Gay Marriage repeal language approved for ballot petition

Still has to be voted on. Unless some have changed their minds don't see it passing this time either.

I've got a word for people who are for gay marriage : "perverts."

Wait wait wait...

Username: OmarLittle.

As in Omar from The Wire? You do remember he was gay, yes?

Surely you're aware that the vast majority of these rabidly homophobic [many more terms redacted to save bandwidth] excuses-for-human-beings are self-loathing cases who are so far in the closet they're paying rent in Narnia.

He is a Troll....ignore and do not feed!

Yes, The Wire. Great show and Omar Little was my favorite of the cast.

I'm homophobic and I hate myself??!? I don't have anything against the gays. I just don't want them to hold hands in public or get married. They can live their alternative lifestyle, but make no mistake, they choose to be queer and do not deserve the benefits that normal married people receive.

I'm lost on the references "Narnia" and "troll." I guess you gay people have your own separate lingo.

"Troll...do not feed." Is troll a derogatory name for someone against gay marriage? "Do not feed"??? Huh? You people are an interesting bunch. I'd wish you a happy Easter, but I'm sure you gave up Christianity after everyone of the opposite sex rejected you and you chose to go the gay route. In your defense though, I don't think anyone should be alone. So I hope you're happy in your same-sex relationships RockChick and AnonymousCoward.

"Straight but not narrow", you genital-less troll.

No, troll is an internet term for someone who makes inflammatory remarks on message boards because they have the protection of anonymity; they're empowered to say things they wouldn't have the balls to say to someone's face. So, trolling is when people throw out offensive comments, not because they actually believe them, but because it will send the message board into a frenzy. I don't think you're actually trolling though, I think you're just stating your views. Which you're more than allowed to have. I do, however, think they're backwards.

And you're making two assumptions here:
1) you're assuming that, because some here are defending homosexuality, that makes them homosexuals.
2) you're assuming they care if you call them homosexuals.

Past info:

2004 election results for Ohio Issue 1: Ban Same-sex Marriage?

Statewide:
- Yes, ban it 62%
- No 38%

Lucas County:
- Yes 58%
- No 42%

...and meanwhile the polls have narrowed from 60-40 to nearly even, jr. Give it another year to gain steam, particularly if the TeaOP/Teavangelicals keep up fornicating that avian and legislating social issues.

IF gay people want a piece of paper that makes their spit swapping official so be it, but how long till they say the church has to recognize and perform such marriages because the state says so? Why not, they are already trying to get the church to provide condoms and birth control pills against their religious beliefs.

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2012/02/obama_health_insurers_not_chur.html

Dear Liney,

Please take notice of this and issue an apology/correction for your above statement as part of showing you're a bigger man than all that. Or don't and just keep on molesting that bird.

No love,

AC

If marriage is "sacred" and marriage is "performed by a church" then marriage is an establishment of religion and therefore DOMA and all the other shit is clearly and patently unConstitutional because it violates the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"), on top of which if any other church (Church of the Subgenius, Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Church of All Worlds, the Church of LDS, whatever) wants to marry however many consenting people of whatever genders together, then nobody can stop them either.

Too bad nobody's had the fortitude to put this argument up in fancy legal writing and take it to court.

Wow, Sooner, spot on. My mom was divorced when she married my dad back in 1969. The priest at St. Charles wouldn't marry them. They simple found a church who would and with that I was raised Methodist...

Omar you're a bigot BTW...

Spot on JS.

This and the contraception debate are two separate issues. I don't care who uses the pill along as those who don't agree with it don't have to pay for it. I have a hard time believing a a student at a 1%er law school can't afford 9 dollars a month. Don't care who or how many people she sleeps with.

My only issue with contraception and that whole debate. I've had family members take them for severe acne treatments and other things outside of pregnancies. So I've seen the benefits it has that many are just flat out ignoring.

Don't forget the "they should only cover it for non-contraceptive purposes" crap. But the same people who say that have no problem with insurance covering boner pills and penis pumps, and there's nothing stopping a guy from abusing them for non-making-a-baby purposes.

10,000 +years of marriage meaning one man and one woman isn't good enough for radicals. It HAS TO BE what they demand and scream for!
When marriage becomes 'undefinable", as these radicals desire, you then can marry your son, daughter, dog or cat. In fact, if you love your car, you can marry that too.
Sure, its just as thoroughly insipid as it sounds...radicals have to destroy all traditional convention, otherwise, these oddballs/ perverts/ and weirdos, won't have any one to 'comprehend', their deranged madness !

On Easter, a heathen flies his demented colors and is proud....no wonder America's , declension is rapid and unstoppable with creepy psychopaths in vogue since the last Federal election.
America, where have you been led to ?

The "pill" wasn't created for "other" reasons, they have just found other uses for it, same as with some other drugs. I personally have no issues with birth control or even abortion if that is their choice. When you claim they are not making the church "pay" for it you are wrong, that cost WILL be passed onto the insurance payer one way or another.
Marriage if I am not mistaken is a religious ceremony that is recognized and has also been performed by government officials as well. I don't want to see a government controlled by any religion such as early European states controlled by the Catholic church, or Iran controlled by the Muslim faith, however I don't want to see the State control religion either. If gay people want to get married then let the state do it, but don't expect the various churches, temples, (insert Muslim building here) to have to recognize them, or perform them against their wishes. Also the whole separation of church and state I find humorous on more than one occasion.
from wikipedia

United States
Main article: Separation of church and state in the United States

In the United States, the term is an offshoot of the phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. The original text reads: "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." Jefferson reflected his frequent speaking theme that the government is not to interfere with religion.⁷ The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947.⁸ The phrase "separation of church and state" itself does not appear in the United States Constitution. The First Amendment states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The Supreme Court did not consider the question of how this applied to the states until 1947; when they did, in Everson v. Board of Education, all nine justices agreed that there was a wall of separation between church and state, but a majority held that the present case (a local authority paying to transport parochial students to school), the benefits to the children outweighed the Constitutional objection.⁹
This article's factual accuracy is disputed. Please help to ensure that disputed facts are reliably sourced. See the relevant discussion on the talk page. (November 2011)
Unbalanced scales.svg
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (November 2011)

Prior to 1947, however, these provisions were not considered to apply at the state level;[dubious – discuss] indeed in the 1870s and 1890s unsuccessful attempts were made to amend the constitution to accomplish this, but it was accomplished by judicial decision in 1947.¹⁰[not in citation given]¹¹
John Locke, English political philosopher argued for individual conscience, free from state control

The concept of separating church and state is often credited to the writings of English philosopher John Locke (1632–1704).¹² According to his principle of the social contract, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right in the liberty of conscience, which he argued must therefore remain protected from any government authority. These views on religious tolerance and the importance of individual conscience, along with his social contract, became particularly influential in the American colonies and the drafting of the United States Constitution.¹³

The concept was implicit in the flight of Roger Williams from religious oppression in the Massachusetts Bay Colony to found the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations on the principle of state neutrality in matters of faith.¹⁴[15]

YOU FUCKING FAIL.

GO READ THE BIBLE AND TELL ME HOW MANY WIVES SOME PEOPLE IN THERE HAD, THEN COME BACK HERE AND AMEND YOUR COMMENT.

Don't use the bible for a reference unless you want to use all of it, not just what you want to cherry pick. Otherwise you would have to use the parts that say being gay is wrong as well.

NOTE: the terms You and Your is directed at the defenders of marriage, and not anyone in particular or specifically. Just my thoughts on the issue.

Radicals? Isn't divorce a radical departure from the sanctity of marriage? What exactly are you defending? The TRUE meaning of marriage, or the watered down meaningless version broken down into its simplest of form that YOU want it to mean (between a man and a woman), and throw the rest out that doesn't apply to you. The latter isn't marriage its called "Playing House".

When is anyone going to defend the "till death do we part" portion of marriage? I know, its really complicated, doesn't apply to 75% of people in the USA, its so OLD fashion, and it doesn't fit your lifestyle. I believe there is a group of people that understands your pain.

If one breaks this sacred vow known as marriage once through divorce, why are they allowed to remarry? Why don't you purists demand it be called something else?

Now I have a question. How does same sex marriage (or whatever you prefer to call it) AFFECT YOU, personally?

Had anyone taken the steps to actually SOLVE this problem, the solution would be very easy, give them the same rights, call it something else, but NO special rights when it comes to divorce.

I'm in Love, with my car...
I have a feel for my automobile...

Our wedding vows are 12/12/12...all, are invited !

Problem is that you and all the so-called Christians keep cherry-picking the parts out of Leviticus that you choose to follow and those you choose to ignore. So your argument is INVALID. Meanwhile, Jesus is weeping over how many of you dumbasses are ignoring all his "love thy neighbor" advice.

Government shouldn't be covering Viagra or penis pumps.

Great video, talking about Gay marriage and the bible.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY

About the church having to pay for medical services they don't believe in. We all pay for things we don't believe in, but that is part of living in society. I don't want to pay for subsidies for big business, but I do. I don't have kids, really don't want to pay for everyone else's kids to go to school, but I do. I'm a pacifist (although I support the troops, I don't support wars in which we were the aggressor, and yet I help pay for it. I actually believe churches should pay taxes, and not be excluded like they are.

If they want influence and representation in politics, then they should pay taxes. No taxation without representation, no representation without taxation.

Crosswise to that, either corporations (including non-profits) are people with free speech rights and therefore the right to buy politicians, or they're not people and should not have influence over the government.

Cars really love it when you suck on their tailpipes! Remember that for your wedding night!

The best thing that can happen is the complete re-writing of the tax code and the elimination of the non-profit/tax-exempt clauses. There is no reason why church "pastors" are living in million dollar homes and building $10-40 million big box stores...errr...churches...to sell their faith, I mean offer it up...to others. In exchange for donations. LOL

She's the machine of my dreams, such a clean machine.
With her pistons a pumping, her hubcaps gleam !

I'm in love with my car...I will be Faithful.

Ditto and make the unions no longer tax exempt then too.

I don't tend to reference the bible, I only referred to it because you did.

"The amendment would modify the Ohio Constitution to define marriage as “a union of two consenting adults, regardless of gender.”"

Why the hate in limiting it to two adults? :p

^^Post of the year, so far.

Well stated stooks. My partner and I have been together for more than 31 years. We lead productive lives and make positive contributions to society in numerous ways.

Sorry to break it to you Omar but homosexuality is no more a "choice" than heterosexuality - at least not for me or anyone else I know who happens to be "abnormal" or "perverted" in your eyes.

Gay marriage is not my hill to die on and I make no demands that it be made legal. Especially in this day and age, same sex couples can legally protect themselves financially.

I'm well aware that I am in a minority and will play by the rules as they currently exist.

We mind our own business and expect others to do the same.

I just see it as a "matter of time" kind of thing. When my grandpa was my age, it was appalling to them that a black person should get to use their bathrooms, because they were lesser people. Since that time, consensus view has shifted greatly. I feel the same is happening here. Eventually, people will realize that having gays in the community doesn't "infect" their children with homosexuality anymore than my being white will make my neighbor white.

Johio83 and Foodie

I agree with you but some people fall way short on patiences. We could all take lessons from the younger generation on tolerance of others. For the most part they have it right.

A lot of things are a choice, breathing isn't its involuntary, you can choose to stop breathing but when you pass out you will breath again. Being guy might not be a choice but choosing to live gay is. Don't get upset, I didn't say it was wrong to be gay, nor live how you want, but isn't marriage called holy matrimony? or is that something entirely different? Frankly I don't care if gays can marry or not, or even if some churches condone and will perform gay marriages, only that those that do have the choice to refuse to do it if that is what they want. Congrats on your happiness by the way, always appreciate your posts and insight here on TT.

Oops meant to say breathing IS involuntary.

^^"Being guy might not be a choice but choosing to live gay is."...as opposed to choosing to live straight?, which really doesn't make sense. Most gay people are just "living", no lifestyle, whatever...just living their lives....

I agree with Sooner. I have a strong belief in God and I believe in Jesus and I do attend Mass more than just Christmas and Easter.

Yet Jesus taught me that I need to hate the sin and love the sinner. That being said I would never refer to a homosexual as a heathen and I accept them and their partnerships since I would need to treat them as I would want them to treat me.

Jesus also said I need to render unto God that which is God's and render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's. That means a marriage is the church's recognition of my relationship with my wife. A civil union is the government's recognition of my relationship with my wife. The government needs to get out of the marriage business.

And yes AC I do agree with you that DOMA breaks the establishment clause because it does infringe upon the religions who accept marriage other than man and woman i.e. forms of Mormonism and religions that allow same sex partnerships.

Now that being said, I am against forcing religious institutions to perform same sex marriages that too would be a violation of the establishment clause.

Yet all that being said, I don't think the Issue will pass. There's just too many evangelicals I know in Southern Ohio who will come out to vote if only on this issue.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/09/study-homophobic-people-likely-repressing-homosexual-attraction/

... looks at all the homophobes and gay-bashers on this board... so much for that closet, eh?

Linecrosser, for the marriage question: the church calls marriage holy matrimony, but marriage has been documented centuries before the church existed. As far as the law is concerned, whether you do it in a church or a courthouse, anywhere really, as long as you have a signed marriage certificate, that's what makes you married.

... looks at all the homophobes and gay-bashers on this board... so much for that closet, eh?

You think it's getting a bit crowded in there?

I'm in favor of government funded birth control, right along with government funded abortion. From a practical standpoint, I'd rather see a very few hundred tax dollars spent preventing yet another unwanted birth as opposed to many thousands spent on child care and prison.

Given that regulating morality has never worked, and that less government regulation is almost always better than more regulation I would still not be in favor of amending the constitution in this manner. I'd rather see the government get out of the marriage business entirely and adopt a live and let live policy.

agreed 100000000000000%

I agree with you too Foodie. 100%

PROOF: If it is printed,dupes believe it! Which of course, makes them sops for the tactic of leftist liars. Who lie about everything & anything to make their pathetic & diseased lives acceptable... especially,to those easily fooled.P.T.Barnum,said it long ago about suckers born every second.. one brilliant prognosticator !

AC, I read that study you linked. There are significant problems with it that would cause me to question the science of it.

Specifically the criteria used to determine who is "homophobic". It's VERY open-ended and I could use their criteria to draw preferred conclusions about other groups if I followed their logic.

It's a crap study designed to only gain a headline and is beneath a logical debate in this thread.

So according to AC,if you are against same sex marriage,then you must be a homophobic or you have latent homosexual desires that you are hiding.Using that logic and the study that AC mentioned,then Obama who is against same sex marriage must be either homophobic or is hiding his true sexuality in the closet.

I have no issue with who can marry who. That is between you and your partner(s) and your god.

Just don't infringe on a religion's ability to practice their religious doctrine if what you do is contrary thereto. They should have the right to refuse to marry you, call it a sin, etc. if it is indeed a violation of their religious doctrine.

But the issue isn't whether or not a church should have to marry two people of the same sex, it's whether or not the two should be allowed to marry at all - which the law currently says they cannot. Nobody is saying churches should be forced to preside over them.

"Just don't infringe on a religion's ability to practice their religious doctrine if what you do is contrary thereto. They should have the right to refuse to marry you, call it a sin, etc. if it is indeed a violation of their religious doctrine."

I agree. As long as they don't turn their doctrine and beliefs into street activism. Then they become no different than the militant, in your face, "we demand you do this......." homosexual crowd.

Johio, I noticed that too. There must be a conservative talking point out there that says that liberals want to impose a set of beliefs on all churches, which couldn't be further from the truth. What a weird world some people live in.

I'll never understand why people have such a huge problem with gays marrying. How does two gay men marrying each other affect anyone else's daily life? It doesn't.

^^ Dumbass, I do agree with you foodie, what you do in your own home is your own business, hell what you do out of your home is your own business. I'm just saying your not forced to live with someone, it is a choice, and obviously a good one if you have put up with each other for that long hehe.

http://jezebel.com/5900457/homophobia-even-gayer-than-you-thought

"Homophobia Even Gayer Than You Thought
You've long suspected this, and now, here comes your old friend Science to back you up: homophobic people tend to be the way they are because they've got a little bit of The Gay themselves and were raised by authoritarian parents, according to a series of new studies. And outwardly directed anti-gay hate is often projected self-hate. Homophobes, then, sort of hate themselves. Take that, homophobes!"

And the best comment from the article? This one:

"Ok, this is not new. At all.
To my understanding, there was a study already done, I think in Texas, where they connected a measuring device to the base of men's penises and to women's clitorises and then had them watch porn of hetero, gay, and lesbians. Even footage of animals mating. For all women, whether they identified as straight, lesbian, or bi, pro-LGBT or not, they reacted to sex period. Meaning they had increased blood flow to their clitorises.
For the men folk who identified as straight, but pro-LGBT, they had little to no increase in penis girth (erection) to gay porn, and for the men who identified as straight but anti-LGBT, many of them had semi to full on erections while viewing the gay porn.
I am not a psychologist or any other kind of scientist, so I may have made this sound unprofessional, but I think that this is a better way to test what's really going on in people's heads. Granted, there could've been a shoddy sample size or other factors to trump the data that I didn't have the skill set to pick up on, but it makes sense. And again, this is not new.
What I'd love, though, is to blow this kind of info up on billboards in super conservative/ultra-christian areas. I think that would be great."

"What I'd love, though, is to blow this kind of info up on billboards in super conservative/ultra-christian areas. I think that would be great."

Why? You're not going to change their minds/opinions. You'd only succeed in making them hate gay people more than they already do. Nothing good would come of it other than your temporary euphoric feeling because you shoved it in their face.

By the way, Mike Coon: is it "normal" to stalk people and harass them when they write something you dislike? I am still puzzled over the calls you have made to my house, especially the one where you went into a bizarre rant about gay sexual activity.

And yes: I still have the number from the fax line you used on the last obscene/harassing call you made to my house. Maybe you should go back to using pay phones again.

And as already linked to in this thread, studies show the people who are rabidly anti-homo and/or obsessed with bashing gays are all repressed closet-cases... This guy really needs to come out of the closet and see a therapist (and an English teacher).

I like foodie's attitude.

He sounds exactly like the kind of person who could change a homophobic person's opinion, without even intentionally trying.

"And as already linked to in this thread, studies show the people who are rabidly anti-homo and/or obsessed with bashing gays are all repressed closet-cases... This guy really needs to come out of the closet and see a therapist (and an English teacher)."

AC, look at the study. That is not what it says at all. How does it define homophobic? It's not Rabidly anti-homo or obsessed with bashing gays. That's the problem with the study and why it's crap.

Now I'm not supporting the batshit insane Mike Coon but your assessment of this study and the conclusions of the study are highly suspect. It should not be referenced.

You've been red-flagged twice, do you really want to keep up your avian bestiality?

This would be a much easier thread to follow if there weren't two conversations going on. BigWillard, anonymouscoward, et al, you both obviously have very strong political views, and you're both fans of generalizing everything you are against to paint very distorted pictures. Can we just leave that stuff out of it and discuss the actual topic here, about the potential ballot issue?

I think this is one of those threads where it's best to not respond and let it die...

A few words to the wise:

The individual posting as BigWillard is Toledo's one and only Mike Coon (aka TyCoon, JohnLaw, ProfProvo, and other screen names too numerous for me to recall or even care about). Mr. Coon has, at best, a tenuous hold on reality, and he has a very long history of taking his anger out in the real world on people with whom he disagrees.

I say this for two reasons:
* If you are going to debate with him, you can expect that he will attempt to uncover your personal information and harass you.
* In my own dealings with Mr. Coon via harassing phone calls and emails he has sent me, I am of the opinion that he is considerably more dangerous than a mere troll. He has a criminal history of violence, and I suspect it would not take much to cause this tendency to re-emerge. Thus, if you are going to debate him, understand that this individual is not your garden-variety Internet buffoon.

Also: do not assume that just because he has difficulty communicating in writing that he is a blithering idiot. Coon is rather clever, and despite the fact that he likes to make obscene and harassing calls to my house, he is quite capable of intelligent thought. My point is that you might think from these bizarre posts that he is stupid, but that is not the case.

I am writing this also because the dude already despises me, knows my address/employers/phone number, and has already taken this to the stalkery stage. Thus, I am not opening myself up for anything new. You folks, however, have choices that I relinquished when I naively let my real-life world merge with my online world. If you do not relish weidos calling your house (and God forbid he someday take his rage further than harassing calls and emails) then do not engage this person in debate.

Remember: this clown even found Fred LeFebvre of WSPD to be too liberal for his liking and engaged in crazy-rants via email and telephone a few years ago. If he cannot play nice with someone with whom he shares quite a few conservative positions, imagine what he might do with a REAL perceived enemy.

"Big Willard /ProfProvo / Mike Coon:"

Good observation, historymike.

He can call me anytime... 419-242-9996 -- make sure you turn the volume up on your phone and use a headset if you have one before you call because I'm really soft-spoken in real life.

AC, congratulations I have just signed you up for Cat Facts! Facts about cats. You will now receive a text of a special fact about cats every 15 minutes.

LOL just kidding.

I'm going to cite this thread everytime wolfman or Roland Hanson try to lambast me for posting "anonymously".

Good deal, HistoryMike. The point is that crazy ain't stupid, and Coon actually is violent. All that said, Mike Coon isn't bullet proof.

(419) 259-9576 Call me anytime you want to cuss me out or rant on about how stupid you are.

I should have listened to AC back on March 26. I'm slower than others at identifying sockpuppets.

Well AC himself is almost a sockpuppet so . . . .

@Billy - yes, I did catch it! I was thinking of this thread when I saw it.

This topic also reminds me of the Family Guy bit that pokes at a different medium, similar annoyance -

I bring you "Weenie and the Butt" and "Dingo and the Baby":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ws58s9wzYsA&feature=related

Oops! wrong thread. Can I delete this?!

I've been here about 4 more years than you, so if anyone is a "sock puppet", it's you.

He's also a SHINING EXAMPLE of why there should be anonymous comments. Jerks like him are a prime example of how free speech ends up silenced from fear of retribution and harassment.

I suspect "BigWillard" is also using the name "rehabilitated" here as well, but there has not been much activity out of that handle lately.

He's also a SHINING EXAMPLE of why there should be anonymous comments. Jerks like him are a prime example of how free speech ends up silenced from fear of retribution and harassment.

What's the matter with you, AC? LineCrosser isn't all that bad. I think that's kind of a cheap shot to take at someone, even a RINO like LineCrosser.

I think AC was referring to "BigWillard", not LC.

I'm independent not a Republican or a Democrat.

So am I but that doesn't stop everyone from screaming "DIRTY PINKO COMMIE LIBRUL SOCIALIST" at me. Then again, the "Tea Party" is supposedly independent, though they vote lockstep Republican.

Apologies for bumping this particular thread, but the study in question was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a widely used academic journal with an impact factor of 5.205. The published article and study isn't as problematic as the interpretation provided by the link above. I'd recommend visiting a library with access to this publication and reading it for yourself...not the link posted above, which is certainly not the study.

Oh. Ah, well then... carry on.

"Apologies for bumping this particular thread, but the study in question was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, a widely used academic journal with an impact factor of 5.205. The published article and study isn't as problematic as the interpretation provided by the link above. I'd recommend visiting a library with access to this publication and reading it for yourself...not the link posted above, which is certainly not the study."

Researcher. Please show me where I said I only read the linked story? In fact earlier I had posted "AC, I read that study you linked." meaning I had actually gone to published study and read the criteria. Just so you know researcher I was a journalism major and that taught me that when two stories are posted that draw different conclusions from the same source one must go to the source. I had read stories about the study earlier in the day prior to A/C posting it and had pulled up the criteria of the study to read it for myself.

And yes I stand by my assertion that the study is crap because of the criteria they used to define "homophobia". It was too open ended.

The Journal of Peronsonality and Social Psychology should be embarassed for publishing it because it was clearly designed to justify the hypothesis than the test the hypothesis. (a problem in every scientific community hence why we have peer review)

For someone with the nickname researcher you did a poor job of researching what I posted IN THIS THREAD! I'd consider a nickname change, is ForeverPostingFail taken already?

While my post was not directed at you specifically, I find your understanding of the study elementary at best and the research world will continue citing this journal and not paying attention to the journalism major.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is."

Side note, the same group did a similar study on implicit religious identity.

Again there were issues of definition. AND both studies relied heavily upon subliminal messaging to prime the subjects, the scienctific basis for this has been debated as an effective means to categorize test subjects.

"While my post was not directed at you specifically, I find your understanding of the study elementary at best and the research world will continue citing this journal and not paying attention to the journalism major.

"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." You quoted me. So yes that PRETTY DAMN SPECIFIC. Now you insult me after you mention me specificially and as I have noted your conclusion about me was wrong in the first place.

What is coming if we allow Sharia law in the US.

Saudi Arabia has decided to bar "gays and tom-boys" from its government schools and universities within a crackdown against the spread of this phenomenon in the conservative Moslem Gulf Kingdom, a newspaper said on Monday.

http://www.emirates247.com/news/region/saudi-arabia-bans-gays-tom-boys-from-schools-2012-04-16-1.454017

I don't really want to contribute to your attention-seeking anymore, so we can go our separate ways both believing we're correct.

Yet another insult without showing why I'm wrong. I guess I must be pointing this out for my "attention seeking".

No it's whats coming if the Rick Santorums of the world take over.

Oh great Invisible Pink Unicorn, I have to agree with dbw.

What puzzles me after some thought is how this issue interlinks with so many other issues where divisiveness is being fed somehow. I think much of this has to do with political factions maneuvering for voter blocks. For example - If the Democrats have sewn up the Black vote then the Republicans must sew up some other entity that will align itself if not in full at least nearly in step with the party. If Republicans gain enough majority in the white male crowd between 30-70 years old than Democrats must put together enough minority camps to offset that huge voting block – this creates continual devisive attacks from each side attempting to solidify their base. The off shoot of this non-sense is that "People" no longer explore their own individuality and you tend to hear the most extreme voices from each side while getting the uneasy sense that this is how the sound of war drums always first meets the ears. How many times has Farrakhan’s rants made the front page of the Drudge report in the last 3 months? I am slowly trying to withdraw from this madness, step away from the pack and try to establish my own principles on these issues. Most often I conclude… MMOB. Which is simply… Mind My Own Business!

I have no real opinion on gay marriage, it is not an issue for me. If I were gay it might be something that I felt strongly for but as a sideline observer I think of the canary in the cage who finally is granted his rightful freedom only to make the acquaintance of the conniving cat. Truthfully, “when”… for I believe it will be only a matter of time, “when”… gay marriage is sanctioned by the Government I think some unintended consequences will result that the gay community has been fortunate to avoid. There are over 1,000,000 lawyers in the USA. Don’t think they aren’t chomping at the bit ready to squeeze their portions of gay couples estates their way when divorces occur and the services of lawyers who often feed the flames in a dispute for personal gain are required. From my understanding gay separations presently are often much more civil than the knock down, blow out divorces we’ve all seen in our families or workforce. Again, from what I understand separated gay couples often remaining lifetime friends. I would not expect that to be the case after the lawyers enter the picture. Remember the conniving cat… Lawyers… chomping at the bit...

As I said, I try to MMOB. I have learned over the years that when I stand in front of a person and talk with them for a few minutes I generally can make a pretty good determination if this person will be a friend, insignificant, or someone I try to avoid. There are heterosexual people my age, my color and my political party I would not grab a cup of coffee with if I were paid to do so. There are people who have opened up on this thread that I follow their opinions frequently out of respect and mutual interests and instinctively know this is someone I would probably get along quite well with. No matter what voters, religions or institutions determine what is sacred for me is that "I" am allowed to use my own senses or cognitive instincts when I am in the company of another person and make my own choices. No institution should force me to perform any action or withhold an action because of another person’s “minority” or “other” affiliations nor should another person be forced into an action when I sit in front of them.

Comes down to the fact that government should have no say in which consenting adults are in your home/bed.

I do find it funny that the same Progressives calling for marriage equality are taking pot shots at Mitt Romney's family of polygamy practices.

btw I commend Foodie's bravery to talk about his stance in a honest, open, and non attack dog style.

Thanks dbw.

As I've stated, gay marriage being sanctioned isn't really something I lay awake at night worrying about. I suppose those who are at the forefront of this issue and leading the cause can be commended for their efforts. It likely would not have reached this point without them. But, as Danneskjold points out above (and very well I might add), be careful what you wish for.

In my own life, I've always found that maintaining a low profile has served me well. I never make a point of telling people of my sexuality (until I weighed in here) but I also never deny it if asked. If you have the guts to ask, I have the guts to tell you the truth and hope you can handle it. I find most people are for more accepting when gay people don't wear their life on their sleeve. And, being militant or in your face about it will certainly put you on the least liked list.

My feeling exactly Foodie. Be what you want, just don't involve me with it, its none of my business what you do. When they get in my face with their sexuality, then I take issue.

What does in your face mean? We see straight couples kissing and holding hands in public everday. When two men kiss in public, they are "throwing their sexuality" in your face?

Shit, go to a club near campus on a Thursday/Friday night to find plenty of straight folks throwing their sexuality around...

Honestly, I'm not a big fan of PDA regardless of the participants' gender.

• should have said blatant PDA.

I would agree with any public display of affection, not just gay ones.

SensorG: To me, two men kissing (or beyond) in a public place like......oh, let's see....how about near the main entrance to 5th 3rd Field when hundreds of people are entering the stadium for a game - yes, that would be an in your face display IMHO. But two men doing whatever on Castro Street in San Francisco - would be considered perfectly normal and acceptable behavior.

I'd agree with mom2, I'm not particularly fond of seeing any two people playing an intense game of tonsil hockey in public.

While I detest the totally overdone PC issue, I am respectful of other's feelings and sensibilities. There's a time and place for everything - passionate displays in public - IMHO - are distasteful - and are meant as an "in your face" display by those doing so.

As for the (assuming privately owned) "clubs near the campus" - the type of behavior accepted therein is up to the owner.

I'm all for modesty in dress and behaviour, irrespective of sexual orientation.
I dont have a problemn with cross dressing though. There was someone in COSTCO the other day, 6'6" at least, with large hands, an ample adams apple and the shadow of a beard, who was very well groomed and immaculately dressed in women's clothes. Its OK. Slightly startling at first, but OK.

My husband asked me what I would do if this person headed for the womens' restroom.

That's a tough one for me holland. To each their own - especially if this person is in the process of gender modification. Men dressed in drag doesn't do a thing for me.

I don't have a problem with PDA, no matter if it's Adam & Steve or Eve and Eva. I've seen accidents where people loose an arm, seen skin boiled off to the bone by steam, and people pass from this earth kicking and screaming, kissing kinda rates low on the totem pole for me.

It's buck wild, unwashed, loud ass kids running around the store screaming that grinds my gears. Give me tonsil hockey over brats any day of the week.

I'm mostly with dbw8906 on this one. I don't particularly care about how others behave. I'm more concerned with myself.

On the other hand, I kind of like the idea of over-the-top behavior if it freaks out the squares. There is obviously a lot of injustice concerning sexual orientation and/or identity and I support making it everyone's business.

"On the other hand, I kind of like the idea of over-the-top behavior if it freaks out the squares"

So what defines a "square" and, more importantly, who gets to apply that definition?

I don't goto bars, watch much TV, couldn't tell you who is in the Top 40, own more books than DVD's, and I goto bed around 7:30 or 8 most nights.

I'm sure I fit the "square" box.

DBW your edges are too sharp your probably more of a triangle. hehe

This pretty much sums me up, but I go to bed between 9-10.

I wouldn't put too much thought into the definition of the word "squares". If you're upset or even give more than a 1/2 second of thought to two men kissing in public, I'm glad you had to be put through so much trauma.

I get what researcher is saying. It's that whole "if I don't acknowledge it, it isn't happening" mentality that you want to break in people.