Curious about Gay Marriage

[m5lange1]

The Civil Union Bill is be-ing promoted as reasonable legislation, to rectify civil rules and regulations that allegedly discriminate against homosexuals and lesbians.
They would be probably unaware that overseas, particularly in Australia and America, certain gay activists and academics are telling gay communities that the real object is a social revolution to destroy the traditional family.

First of all , trying to make you afraid of a specific group or minority is the oldest weopon in the arsenal of those supporting prejudice.

Make the target group a threat to gain suppot in rallying people against them.

The ancient Romans used it against Christians claiming their communion to be an advocation of cannabilism.

Hitler used it against the Jews saying their true motive was the undermining of the German economy.

Before you accuse me of trying to use emotional examples, step back and realize the historical truth, and the similarity of tactics being applied here.

As you said, not that long ago same sex marraige seemed rediculous. Depending on how you want to measure your time....
not that long ago women voting seemed rediculous, as did blacks attending school with whites. You accused me of bringning up emotional analogies when I mentioned these obvious parallells before.
They are not emotional to me. Just facts. Could they be emotional to you because deep down you really do realize the connection? Could it be these comparisons are hard for you to ignore?

Now step back Seeker and really look at what you have reported above.

1. Any statement like that is highly suspect as smear and propaganda without some referrence to facts. This article saying...... "certain gay actvists are telling...."
Do you just buy into this without wondering WHAT gay activists told WHICH gay communities this WHEN?

2. Even if this (HIGHLY suspect) claim is true, the word CERTAN is a very important word there. You would blame the entire gay community for what CERTAIN activists say? If so will you then accept the blame for what ALL Christians say or ALL americans say, or ALL republicans say, or ALL of whatever group to which you are a member?

3. Just using your common sense... Do you really believe that gay people wishing to have the right to marry have this alterior motive to "destroy the traditional family"?
Why would they want to do that? Does that really make sense to you?
Does that really not sound more like threat mongering with conspiracy theories than a real truth about gay people?

No, Seeker. I think it is very obvious we are talking about the same thing here. We are just worlds apart on our beliefs and on our priorities of what is important for our country and our society.

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

Interesting that two posts refer to a possibility of an un-named fear pervading my sense of understanding. I think you are right. I fear greatly for society and the morality it seems so eager to shrug off as though it is a moldy blanket.

I want to ask you,(m5lange1 and Ken carmen), to ask yourselves what has changed in your lifetime? What social changes do you now accept as normality?

I, for instance, am aware that I no longer feel safe in the cvountry I live in. I can no longer allow my children to play in the park without guidance for fear of some retard doing something unmentionable to them. These are real fears, not imagined.

Then I look at criminals having more rights than their victims. I see the weak pervading all levels of government and making policy changes such as removal of corporal punishment, the removal of parents rights, the diminishing of a countries ability to protect itself and its citizens, the removal of basic care for the elderly, the regression of men in society, the list goes on an on. These are real changes that have affected society.

Then I look at TV where minority groups must now be given a certain % of air time on free to air TV. For the gay community,(in my country), that is 7%. To reinforce that the main TV rating censors employed by my country are now both gay. The result is a staggering 17% of programmes on free to air TV having gay content. Far beyond their brief or the % of gay people in the community. A corresponding drop in family programmes showing hetrosexal lifestyles is also in affect.

You ask me if I fear, the answer is yes. But it is not because I have been brainwashed and played like a toy, it is because I have my eyes wide open and I don't like what I see.

Read this book:

A new book called The Death of Right & Wrong, written by Tammy Bruce has recently been released.

An excerpt from that book is as follows:

The real reason the gay community is currently rising up around the world is not just to normalise their lifestyle, but to subsequently gain full access to children, with a view to seduction of teenage boys. Why? Because gay men like unprotected sex, and the safest unprotected sex they can have is with virginal teenagers confused about their sexuality,(after a lot of friendly gay persuasion).

read about the Stonewall Group:

Under a "Brief Overview of Stonewall", we read: "Stonewall was founded in 1989 by women and men who had been active in the struggle against Section 28 of the Local Government Act (more on that later). Their aim was to create a professional lobbying group that would prevent such attacks on lesbians, gay men and bisexuals ever occurring again – and to put the case for equality on the mainstream political agenda, by winning support within all political parties."

Stonewall lobbied hard for the legal age for consent to be lowered to 16. Stephen Green commented that prosecutions would be unlikely for sex with 15 and 14 year-old boys, on the grounds that they would be considered borderline cases, because of the difficulty in proving that the accused knew the boys were underage.

Don't forget:

"The problem with endorsing gay marriage is not that it would allow a handful of people to choose alternative family forms, but that it would require society at large to gut marriage of its central presumption about family, in order to accommodate a few adults’ desires."

"Redefining marriage so that it suits gays and lesbians, requires fundamentally changing our legal, public, and social conception of what marriage is, in ways that threaten its core public purpose."

And beyond this battle we will have another and another:

In America, some gay-rights advocates are predicting that civil unions and same-sex marriage, have the scope to completely redefine marriage and its meaning.

For example, Patti Ettelbrick, former leader of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund says: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex and sexuality, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society."

Michelangelo Signorile, homosexual activist and writer argues that the goal of homosexuality is to: "fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry, not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes, but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake, is to transform the notion of ‘family’ entirely."

Gay commentator Andrew Sullivan, has said that the "openness" in many gay relationships would in reality fortify heterosexual marriages by allowing straight couples to see that adultery doesn’t necessarily destroy a marriage. Once gay "marriage" is allowed, the faithful nature of traditional unions will be transformed for the better.

Are those comments from those people real or imagined? Remember that these are the people in the forefront of the gay rights movement, not the average gay couple you meet in the street who don't flaunt their lifestyle choice in your face. These are the people that will make the law.

What about this:

Stanley Kurtz, writing in the Weekly Standard (August 4th, 2003) "Beyond Gay Marriage: the road to polyamory", predicts that marriage will be transformed into a variety of relationship contracts, linking two, three, or more individuals, in every conceivable combination of male and female. Polyamory is about group marriage, and already in the United States, a network of grass-roots organizations advocating legal recognition, is being supported by a powerful faction of family law specialists.

"Influential legal bodies in both the United States and Canada, have presented radical programs of marital reform. Some of these proposals go so far as to suggest the abolition of marriage

The flagship magazine of the polyamory-rights movement is Loving More, which advocates using the gay rights movement as a model.

Quoting from a series of law professors, Kurtz notes they believe that legal and social hostility to polygamy and polyamory are decreasing, and that the increased openness of homosexual partnerships is slowly collapsing the taboo against polygamy and polyamory.

Part of the agenda is to render the distinction between traditional marriage and polyamory as "morally neutral".

Canada is further down the track than the USA. In 1997, the Canadian Parliament established the Law Commission of Canada to serve Parliament and the Justice Ministry, as an advisory body on legal reform. In December 2001, the Commission submitted a report entitled "Beyond Conjugality", which hinted at recommending the abolition of marriage. The authors admitted that the Canadian public may not be yet ready for such a step.

Now I ask you, Do you think no threat is apparent to the moral fabric of society? Do you see no correlation between the moral decline of society and the removal of society to react because of a changed mindset towards discrimination? Are you able to truelly say that you are willing to remove discrimination at all costs and live with the consequences of that action?>

Read some articles on this issue. Avoid the religeous sites, just do some research. Thats all I ask.

[Compugasm]

Hmm, Television, where every gay person is your misunderstood buddy, with quirky affectations.

Hey, more power to minorities for getting airtime. That isn't my complaint. I wonder if they would dare have a show like "the Anna Nicole", "Growing up Gotti", "Paris and Nicole" shows with a minority on it? Well, even if they did, I still wouldn't watch TV cause it's mostly garbage anyway.

[m5lange1]

Seeker,
As is usual, when reasonable people disagree, we generally both want the same things. A safe and free society in which to live and raise our families. We (You Ken and I) appear to be a shining example of differences of opinion on how best to achieve these objectives.

Ken and I seem to be of a similar frame of mind here but I will refrain from saying "we" since I do not want to assume oppinions for him.

Let me point out where you and I seem to agree Seeker.

All Quotes from Seeker_of_Sins

I look at criminals having more rights than their victims. I see the weak pervading all levels of government and making policy changes such as removal of corporal punishment,

Agreed. I support corporal punnishment! This has nothing to do with discriminattory laws.

the removal of parents rights,

Agreed. Granting and maintaining rights are what I am arguing FOR. But again not relevant to discrimination of any ethnic or scular group.

the diminishing of a countries ability to protect itself and its citizens,

(Sorry not sure what you mean by "ability" here but I am unclear how discriminatory laws remove that ability.

the removal of basic care for the elderly,

Strong agreement here Seeker but still not seeing how discriminatory laws help support the elderly.

All of these observations seem accurate to me. These things need to be addressed directly. I believe trying to somehow attach this to denying any particular subgroup of our society rights is like blaming the dentists for your ingrown toenail.

To Continue.....

Then I look at TV where minority groups must now be given a certain % of air time on free to air TV.

I am in opposition to these quotas as being discriminatory. Discrimination allowing greater rights are just as destructive as those restricting rights.

For the gay community,(in my country), that is 7%. To reinforce that the main TV rating censors employed by my country are now both gay. The result is a staggering 17% of programmes on free to air TV having gay content.

I am not certain what you mean by "free" TV. If this is a privately owned company they can program whatever they like and you are free to watch it or turn it off. Just like a Christian network is free to promote a lot of Christianity on their own network.

You ask me if I fear, the answer is yes. But it is not because I have been brainwashed and played like a toy, it is because I have my eyes wide open and I don't like what I see.

There is nothing wrong with just being afraid Seeker. And many of the things you fear are very valid. The problem seems to be that you are so ready to BLAME those things you fear on certain groups (in this case Gays).
THAT is the faulty (and dangerous) thinking that people like Ken and I find disturbing.
As if the Gays are somehow guilty of removing corperal punishment, or interfereing with support for the elderly.
Hate mongers (not accusing you of this Seeker but I think you are listening to them) love to tell you the woes of the world are largely (or even partly) due to letting those (insert target group here) influence your society.

Read this book:

A new book called The Death of Right & Wrong, written by Tammy Bruce has recently been released.

An excerpt from that book is as follows:

The real reason the gay community is currently rising up around the world is not just to normalise their lifestyle, but to subsequently gain full access to children, with a view to seduction of teenage boys. Why? Because gay men like unprotected sex, and the safest unprotected sex they can have is with virginal teenagers confused about their sexuality,(after a lot of friendly gay persuasion).

This alone would stop me from wasting my time. Read what you just wrote again with an objective eye, Seeker. Pediphilia(sp?) is horrific. It victimizes children. In spite of the impications in that quote above pedophiles exist in the hetrosexual world too. THAT is an atrocity that should be deat with, whether it is gay or not. Gay men like unprotected sex? Where do you think they got this bit of information? In what proportion? Every single one? Does being gay make you more desirous of unprotected sex than being hetero? You want to impress me with sources of information?
Show me some reliable studies that show statements like
"....but to subsequently gain full access to children, with a view to seduction of teenage boys...."
".....gay men like unprotected sex....."
are backed up with real statistics showing that access to children for sex, and unprotected sex, are unique to the "gay" world.
Not just some hate filled hodad spouting off.

read about the Stonewall Group:

Under a "Brief Overview of Stonewall", we read: "Stonewall was founded in 1989 by women and men who had been active in the struggle against Section 28 of the Local Government Act (more on that later). Their aim was to create a professional lobbying group that would prevent such attacks on lesbians, gay men and bisexuals ever occurring again – and to put the case for equality on the mainstream political agenda, by winning support within all political parties."

Stonewall lobbied hard for the legal age for consent to be lowered to 16. Stephen Green commented that prosecutions would be unlikely for sex with 15 and 14 year-old boys, on the grounds that they would be considered borderline cases, because of the difficulty in proving that the accused knew the boys were underage.

Yes horrible. I do not support every activist fringe group in the gay community. I never thought much of The Black Panthers either but I do not hold it against all black people. I pretty much detest The KKK too, but I do not hold that against all white Christians.

Don't forget:

"The problem with endorsing gay marriage is not that it would allow a handful of people to choose alternative family forms, but that it would require society at large to gut marriage of its central presumption about family, in order to accommodate a few adults’ desires."

"Redefining marriage so that it suits gays and lesbians, requires fundamentally changing our legal, public, and social conception of what marriage is, in ways that threaten its core public purpose."

Sorry bro but that is BS. It would no more cause society to "gut" family presumptions that it is to allow people who are unable to bear children to marry. You do know that there are some heterosexuals who, for various reasons, cannot have children but they are still allowed to marry without "gutting" anything, right?

And beyond this battle we will have another and another:

In America, some gay-rights advocates are predicting that civil unions and same-sex marriage, have the scope to completely redefine marriage and its meaning.

The key word here is "SOME". Again, you cannot deny rights because of what "some" activists say. Do you know how many quotes anti Christians, anti white, anti.... anything..... could go through and list if they wanted to make people like you believe that the target group is the cause of all of societies miseries and woes?

..... these are the people in the forefront of the gay rights movement, not the average gay couple you meet in the street who don't flaunt their lifestyle choice in your face.

Yes! read that again for yourself!

These are the people that will make the law.

Huh? No. These guys do not make any laws. They may give speeches but they do not make laws. At least not here in the USA.

Now I ask you, Do you think no threat is apparent to the moral fabric of society? Do you see no correlation between the moral decline of society and the removal of society to react because of a changed mindset towards discrimination? Are you able to truelly say that you are willing to remove discrimination at all costs and live with the consequences of that action?>

Yes. Yes. Yes. And absolutely!

You ask those questions as if you have made your point in the relationship between discriminatory laws and the things you fear. As if discriminatory laws such as denying the right to marry to a specific group will eliminate crime, reinstate capitol punishment and provide care for the elderly.

The correlation does not exist. It is dogma that has been placed in your mind by a personal perjudice or by the prejudice of others. THERE lies our disagreement.

Now, sir allow me to speak of my fears.
I fear the blamers and the discriminators may get their way. And the precidents and slippery slopes you speak of will indeed take place. Soon some other group will lose rights, because it will become THEIR fault that crime is up and that the elderly need care.
Then more freedoms will be lost.
And you and I as heterosexual white Christians shall remain high and dry and safe untill.....
The majority shifts, or some group that we are part of becomes the target of the "blame" masters.
This is my fear. That is why you freighten me.

And if my fears come to pass, and the discrimnators get their way, will you be able to live with the consequences of that action? Even if, someday, you find yourself, perhaps your children not so safely high and dry from the discrimination?

My father used to tell me a parrable. I do not remember its source but it went something like...
"They came for the Jews and I did not stand up for them. They came for the black people and I did not stand up for them> they came for the Irish, and I did not stand up for them. When they came for me there was no one left to stand up for me."

Please answer this one question for me. If, during your lifetime, Muslums should become the majority in your country. Would you support their passage of a law banning Christian worship as dangerous to their society?

Disclaimer. I am running late so spelling errors and typos will have to be tollerated. Apologies in advance.

[Lava]

Its remarkable we have no less than 3 sides full of essays about this, when you stop to think just how stunningly simple it is. Heteros can marry, gays should also be able to marry. It really is that simple - the rest is just....


Lava

[m5lange1]

just..... debate......:)

It is what Volconvo is all about.

[Lava]

Of course. Yet occasionally one can go all round the houses to look for what was in front of one's own nose. I bet we've all done it.

Lava

[Suburbanite]

Originally posted by Somalia04,


I only asked about that so I could catagorize the responses to see if there is a trend in the way people respond, based on whether they come from one of those specific backgrounds or not.

Secondly, to play the devil's advocate, I would say that racial discrimination as opposed to sexual is entirely different. My dad, who is also somewhat homophobic, believes that racial discrimination is something that the person being discriminated against cannot do anything about. He argues that discrimination based on orientation is something that the person has control of, unlike the race you were born.

It is uncontrollable; it is a product of mental development in the early stages of Childhood. Such mental branding is not reversible.

[m5lange1]

Sub,
Your point about prejudice is valid. Prejudice based on race is a bit more sinister in that the object of the prejudice is blameless....
but....
That is somewhat akin to saying that you are not prejudice against a black person because the poor person cannot help it..... as if they would change if they could.

Prejudice against beliefs or behavior therefore could be a lesser evil. I personally admit a prejudice against Nazis. I abhor the culture they support.

The question here however is not prejudice, it is discrimination. True prejudice is often as immutable as race. People often cannot help what they like or dislike.

They CAN help what laws they support to act on that prejudice. As much as I abhor Nazis I recognize their right to believe what they will and to have the same freedom of speech that I have.

As I have said, one of the costs of freedom is that the next person gets to be free too.

[Ken Carman]

Seeker of Sins-

Are these the actual main leaders of the Gay/Lesbian movement? You say they are. I don't know that. Some I know... some I don't. Seems there are a lot of assertions like this in the post like that. Other comments, like your constant reference to "discrimination" seem rather broad and vague. For instance if I won't go to a Gay bar, that is my choice, not discrimination. If I try to shut one down only because it is Gay, that's another matter. I think the difference is between individual decisions and deciding for others, being discriminating and discrimination. BTW, I have been to one with my wife, and two Gay friends, one who was killed by a Gay hating serial killer. Neither ever picked up kids.They were committed monogamists. My Lesbian sister-in-law has had one, adult, mate her whole adult life. Every Gay or Lesbian I've met is either into monogamy or wishing they could get back to it. Yes, there is the "bath house" crowd, just like there are red light districts and those who stop for street hookers.

Could there be Gays and Gay groups out there that prefer young boys? Yes, just like there are women who date their students. Are they the majority of Gays? That would be hard to take a survey on, but I doubt it.

"Now I ask you, Do you think no threat is apparent to the moral fabric of society?"

No, I find a greater threat from those who aren't satified with micro-managing their own lives, they have to micro-manage everyone else's.

"Do you see no correlation between the moral decline of society and the removal of society to react because of a changed mindset towards discrimination? Are you able to truelly say that you are willing to remove discrimination at all costs and live with the consequences of that action?"

No, because there is a difference between the right to discriminate and discrimination. One is an individual's own decision, one is the individual's demand that society accept his own vision. Would I rid the world of all discrimination? No, I'm no one's absolutist. Murderers, rapists? Absolutely. But micro-managing everyone else's life according to my own concept of a perfect person or what I wish others would do with their sexual organs? NO.

I cannot speak to what Canada is or isn't doing. You say, "which hinted at recommending the abolition of marriage." To say that seems rather vague is an understatement. I'd have to read the whole document to see if I agree. Otherwise the operative word is "hint." I could say that since Mickey Mouse's mouth tilted on it's side hints at a female sexual organ Mickey must an be obscene nudist, but I think even Jerry Falwell might laugh me out of the room on that one... maybe not...

Wait, he doesn't wear pants does he? Damn nudists. I'd call the cartoon police, but Roger Rabbit taught me to NEVER trust them.

Odd, when it comes to the two p's, polygamy and polyamory, the closest we seem to have come on a large scale is, traditional Mormonism as it still exists on a VERY small scale, and as it existed years ago, and Moon's group, neither of which could ever be considered pro-Gay or Pro-Lesbian. Some Consevatives and Pro-Life groups use the 1960's anti-War movement's tactics as a model. Does that make them proto-hippies or Black Panthers?

As far as Sullivan's comments, I can't argue with them. Adultry doesn't have to destroy a marriage. The operative word there is, of course, "have to." Although rare, there are couples who have gone on to lead happy married lives after one has strayed. I often find it odd that so many "Christians" demand the marital death penalty for adultry but excuse spouse beating.

I've noticed many Gay couples I've known are faithful. Isn't that what we would want more of in the heterosexual community? That is what he is most likely commenting on. Seems you may be putting a devious spin on that one sentence where there may be none.

I listen to Michaelangelo occasionally. I'd love to hear all of what he said here. I don't agree with part of it, but then I don't agree with all of what anyone says. That goes for Patti's comments as well.

In regard to Tammy Bruce... Heteros love unprotected sex, so the point being....??????????? I've already commented about the "young boy" thing elsewhere.

"I want to ask you,(m5lange1 and Ken carmen), to ask yourselves what has changed in your lifetime? What social changes do you now accept as normality?"

Many, so what? I learn, I grow, I come to understand. I AM the man who builds his house on the sand and learn anew every time it washes away. I pity those who do not understand it is ALL sand. This is what we are talking about here. Build your house somewhere else and the sand may be different but it will still shift; sometimes more, sometimes less. It's so those slight shifts that real get you. The big ones can be wrong, or right, and we all have a right to agree or disagree with. But the slight shifts often mean either we or our neighbors are being too anal-retentive; like telling us what type of grass we can grow in our yards. I've known churches who throw people off their steps during the service because a certain member didn't agree with their interpretation of one passage. The difference was very slight.

"I, for instance, am aware that I no longer feel safe in the cvountry I live in. I can no longer allow my children to play in the park without guidance for fear of some retard doing something unmentionable to them. These are real fears, not imagined."

Actually, in the States at least, crime stats are going down. I can't speak for Canada. So during the times when I grew up, when the Baby Boomers were in their most productive years crime wise, children used to walk to school, or the bus. More people left their doors unlocked. I was what some call a "latch-key" kid for a while after my mother died, but I never needed a key. And we were right next to NYC in my early years! Yet crime was statistically HIGHER back then. Perception and age often do this. Is crime real? Obviously, yes, but where we live, where we go, how much we observe and how we process are the most important factors.

"I see the weak pervading all levels of government and making policy changes such as removal of corporal punishment,"

In this country, still legal; depending on how you do it of course. I'd have to comment on specific regs in many, many states and counties, which is a tad too much. I think 2X4's are out, but otherwise it depends on how it's used. We do, oddly enough, have an element amongts the christian community here that thinks if it's wrong for the state to interfer with a parent if they beat their kids raw every day with a 2X4, but that's the kind of "government interference" I like to see.

"the removal of basic care for the elderly,"

Agreed. Individuals, families and the State should ALL be more concerned with this; especially with the baby boomers in the USA headed towards the age of senility.

"Then I look at criminals having more rights than their victims"


Victims should have the right to authorities pursuing their victimizers. They should have a right to their victimizers having their day in court and being kept safe from being vicimtized again.

Do they have a right to a guilty verdict? No. Do they have a right to help decide their victimizer's punishment? This is a tough one for me. A man kills his wife's lover in a rage, catching them in bed. The wife's relatives testify and the court decides to "award" them damages through the death penalty.
Another man savagely carves up homeless people and eats their organs. He's actively hunting them. He gets caught. But because there is no army of people to testify how much they have been hurt he gets a lighter sentence and many years later he is back at it again. They even discover later that he was doing it in prison too. Seems to me the justice system should be heavily weighed, be discriminating if you wish, in favor of deciding who is the greater danger to society as a whole, not relatives and friends who admittedly have a well placed grudge.

"Then I look at TV where minority groups must now be given a certain % of air time on free to air TV."


No idea what you're talking about here. Is this a Canadian thing? Yes, we have more minorities on TV and in the movies, but it's not all that regulated. It's more a trendy thing, which can be real annoying. Trends tend to lead to such light fare that, if I were Gay, I'd be insulted by the content of most programs targeted towards Gays or those having actors doing Gay/Lesbian roles. Of course they're only a little more shallow than most TV programming. Most TV programmers and radio programmers play follow the leader so much they probably have Play-Doh where their brains should be. Trust me. I've been in the biz, I was even a programmer once and part of programming department another time. Now excuse me, I'm still trying to wash that off, years later.

Back again...

WHEW! That was a lot. Couldn't comment on all.

[Lava]

Looks like its ignorance and prejudice time again.

Originally posted by Ken Carman and/or Seeker of Sins

BTW, I have been to one with my wife, and two Gay friends, one who was killed by a Gay hating serial killer. Neither ever picked up kids.

I thought that atupid old thing about gays and paedophilia died off decades ago. This brain dead notion came from the fact that in some circles gays have long referred to other gays as 'boys.' It has nothing to do with age.

Every Gay or Lesbian I've met is either into monogamy or wishing they could get back to it. Yes, there is the "bath house" crowd, just like there are red light districts and those who stop for street hookers.

It seems stone obvious that there are all kinds of people in the world, monogamous and promiscuous come in both hetero and gay forms.

Could there be Gays and Gay groups out there that prefer young boys? Yes, just like there are women who date their students. Are they the majority of Gays? That would be hard to take a survey on, but I doubt it.

Again it is pretty obvious paedos will come in hetero and homo forms. FYI the hetero ones have a higher incidence of child abuse.

I've noticed many Gay couples I've known are faithful. Isn't that what we would want more of in the heterosexual community?

Obviously we have both in both camps. How someone can only understand people by slotting them into a few stereotypse I dont know.

In regard to Tammy Bruce... Heteros love unprotected sex, so the point being....??????????? I've already commented about the "young boy" thing elsewhere.

Some hets do it, some dont. Some gays do it, some dont. Getting the picture?


Lava

[Ken Carman]

Lava, I agree with you. Perhaps I wasn't being clear about that, or did I misunderstand your comments?