TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › California finally came to its senses
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

California finally came to its senses - Page 9  

post #241 of 531
5/19/08 at 11:12am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
The emphasized word is neither vague nor is it a reference to male prostitutes, as male prostitutes are a separate category. Paul here is giving examples. Male prostitutes and homosexuals are two separate examples. This is the only verse where the word "homosexual" is explicity used. But saying that in the original language it doesn't mean the same as today is unsupportable. The meaning is quite clear from the context both here and elsewhere sexual immorality is discussed. Although the word "homosexual" isn't used elsewhere, Paul here explicitly includes it in a list of sins of immorality. And there are plenty of references elsewhere to immorality. It's a consistent theme. Sexual immorality is a no-no. And homosexuality is one kind of sexual immorality.

And note that it's not just men. It's quite clear that same-sex sexual relations are considered by the Bible to be immoral. It's consistent with the context. So if you choose to bring the Bible into the discussion, it doesn't support gay marriage.

Good points. So, then, why should the laws of the United States, a firmly secular nation, be decided by a single passage in Paul's book of the Bible? The only defense given so far in this thread (or anywhere else I've ever seen for that matter) is that a lot of people think that being gay is immoral based on their religious beliefs.

But what nobody has explained is why banning gay marriage is any different than banning being gay, or why the religious beliefs of some should govern everyone in a country that is not based on a theocracy.

If one were to accept the arguments about why being gay is wrong, then it's any homosexual act that should be banned, not just marriage. What is happening currently is people are caught in this bizarre ideology where they know it is wrong to say nobody is allowed to be gay, but then saying since it's wrong to be gay you can't have the same rights as everyone else. If it were 50 years or so ago, the argument would be about the ban on "sodomy" or whatever else, a few decades later it would be about whether it was okay for gay people to be openly gay or whether they should stay quietly ashamed of themselves. You may call this a sign of the downfall of society, I call it a lessening of bigotry and progress towards the goals set forth by the founders of America that all men are created equal, with inalienable rights.

If anyone has a good reason why gay marriage is wrong that doesn't include an argument about why being gay is wrong, or why this country's laws should be based on some people's interpretation of their own religious moral code, maybe I'll finally understand where people are coming from. Otherwise, it just sounds like the same tired tirade full of misconceptions and stereotypes.
post #242 of 531
5/19/08 at 11:26am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
Examples? Please cite references. [edit]
[edit]you're right, I suppose I should offer some proof.

Like when a region of the Baptist church split from the national one over disagreements about what exactly the Scriptures say about homosexuality.
http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?ID=23275

And then examine this special report; http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=288
If 14% of evangelical Christians, a group who takes the Bible completely literally, can support gay marriage, then I think it's safe to say at least some of them interpret the Bible as not specifically prohibiting it. I said "a few" not "most." I guess without actually asking each of them why they favor gay marriage, I can't be sure, but they self-identified as extremely conservative, fundamentalist Christians and one of the major ideas of that group of people is that we should take the Bible literally and try and follow every rule therein as much as possible.

Unless, of course, you have some evidence that there are NO fundamentalist Christians who think the Bible doesn't expressly forbid being gay? The point was that people of all religious ideologies believe that gay marriage should be allowed, so you'd have to start excluding individual people from being called Christians for supporting gay marriage, and I don't think that's the best way to do it.

Opposing gay marriage isn't a requirement for being called Christian.
post #243 of 531
5/19/08 at 11:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
If anyone has a good reason why gay marriage is wrong that doesn't include an argument about why being gay is wrong, .
I understand what you're asking, although the way it's said sounds kind of like asking why is ice cream fattening without including an argument about the fat content of cream. I think I addressed this several times about the difference between a person being gay, or gay couples just doing their thing, and state sanctioning it by licensing the gay union. I'll just refer to it here, I'm not going to repeat it.
post #244 of 531
5/19/08 at 11:38am
Rather lengthy article, I only have time to skim it. Of course, some individuals are always going to disagree with the official position, but the article said that 81% of evangelicals oppose gay marriage. And in the linked-to article, the short list of major denominations, none of the evangelical denominations approved.
Quote:
In 2004, the National Association of Evangelicals reaffirmed its 1985 resolution that homosexuality is not sanctioned by the Bible. Thus the group does not support gay marriage or civil unions.
Heck, they're even less accomodating than me.
post #245 of 531
5/19/08 at 11:53am
A secular nation... hum you did go to history class right??? you have never read a monatary unit of the USA ???
post #246 of 531
5/19/08 at 12:18pm
I asked something a while back, and it just got glossed over. Here it is again. If you are going by your churches or Faith's interpretaton of the Bible, it CLEARLY states that Divorced people are NOT TO RE-MARRY. Why aren't the Conservative Christian Right Wing people FIGHTING to ban marriage for Divorced People? In fact, if I'm not mistaken the Catholic's, and other ultra conservative Faith's believe the ONLY time a Divorsee can marry again, is if the first spouse dies. It may also be Adultry as well, that I don't know about. However, most Christian Faith's believe one should stay married to their original partner, no matter how abusive he or she is. Anyway, I don't want to go off on this subject because it is changing the subject. However, I wonder how SOME so called sins, are more objectionable than others. It's obvious that this Gay issue is a passionate one, and most people who are passionatley against Gay Marriage base their belief's on Religious reasons, yet they don't see that MILLIONS, BILLIONS of people are "sinning" and being accepted by mainstream life, where as the Gay Community is not treated in the same way.
post #247 of 531
5/19/08 at 12:28pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky View Post
A secular nation... hum you did go to history class right??? you have never read a monatary unit of the USA ???
Several, though that's a bit hostile.

To clarify, I said this is a secular nation. Not that there isn't a single reference to God anywhere ever. It was founded by people who were mostly at least somewhat religious Protestants, and is still populated mostly by at least somewhat religious Protestants. It is also expressly forbidden to establish any state religion or force anyone to practice and/or agree with any one religion.

This has been upheld over and over and over again as one of the basic ideas that makes America what it is.

Which is why using a religious morality or religious doctrine isn't a suitable basis for our laws.
post #248 of 531
5/19/08 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeHacker View Post
I asked something a while back, and it just got glossed over. Here it is again. If you are going by your churches or Faith's interpretaton of the Bible, it CLEARLY states that Divorced people are NOT TO RE-MARRY. Why aren't the Conservative Christian Right Wing people FIGHTING to ban marriage for Divorced People? In fact, if I'm not mistaken the Catholic's, and other ultra conservative Faith's believe the ONLY time a Divorsee can marry again, is if the first spouse dies. It may also be Adultry as well, that I don't know about. However, most Christian Faith's believe one should stay married to their original partner, no matter how abusive he or she is. Anyway, I don't want to go off on this subject because it is changing the subject. However, I wonder how SOME so called sins, are more objectionable than others. It's obvious that this Gay issue is a passionate one, and most people who are passionatley against Gay Marriage base their belief's on Religious reasons, yet they don't see that MILLIONS, BILLIONS of people are "sinning" and being accepted by mainstream life, where as the Gay Community is not treated in the same way.
Probably because they just might be affected by divorce at some point, and don't realize that they could well end up with a homosexual child or grandchild.
post #249 of 531
5/19/08 at 12:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
Several, though that's a bit hostile.

To clarify, I said this is a secular nation. Not that there isn't a single reference to God anywhere ever. It was founded by people who were mostly at least somewhat religious Protestants, and is still populated mostly by at least somewhat religious Protestants. It is also expressly forbidden to establish any state religion or force anyone to practice and/or agree with any one religion.

This has been upheld over and over and over again as one of the basic ideas that makes America what it is.

Which is why using a religious morality or religious doctrine isn't a suitable basis for our laws.
And where did most of our right s and first laws come from???
post #250 of 531
5/19/08 at 1:04pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky View Post
And where did most of our right s and first laws come from???
I'm sure the answer you're fishing for is something to do with religion, but that isn't true. Mostly, they're derived from the laws of the the British common-law system that most of the people who founded America were familiar with, tailored of course to suit. Notable changes include not being able to force citizens to quarter soldiers in peacetime. (Aside from, obviously, that whole Greco-roman democracy thing)

Then there's that whole First Amendment thing, and the treaty of Tripoli, and all that other annoying evidence that this is meant to be the opposite of a theocracy no matter how much a person might want it to be.

Which means, once again, that claiming the religion of the majority (if this were even true, which it isn't quite) says gay marriage is wrong isn't really an argument for why that should be law.
post #251 of 531
5/19/08 at 1:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
Sarah, it isn't normal IMO. Woman was made for man and the other way around. I do believe that. I also believe Jesus loves us all. Coaster said it best, there is really nothing more I could possibly add to his post.
But who defines "normal"? Can we really tell gays they are "abnormal"? Maybe start comitting them to mental instituations? Throw them in jail? I may be blowing this way out of proportion....but I love my cats. How many say that's not "normal"?

Quote:
Originally Posted by KitEKats4Eva! View Post
The only thing that becomes more and more clear as this thread progresses is that bigotry is alive and well and that that, more than anything else, is what is contributing to the downfall of society.
Well said! I wholeheartedly agree & not only on the topic of gays.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenKitty45 View Post
Oh geez - I just LOVE how you all take so much out of context when it comes to the Bible. It clearly states in OT and NT about what happens to homosexuals, immoral sex acts, etc. - and the consequences of the actions of those engaging in these acts (as well as murderers, etc.)
Once again, as jcat pointed out pages ago.....I will re-iterate.....the bible was written by men...translated into english. I have no doubt that much was lost in that translation.

I dislike it when people use the bible in such a basis for an argument....because I believe so much of the point of it was "lost in translation".

Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Probably because they just might be affected by divorce at some point, and don't realize that they could well end up with a homosexual child or grandchild.
I spit pop out when I read this. Well said!

I do truly feel sorry for the parents who disown their kids who are gays. Because they lost their child & their child must go through life knowing their parents who created them hate them because they are "themselves".
post #252 of 531
5/19/08 at 1:09pm
Actually you did not go back far enough for laws basis ... but the English system is religious based... NOte I also dont approve of divorce

MORALITY( now that is tempered by the culture s definition) is what most laws are based on ... all gay marriage shows is HOW soon that the end as we know it is
post #253 of 531
5/19/08 at 1:23pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky View Post
Actually you did not go back far enough for laws basis ... but the English system is religious based... NOte I also dont approve of divorce

MORALITY( now that is tempered by the culture s definition) is what most laws are based on ... all gay marriage shows is HOW soon that the end as we know it is
No, I suppose I didn't go all the way back to Hammurabi's Code, which also bans many of the same things as present laws which people try to claim are based on judeochristian ideas but all of which far predate them.

Laws are based on how best to maintain order in society, and on preventing people from doing each other financial/physical harm. Prohibitive laws are usually based at least somewhat in this, ie, you can't smoke pot because it's bad for you, in other words preventing self-harm.

Laws aren't based on morality. Morality is subjective, changes depending on the weather. Occasionally, we do see laws based on morality or hysteria, and those are the ones that get repealed or overturned. You know, kind of like this one banning gay marriage.

You want a law system based on religion, and one that coincidentally outlaws gay behavior of any kind for exactly the same reasons, you're looking for Sharia law. We don't have that in America.
post #254 of 531
5/19/08 at 1:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
And then examine this special report; http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=288
If 14% of evangelical Christians, a group who takes the Bible completely literally, can support gay marriage, then I think it's safe to say at least some of them interpret the Bible as not specifically prohibiting it. I said "a few" not "most." I guess without actually asking each of them why they favor gay marriage, I can't be sure, but they self-identified as extremely conservative, fundamentalist Christians and one of the major ideas of that group of people is that we should take the Bible literally and try and follow every rule therein as much as possible.

Unless, of course, you have some evidence that there are NO fundamentalist Christians who think the Bible doesn't expressly forbid being gay? The point was that people of all religious ideologies believe that gay marriage should be allowed, so you'd have to start excluding individual people from being called Christians for supporting gay marriage, and I don't think that's the best way to do it.

Opposing gay marriage isn't a requirement for being called Christian.
evangelical & fundamentalist are not synonyms, but 2 different adjectives commonly used to describe Christians.
an evangelical Christian strongly believes in evangelism - Billy Graham is a noted example. s/he believes our first, strongest duty as Christians is to ensure that the Word & Redemption of Christ is offered to EVERYONE.
a fundamentalist Christian [really, in every religion] is one who strongly believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. s/he is more likely to attend a church where the preacher teaches sermons based on Biblical truths, & uses Scripture to prove his/her point.
based on these definitions, you can see that one can be an evangelical Christian & not a fundamentalist Christian. however, since evangelism is a commandment of Christ, you rarely see a fundamentalist who is not also evangelical.

and Hope - i did respond to your question about divorce. but again - there are churches that forbid remarriage after divorce - the Catholic church is a noted example of one [at least, they used to be - i don't keep current on Catholic doctrinal issues]. & there are many churches [mine among them] that STRONGLY discourage divorce.
nonetheless - we live [along w/non-Christians] in a fallen world. i've never married - but i can count on one hand the reasons i would consider a divorce... & all of them are also crimes.
post #255 of 531
5/19/08 at 1:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by laureen227 View Post
evangelical & fundamentalist are not synonyms, but 2 different adjectives commonly used to describe Christians.
an evangelical Christian strongly believes in evangelism - Billy Graham is a noted example. s/he believes our first, strongest duty as Christians is to ensure that the Word & Redemption of Christ is offered to EVERYONE.
a fundamentalist Christian [really, in every religion] is one who strongly believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God. s/he is more likely to attend a church where the preacher teaches sermons based on Biblical truths, & uses Scripture to prove his/her point.
based on these definitions, you can see that one can be an evangelical Christian & not a fundamentalist Christian. however, since evangelism is a commandment of Christ, you rarely see a fundamentalist who is not also evangelical.

and Hope - i did respond to your question about divorce. but again - there are churches that forbid remarriage after divorce - the Catholic church is a noted example of one [at least, they used to be - i don't keep current on Catholic doctrinal issues]. & there are many churches [mine among them] that STRONGLY discourage divorce.
nonetheless - we live [along w/non-Christians] in a fallen world. i've never married - but i can count on one hand the reasons i would consider a divorce... & all of them are also crimes.
WELL done ...

No after this world is over the laws will be faith based ...
post #256 of 531
5/19/08 at 2:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by HopeHacker View Post
... Why aren't the Conservative Christian Right Wing people FIGHTING to ban marriage for Divorced People?...
I don't know, I'm only guessing, but probably because that battle's already been lost. This one the fighting's still going on. To be crass, because it's a strategic move. That would be of course, if there was some organized and coordinated opposition. There's not.

My other guess is even sadder. Perhaps it's because there's already too much divorce in their own ranks. It's not an issue they want to bring into the spotlight of public scrutiny.

Christian churches and Christians aren't perfect. They're subject to the same failings as everyone else. The Bible is perfect. The Bible's morality is not subjective. However, with imperfect men, and their subjectivity and failings and limited understanding, trying to figure out what the perfect and completely objective will of God is....there's going to be differences. The problem isn't the Bible, the problem is the reader of the Bible and what he/she gets out of it or doesn't get out of it. To me, what it says about this thread's topic is quite clear. But I acknowledge it may not be clear to others.
post #257 of 531
5/19/08 at 2:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by sharky View Post
No after this world is over the laws will be faith based ...
After this world is over, faith won't be necessary any more.
post #258 of 531
5/19/08 at 3:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
I don't know, I'm only guessing, but probably because that battle's already been lost. This one the fighting's still going on. To be crass, because it's a strategic move. That would be of course, if there was some organized and coordinated opposition. There's not.

My other guess is even sadder. Perhaps it's because there's already too much divorce in their own ranks. It's not an issue they want to bring into the spotlight of public scrutiny.
That was my point. So by what "right" do they condemn homosexual unions?

Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster
Christian churches and Christians aren't perfect. They're subject to the same failings as everyone else. The Bible is perfect. The Bible's morality is not subjective. However, with imperfect men, and their subjectivity and failings and limited understanding, trying to figure out what the perfect and completely objective will of God is....there's going to be differences. The problem isn't the Bible, the problem is the reader of the Bible and what he/she gets out of it or doesn't get out of it. To me, what it says about this thread's topic is quite clear. But I acknowledge it may not be clear to others.
I really have to disagree about the Bible's "perfection". The Bible was written by men. So if mankind is imperfect, how can the Bible be taken literally? You cite Paul here:
Quote:
Although the word "homosexual" isn't used elsewhere, Paul here explicitly includes it in a list of sins of immorality.
Paul reportedly didn't even know the historical Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Tarsus , just as a quick reference), so I personally have an awful lot of doubt about any revelations he is said to have experienced, and his interpretations of what, if anything, was "revealed" to him.

And to reiterate: The Bible has been translated so many times over the millennia that deliberate or accidental misinterpretations were/are inevitable.

I'm sorry, but I think most of the discussion in this thread is a waste of time, because people who have made that "leap of faith" enabling them to accept the Bible as divine truth are pitted against those who simply cannot, and any argumentation on the basis of religious beliefs doesn't take equal rights into account.
post #259 of 531
5/19/08 at 4:00pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
I'm sorry, but I think most of the discussion in this thread is a waste of time, because people who have made that "leap of faith" enabling them to accept the Bible as divine truth are pitted against those who simply cannot, and any argumentation on the basis of religious beliefs doesn't take equal rights into account.
That's true, and it's also one of the very fundamental issues dividing the country over a range of issues. It's impossible to have a discussion about equal rights or a whole lot of other things without bringing religious views into it, because so many people believe that either the laws should reflect fundamentalist Christian ideals or already believe they do and that any change is a subversion of that.

And, as nobody has ever given a reason why gay marriage is wrong except for the religious belief that being gay is wrong... well, that's obviously the crux of the issue. I'd love to have a discussion about equal rights, too, but nobody will say that gay people don't deserve equal rights, only that being gay is wrong so it shouldn't be "legalized" by the state, that marriage shouldn't be a legal thing, or that civil unions are separate but equal.
post #260 of 531
5/19/08 at 4:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
That's true, and it's also one of the very fundamental issues dividing the country over a range of issues. It's impossible to have a discussion about equal rights or a whole lot of other things without bringing religious views into it, because so many people believe that either the laws should reflect fundamentalist Christian ideals or already believe they do and that any change is a subversion of that.

And, as nobody has ever given a reason why gay marriage is wrong except for the religious belief that being gay is wrong... well, that's obviously the crux of the issue. I'd love to have a discussion about equal rights, too, but nobody will say that gay people don't deserve equal rights, only that being gay is wrong so it shouldn't be "legalized" by the state, that marriage shouldn't be a legal thing, or that civil unions are separate but equal.

I think, at this point, you're just "beating a dead horse"

(What a dreadful idiom! )
post #261 of 531
5/19/08 at 5:09pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Going Nova View Post
I think, at this point, you're just "beating a dead horse"

(What a dreadful idiom! )
I always am. This is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. Honestly, I fear the day when my children look me in the eye and ask "How could they?" the way I did to my parents over segregation. I don't want to tell them I stood by quietly as a huge injustice was committed against innocent people.
post #262 of 531
5/19/08 at 5:25pm
lol, i like how the term bigotry is being used.
kinda like how the term racist, or sexist gets tossed out there.

OH NOSE you dont go along with gay marriage so your bigot.

well what if its a black gay female?

well then i guess your a racist ,sexist, bigot

Since when was bigotry to disagree with gay marriage?
i say its the other way around.
yourr attacking the normal people. or the 98% that are stright.
post #263 of 531
5/19/08 at 5:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
I don't want to tell them I stood by quietly as a huge injustice was committed against innocent people.
No such thing as Innocent people.
never has been. everyone is gulity of something.

I kinda feel the same way, when my kid asks me how could they allow so many bad things become ok
post #264 of 531
5/19/08 at 5:38pm
Two weeks ago our pastor had a great sermon on "divorce" and the meaning in the Bible. Many people are under the wrong impressions of what is allowed and what is not allowed.

To put it simply, divorce is not allowed with a born-again Christian or true believer. Once you truly accept God/Jesus and are born into a new spirit and want to follow Jesus' teaching the "old passes away and you are a new person".

Divorce is allowed for 2 reasons - unfaithfulness to your spouse (that includes adultry and other ways of being unfaithful) or if one spouse walks away from the other with no intentions of coming back - you should let them go.

For example (since DH and I are both divorced and we really had a problem with understanding the Bible on this):

When we married our first spouses neither one of us was a true Christian and didn't really know the Bible. But since we are now born again and have totally changed our lives around to be more faithful in following God/Jesus's teachings, then IF there was a divorce - it would be condemed. But we vowed there would be no divorce between us. We made the commitment and we will be true to each other.

This is our outline for Mark 10: 1-12

Marriage is God's idea and it uniquely represents Christ and His bride - the Church. In Genesis 2: 18-25 - marriage was created for relationships - it was God's will (a man will cleave to his wife).

In Romans 7: 1-3 - marriage is a strong value till death separates

In Ephesians 5: 22-23 - a man should love his wife and a wife should respect her husband

Hebrews 13:4 - marriage is about purity and honor to each other.


When divorce occurs, God's plan for marriage is destroyed and the hardness of our hearts is revealed. This is to the non-saved person.

In Mark 10:1-12, Moses permitted divorce because hearts were harden. In Malachi 2:13-16 (which is probably the most quoted Scripture about God hating divorce) - God hates our SINS - NOT the person.

God gives two reasons where divorce is Biblically allowable:

1. The desertion of an unbelieving spouse - one who leaves the marriage and doesn't come back.

2. Marital unfathfulness (not just adultry).

The major principles the Bible teaches on the topic of divorce are (1) its a beautiful relationship of Christ and the Church (2) when we destroy marriage (as God intended it to be) - we destroy what God has created. Man did not create marriage - God created marriage at the beginning.
post #265 of 531
5/19/08 at 6:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
I really have to disagree about the Bible's "perfection". The Bible was written by men. So if mankind is imperfect, how can the Bible be taken literally?
By "written by men" I presume you mean "authored by men." But the Bible itself claims to be the Word of God and was believed to be such by those who had it in the original languages. So the phrase transcribed by men is the phrase I'd use. If the Bible is indeed the Word of God, then I'm quite sure He would have seen to it that it was copied and translated accurately down through the ages, so that the meaning of the original would be preserved. It's stood the test of time; Wikipedia has not.
post #266 of 531
5/19/08 at 6:07pm
Wikipedia isn't a good source for theological history much less world history.
post #267 of 531
5/19/08 at 6:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coaster View Post
By "written by men" I presume you mean "authored by men." But the Bible itself claims to be the Word of God and was believed to be such by those who had it in the original languages. So the phrase transcribed by men is the phrase I'd use. If the Bible is indeed the Word of God, then I'm quite sure He would have seen to it that it was copied and translated accurately down through the ages, so that the meaning of the original would be preserved. It's stood the test of time; Wikipedia has not.
Beautifully stated.
post #268 of 531
5/19/08 at 6:29pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by theimp98 View Post
l
Since when was bigotry to disagree with gay marriage?
i say its the other way around.
yourr attacking the normal people. or the 98% that are stright.
So, if the thing being attacked is the minority, then it's not bigotry? Lol. In that case, nobody can ever be bigoted against anyone but straight white Protestant men. I know you think there's a lot of sexism, racism against this group, and maybe that's true, but it certainly isn't the only group that is.

Also, 98%? Not hardly. The gay population is closer to 5%, and in some places closer to 15% (like, say, my neighborhood). Obviously in others it's closer to 0. But, we also have to remember that's just the people who self-identify as gay, want to admit it to a stranger, and aren't repressing it as a result of our society. Which is where that one-in-ten figure always comes from. Far more people also have same-sex experiences but would never call themselves gay.
post #269 of 531
5/19/08 at 7:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zissou'sMom View Post
So, if the thing being attacked is the minority, then it's not bigotry? Lol. In that case, nobody can ever be bigoted against anyone but straight white Protestant men. I know you think there's a lot of sexism, racism against this group, and maybe that's true, but it certainly isn't the only group that is.

Also, 98%? Not hardly. The gay population is closer to 5%, and in some places closer to 15% (like, say, my neighborhood). Obviously in others it's closer to 0. But, we also have to remember that's just the people who self-identify as gay, want to admit it to a stranger, and aren't repressing it as a result of our society. Which is where that one-in-ten figure always comes from. Far more people also have same-sex experiences but would never call themselves gay.
no its not they just you to think its that high.
I would give you maybe 2% are really gay total.

to disagree, with gay marriage is not bigotry, or racist, or sexist. no matter what people seem to think.
post #270 of 531
5/19/08 at 7:49pm
How would you define it then?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
This thread is locked  
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › California finally came to its senses