuse service to people for other reasons, (no tie, too drunk, abusive, wearing sports shoes etc etc). At present it is illegal to refuse service to someone because of their colour or religion. It is however, perfectly legal at present to refuse service to someone simply because they are gay and to tell them as much. This legislation seeks to normalize that anomaly and afford the same protection to sexual orientation as colour and creed already enjoy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #61 January 10, 2007 QuoteWe're still in the 1950's when it comes to gays. We will someday look back on today's anti-gay sentiments the same way we look back on the anti-miscegenation laws of the 1950's. I hope that day comes sooner rather than later. I have to disagree here. The "alternative lifestyle" movement or "gay" movement or whatever you want to call it has made more strides in the past 10 years than the civil rights movement has made in the past 50. The difference is that the "gay rights" movement overextended themselves. They've been screaming about "normality" and "parity" with so many issues that they essentially got a "thumping" in 2004 when all of their referendums got dumped.So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #62 January 10, 2007 QuoteWe're still in the 1950's when it comes to gays. We will someday look back on today's anti-gay sentiments the same way we look back on the anti-miscegenation laws of the 1950's. I hope that day comes sooner rather than later. Especially those segregated restaurants and buses... not to mention separate drinking fountains. Drinking from the same fountain as one of "those people"??? Can you imagine? Quote>Why is heterosexual infidelity different from homosexual fidelity at its root? Because they are opposites, per the dictionary definition of fidelity and infidelity. Unless you add in a provisio like "gays can't have trusting relationships" or something. Here are some claims I found on the net. Legitimate numbers or made up tripe? You decide. QuoteA 1991 study of homosexual men in New York revealed an average of 308 sexual partners per man QuoteAn article in USA Today in November 1984 reported that homosexuals have an average of 50 different sexual partners each year QuoteStudies in Sexual Preference (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3% of homosexuals had fewer than 10 lifetime sexual partners. Only about 2% could be classified as either monogamous or semi - monogamous. QuoteA. 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 five hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #63 January 10, 2007 QuoteHere are some claims I found on the net. Legitimate numbers or made up tripe? You decide. Did you manage to find anything from the last decade and a half? That might actually be relevant.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #64 January 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteHere are some claims I found on the net. Legitimate numbers or made up tripe? You decide. Did you manage to find anything from the last decade and a half? That might actually be relevant. Are you saying those studies are irrelevant? How so? If you have anything "from the last decade and a half" that you deem relevant, please post it up. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #65 January 10, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteHere are some claims I found on the net. Legitimate numbers or made up tripe? You decide. Did you manage to find anything from the last decade and a half? That might actually be relevant. Are you saying those studies are irrelevant? How so? Changing cultural acceptance of homosexuality. It has been argued that the "swinging" nature of the gay scene back then was because of how extremely difficult it was to bring a gay relationship out in the open. If society wont accept a visible, monogamous gay relationship then gay people are forced underground to get their jollies in a series of one night stands. Now that homosexual relationships are more widely accepted (though I guess in the US there are still plenty of knuckledraggers) I would expect those studies to be out of date.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #66 January 10, 2007 Nice bit of conjecture. It seems a bit illogical. But that's just me. Perhaps you could produce some "current" studies that support your take. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #67 January 10, 2007 Quote Nice bit of conjecture. It seems a bit illogical. But that's just me. Why illogical?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #68 January 10, 2007 QuoteHere are some claims I found on the net. Legitimate numbers or made up tripe? You decide. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A 1991 study of homosexual men in New York revealed an average of 308 sexual partners per man -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- An article in USA Today in November 1984 reported that homosexuals have an average of 50 different sexual partners each year -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Studies in Sexual Preference (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1981) indicated that only 3% of homosexuals had fewer than 10 lifetime sexual partners. Only about 2% could be classified as either monogamous or semi - monogamous. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 five hundred or more partners, with 28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners Now we know why the right hates them so much... they are getting more action that men in the right wing... that is grounds right there for all the vehement hatred.... I mean look at Clinton.. he was vilified by the right because of his percieved ability to get more action from the women. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #69 January 10, 2007 QuoteQuote Nice bit of conjecture. It seems a bit illogical. But that's just me. Why illogical? QuoteIf society wont accept a visible, monogamous gay relationship then gay people are forced underground to get their jollies in a series of one night stands. Why not discrete monogamous relationships? Look at most single heterosexual guys in their 20s. They spend a lot of time hanging out with their buds. Does their spending time together really appear that different from gay partners doing the same? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #70 January 10, 2007 I’ve known, and now know, quite a number of gay people. Not exactly a scientifically-significant sample, but it’s significant to me. Anyhow, virtually all of them have at least attempted to be involved in monogomous relationships. In fact, absolutely the best wedding my wife and I (notice how I tossed that in there ) have ever attended was a gay wedding. None of the gay people I’ve known, to my knowledge, has had a higher level of “promiscuity” than is typical of, say, unmarried people in their 20's who live in cosmopolitan areas in or near big cities. When I was in college and grad school in the late 70's & early 80's, the average number of sexual partners among the heterosexual students living away from home (in dorms or off-campus student apartments), by the time they were about age 25, was, shall we say, large enough to have appalled most of their parents. It’s not easy to have a committed, monogomous, live-in gay relationship in an environment that is openly hostile to such arrangements – and that’s pretty much most if not all of American society at large. Simply saying, “they can do it, even while keeping it discrete” is just not the case. That societal pressure tends to make gay sexual relationships more fleeting and temporary, and that, I suppose, tends to make them more numerous. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #71 January 10, 2007 >The "alternative lifestyle" movement or "gay" movement or whatever > you want to call it has made more strides in the past 10 years than >the civil rights movement has made in the past 50. Well first off, civil rights are something that everyone (including gays) have or don't have. So you're comparing civil rights to civil rights. In addition, "alternate lifestyles" can mean anything from living in a commune to having 18 wives. I'll assume you intended to compare gay rights to black rights. So let's look at those: 1990: gays could not marry Today: gays cannot marry anywhere but in Massachusetts 1950: blacks could not marry whites blacks could not go to the same schools as whites blacks had to use separate bathrooms blacks could not vote in many states blacks could not sit in the front of the bus Today: none of that is true. So unless you think the rights to vote, marry, pee in the same place, ride public transportation or go to school is irrelevant, blacks have made FAR more strides in the past 50 years. >They've been screaming about "normality" and "parity" with so many > issues that they essentially got a "thumping" in 2004 when all of > their referendums got dumped. Yep. Like I said, we're still in the 1950's when it comes to gay rights. The Supreme Court dragged the country, kicking and screaming, into the era of equality for blacks. They were called "activist judges legislating from the bench." One famous letter to a Supreme Court judge hoped that someday his daughter married a black man, so he could learn what it was like. Hopefully this time around the courts won't have to drag the country, kicking and screaming, into an era of gay equality. But I fear they may. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #72 January 10, 2007 QuoteWhen I was in college and grad school in the late 70's & early 80's, the average number of sexual partners among the heterosexual students living away from home (in dorms or off-campus student apartments), by the time they were about age 25, was, shall we say, large enough to have appalled most of their parents. Are you talking about anything on par with "28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners"? QuoteIt’s not easy to have a committed, monogomous, live-in gay relationship in an environment that is openly hostile to such arrangements – and that’s pretty much most if not all of American society at large. This is absurd. Most if not all of American society is openly hostile towards gays living together??? That must explain why we read about gays being regularly harassed in their homes every day. No. Wait. I'm confused. QuoteSimply saying, “they can do it, even while keeping it discrete” is just not the case. That societal pressure tends to make gay sexual relationships more fleeting and temporary, and that, I suppose, tends to make them more numerous. Or how about "they can do it and nobody really gives a shit"? You gotta hand it to the gay advocacy groups. In the last 25 years, they've gone from openly existing in only a few pockets to being able to stand up for their gay rights in anytown, USA. For a group that has so much power, they play the victim card like no one else. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freethefly 6 #73 January 10, 2007 QuoteSure - I'm not disputing that. BUT - they still have the right to refuse service on other grounds, correct? I took this from Legalmatch.com I would think that it would apply to all businesses. Patrons who are unreasonably rowdy or causing trouble Patrons that may overfill capacity if let in Patrons who come in just before closing time or when the kitchen is closed Patrons accompanied by large groups of non-customers looking to sit in Patrons lacking adequate hygiene (e.g. excess dirt, extreme body odor, etc.) In most cases, refusal of service is warranted where a customer’s presence in the restaurant detracts from the safety, welfare, and well-being of other patrons and the restaurant itself."...And once you're gone, you can't come back When you're out of the blue and into the black." Neil Young Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,596 #74 January 10, 2007 QuoteOr how about "they can do it and nobody really gives a shit"? Unfortunately, lots of people still do give a shit. QuoteYou gotta hand it to the gay advocacy groups. In the last 25 years, they've gone from openly existing in only a few pockets to being able to stand up for their gay rights in anytown, USA. For a group that has so much power, they play the victim card like no one else. How dare they feel free to come out of the closet in any town they wish! What 'power' exactly do you feel the gay community has?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 2 #75 January 10, 2007 QuoteAre you talking about anything on par with "28 percent having 1,000 or more sex partners"? By the way, that's a total crock of shit. So are the rest of your so-called statistics. I Googled that so-called statistic, as well as some others you quote, and they all come from Christian Coalition, or the Family Research Council (an anti-gay organization), or similar rabidly anti-homosexual sites. Didn't it occur to you that we'd get around to checking it out for ourselves? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
