# Should Eharmony be forced to offer services to gay people?



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

IMO this is a private business offering a specific service to a certain clientel. Can they/should they be forced to offer services to a segment of the population that they don't wish to do business with?

Also, what damages could possibly been caused to those denied services?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Should they? No. However, the resolution provided will be interesting to see once they lose.


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

I'm not a lawyer, I don't know how this will turn out, but isn't it like suing a pizza shop for not selling hamburgers?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

No, it's like suing a pizza shop for not selling me a pizza because they don't like my sexual orientation.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

patbrady2005 said:


> IMO this is a private business offering a specific service to a certain clientel. Can they/should they be forced to offer services to a segment of the population that they don't wish to do business with?


What if the segment of the population they don't wish to do business with were a racial, ethnic, or religious minority, rather than a sexual minority?

California apparently has a law prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation. In other words, if there are certain segments of the population you don't want to deal with, you are free to do that in your personal life, but not in your business. If you don't want to deal with them in business, don't set up the business.

And, if the claim is that allowing same-sex couples the chance to use the service would create the opportunity for them to engage in sexual activity that the owner thinks is inappropriate and sinful, isn't that also the case with regard to opposite-sex couples? Or does he assume that once they meet through his service they never have sex until after they're married?



patbrady2005 said:


> Also, what damages could possibly been caused to those denied services?


I suspect that the business believes that its services have some value. The inability to contract for those services, including access to however many contacts they could make if the service were open to them, is what the rejected customers have lost. I don't know what the value is, but it's a long time before the case goes to trial. It wouldn't surprise me if they're more interested in injunctive relief than in damages.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

> eHarmony was* founded in 2000 by evangelical Christian* Dr. Neil Clark Warren and had strong early ties with the influential religious conservative group Focus on the Family.


He does not stand a chance in California.

Legally, even a simple minded layman (excuse the pun) like myself can tell you the answer: eHarmony is gonna take it in the shorts....sorry, the puns keep coming tonight. Being gay is a protected class, pretty much end of story.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I thought you had to be religious to join Eharmony as well.


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

Is someone going to sue J-Date next?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Not according to their registration page. There is no indication of a religious standard:

https://eharmony.com/


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

jackmccullough said:


> Not according to their registration page. There is no indication of a religious standard:
> 
> https://eharmony.com/


Hmmm....perhaps they've changed that policy. I'm almost certain I had at least one friend sign up who was rejected because they did not list a religious preference.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Keeping it real and on the business perspective ... the interesting thing here is eHarmony says they have some proprietary technology that matches people and that it doesn't work for non-hetero relationships. What if they can prove this is true? Let's say they are forced to offer it anyway to homosexuals. Do they still have to honor their warrantees, etc. for people that they know (or believe) their product will not find compatible matches for?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Diversity?*



> eHarmony prides itself on the diversity of our membership and the team of passionate people who have committed themselves to helping our members find long term relationship success.
> 
> Our 15 million registered users and more than 200 employees represent a diverse array of ethnicities, ages, and religions. In fact, our members hail from all 50 states and more than 200 countries.
> 
> Together, we are building the premier relationship company that serves a world community.


Gee, they are saying all the right things....


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> The interesting thing here is eHarmony says they have some proprietary technology that matches people and that it doesn't work for non-hetero relationships. What if they can prove this is true?


Why then no one gets to use that technology as it's biased!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Why then no one gets to use that technology as it's biased!


What would that say about the argument over whether being gay is a behavior or genetic?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> What would that say about the argument over whether being gay is a behavior or genetic?


No idea....and a moot point....it's like saying medical research is biased against women of child bearing age...the fact women who are pregnant or who could become pregnant cannot be involved in medical research is besides the point!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> No idea....and a moot point....it's like saying medical research is biased against women of child bearing age...the fact women who are pregnant or who could become pregnant cannot be involved in medical research is besides the point!


Well, Way, let's take the gay adoption argument you made. If gay couples are born gay and strong, nurturing gay relationships are just like M-F couples then the eHarmony matching technology should work for finding gay partners as well as straight partners, right?

What happens to the debate if eHarmony is forced to allow homosexual matching and in a few years they have a 20% success rate for heterosexuals and a 1% success rate for homosexuals?


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> No, it's like suing a pizza shop for not selling me a pizza because they don't like my sexual orientation.


No, they are not offering the product that the gay person wants - a same-sex person (the burger.) They are offering the product they specialize in -opposite sex people (the pizza.) If you don't want the pizza, go to a place that sells burgers. An elegant argument, I know. What can I say, I'm hungry.

Should they be forced to offer a product they don't want to sell? Not will they be forced - I live in CA and I know how retarded my state is when it comes to crap like this - but is it right that they be forced?

I'm still not clear on the damages issue. What's the monetary value of not having a mate chosen for you by an internet dating service?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

patbrady2005 said:


> What's the monetary value of not having a mate chosen for you by an internet dating service?


I'm sure someone can come up with a figure for the cost of the average divorce and cost of living single vs. shared living expenses.

What is it they say, 'divorces are so expensive because they are worth it'?

People clearly use eHarmony because it reaps a tangible as well as intangible benefit. If those benefits can be shown applicable to homosexual relationships as well, then I don't see why they shouldn't have access to it. However, I doubt that's both true and provable/demonstrable. Just my opinion.


----------



## crazyquik (Jun 8, 2005)

They could choose to not do business in california couldn't they?

I think I'll go register the domain name gayharmony.com


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

patbrady2005 said:


> No, they are not offering the product that the gay person wants - a same-sex person (the burger.) They are offering the product they specialize in -opposite sex people (the pizza.) If you don't want the pizza, go to a place that sells burgers. An elegant argument, I know. What can I say, I'm hungry.
> 
> Should they be forced to offer a product they don't want to sell? Not will they be forced - I live in CA and I know how retarded my state is when it comes to crap like this - but is it right that they be forced?


They're offering the opportunity to meet people. Men and women. I think the people that the gay plaintiffs want to meet are also people. Men and women. The service provided would be identical. Using your pizza/burger analogy, they don't have to go out and buy new ingredients, train their workers to make different kinds of food, create new recipes, get griddles or grills to add to the pizza ovens, or anything like that. It is the exact same service, the only question is, to whom are the offering the service?

What if they said that they have religious scruples against providing opportunities for interracial couples. Nothing wrong with them, it's just that we're in the business of introducing white people to white people, black people to black people, Indians to Indians, etc.. Again, you might claim that this is a change, but it is not a change in the character of the service.

You ask, "Is it right that they be forced?" The answer is that they're not being forced. They have made the decision to go into business, and that business is subject to certain types of regulation. For instance, they are required to pay their employees minimum wage, and time and a half for overtime. Is it right that they be forced to do this? They are probably told that, even though they are arranging social introductions for people, they are not allowed to make introductions for people who want to sell sexual services for cash. Is it right that they be forced not to do this? They are told that if they offer this service to white people they must also offer it to black people, Asians, hispanics, and any other racial group. Is it right that they be forced to do this?

Once they make the decision to go into business, they are required to operate the business in conformity with the laws that society has enacted. I don't see why this would be a hard concept to grasp.


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I'm sure someone can come up with a figure for the cost of the average divorce and cost of living single vs. shared living expenses.
> 
> What is it they say, 'divorces are so expensive because they are worth it'?
> 
> People clearly use eHarmony because it reaps a tangible as well as intangible benefit. If those benefits can be shown applicable to homosexual relationships as well, then I don't see why they shouldn't have access to it. However, I doubt that's both true and provable/demonstrable. Just my opinion.


Having access to Eharmony doesn't guarantee that you will not be divorced eventually or that you will be able to find a living mate. So how are you truly out anything if you can't use their services?


----------



## Hombrerana (Dec 17, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> No, it's like suing a pizza shop for not selling me a pizza because they don't like my sexual orientation.


If they are selling Vegan pizzas (certainly not my preference) then buy a vegan pizza and be done with it, but don't demand that they stock sausage and pepperoni - grow up and take your business somewhere else.

What about "live and let live?" It is stuff like this that shows all that "tolerance" talk for the claptrap it really is.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

patbrady2005 said:


> Having access to Eharmony doesn't guarantee that you will not be divorced eventually or that you will be able to find a living mate. So how are you truly out anything if you can't use their services?


You'd do a weighted average based on their success rate. Just like any risk/reward, cost-benefit, or probability question.


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> They're offering the opportunity to meet people. Men and women. I think the people that the gay plaintiffs want to meet are also people. Men and women. The service provided would be identical. Using your pizza/burger analogy, they don't have to go out and buy new ingredients, train their workers to make different kinds of food, create new recipes, get griddles or grills to add to the pizza ovens, or anything like that. It is the exact same service, the only question is, to whom are the offering the service?
> 
> What if they said that they have religious scruples against providing opportunities for interracial couples. Nothing wrong with them, it's just that we're in the business of introducing white people to white people, black people to black people, Indians to Indians, etc.. Again, you might claim that this is a change, but it is not a change in the character of the service.
> 
> ...


I'm going to venture to say that matching personality profiles and setting up relationships between straight people is different than doing so for gay people. Different attitudes, desires, personality types, etc. Different ingredients.

I guess it's my libertarian streak coming out. If a business wants to take the financial risk of offering it's services/products to some and denying them to others, then the risk/reward should be theirs to accept - let the free market decide if they will stay in business or not.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

patbrady2005 said:


> I'm going to venture to say that matching personality profiles and setting up relationships between straight people is different than doing so for gay people. Different attitudes, desires, personality types, etc. Different ingredients.
> 
> I guess it's my libertarian streak coming out. If a business wants to take the financial risk of offering it's services/products to some and denying them to others, then the risk/reward should be theirs to accept - let the free market decide if they will stay in business or not.


But you do have to admit that if they were dumb enough to start a business in California they should have to pay the price of doing business in that State. I don't think a person can legitimately argue it's a free country.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

patbrady2005 said:


> I'm going to venture to say that matching personality profiles and setting up relationships between straight people is different than doing so for gay people. Different attitudes, desires, personality types, etc. Different ingredients.


What would make you think that? I haven't seen any evidence for such a proposition. I would say that the reverse is true: whether you're talking about same-sex or opposite-sex relationships, the great majority of people who are "eligible" to be in the relationship are not compatible. If this company has a system that improves your chances of finding one of the few compatible people, good for them. They can sit on it, or give it to friends for no charge if they want, but if they want to sell it, let them follow the law.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Here's my take on this: Let's say a Muslim man walks into a Jewish bookstore and asks for a copy of the Koran. The store does not carry this item. The man then asks for a copy to be ordered. The store refuses because that is not the type of business they do. Is this discrimination? No, because that is not the type of business the store is involved in. 
Now, if the man asks for an employment application and is refused because he is Muslim, this would be an example of discrimination based upon the man's religious beliefs. Also, if the store refused to sell the items they carry to the man, this would again be an example of discrimination. He is free to buy any item that the store carries, but cannot demand that they carry what he wants to buy. 
Now if E-Harmony refused to hire someone because they were gay, this would be discriminatory. Just because they do not offer a product or service that someone wants does not mean they are breaking the law.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

patbrady2005 said:


> I'm not a lawyer, I don't know how this will turn out, but isn't it like suing a pizza shop for not selling hamburgers?


After 2 pages of comments, your original statement is still spot on, and accurately sums up how absurd this arguement is. Eharmony simply does not cater to gays, similar to how certain gay busineses do not cater to heterosexuals. They are not refusing service to gays as they are free to search for str8 men/women if they like.

I fear for the state of this country in 20-30 years.

MrR


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Here's my take on this: Let's say a Muslim man walks into a Jewish bookstore and asks for a copy of the Koran. The store does not carry this item. The man then asks for a copy to be ordered. The store refuses because that is not the type of business they do. Is this discrimination? No, because that is not the type of business the store is involved in.
> Now, if the man asks for an employment application and is refused because he is Muslim, this would be an example of discrimination based upon the man's religious beliefs. Also, if the store refused to sell the items they carry to the man, this would again be an example of discrimination. He is free to buy any item that the store carries, but cannot demand that they carry what he wants to buy.
> Now if E-Harmony refused to hire someone because they were gay, this would be discriminatory. Just because they do not offer a product or service that someone wants does not mean they are breaking the law.


IMO the bottom line is, these days not many dating services exclude people based on sexual orientation. Just from my own limited experience, many gay couples I know have been together longer and appear to be as happy (and in many cases, much happier) than the opposite-sex couples I know. Regardless of whether a private company is _allowed_ to discriminate (of course they are, by your logic), judging from the number of eHarmony ads recently they appear to be losing more customers than they're gaining because of this particular policy. The free market will decide it one way or the other.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> IMO the bottom line is, these days not many dating services exclude people based on sexual orientation.


https://www.gaylesbianintroduction.com/
https://www.gayromeo.com/
https://www.gayfriendfinder.com/
https://www.gayoptions.com/

None of those places offers to set me, a heterosexual male, up with a heterosexual female. There were lots and lots more than popped up from a google search, but that's all I could stand to look at before I started feeling a bit greasy.

This is clearly just another example of the _'what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine'_ attitude that has prevailed in this country since the 1960's. And as we can see in this very thread, there will always be what Lenin called "useful idiots" out there to argue for the tyranny of the minority because of some profound and deeply ingrained hatred of Western society.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I think e-harmony should cater to gays as well as lesbians.It's a dating site,Isn't it? So they shouldn't discriminate.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

Confuscious say, "man can be gay, but not a lesbian. However, a lesbian is always gay!"


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

patbrady2005 said:


> No, they are not offering the product that the gay person wants - a same-sex person (the burger.) They are offering the product they specialize in -opposite sex people (the pizza.) If you don't want the pizza, go to a place that sells burgers. An elegant argument, I know. What can I say, I'm hungry.
> 
> Should they be forced to offer a product they don't want to sell? Not will they be forced - I live in CA and I know how retarded my state is when it comes to crap like this - but is it right that they be forced?
> 
> I'm still not clear on the damages issue. What's the monetary value of not having a mate chosen for you by an internet dating service?


I think it would be more accurate to say that the product is a relationship, in which case it's pizza and pizza.


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

The company should be able to do whatever it wants. I'm a libertarian as well.


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

Equal opportunity for employment is not one in the same as equal opportunity for services. This is not how the free market works. If there is a market for a gay dating site it will be filled as evidenced by Jolly Rogers post. eHarmony, as with any business, has decided its target market. Why on Earth should they be forced to change it on the whim of some angry gay person with an agenda, especially when there are countless sites that person can use to "meet" people?


----------



## Trenditional (Feb 15, 2006)

At the core, the issue here is discrimination. How ever eharmony wants to package it, they want to pick and chose their customers. The founders/owners apparently don't want to cater to the gay community, probably the same way they don't want to cater to the fetish community (I'd love to see a commercial showing to people in full leather and whips, "Are you looking for that special dominatrix, come to eharmony."). 

Logically, I can understand how they should be "forced" to offer their services to everyone. I think where many people have a problem is looking at this situation without their personal, "You aren't going to tell me what to do" predisposition. Its not that the heterosexuals don't want eharmony to offer services to the gay community, its more the knee-jerk reaction of our own sense of freedom that people say eharmony shouldn't be forced to offer the services.

I don't agree with the pizza/burger notion, because the argument is not that eharmony doesn't offer a particular product. The argument is eharmony isn't offering what is on their menu to everyone who walks through the door. Using the pizza/burger mentality, you could argue that we could sue Ford because they don't sell Chevrolets. Ford sells Fords, but if they're going to sell Fords they had better sell Fords to everyone.

Now that my logic hasn't given it's opinion, my gut says, "Hell no you aren't going to tell me how I run my business." If I was the owner of eharmony, I'd wait until the judge said, "EHarmony, you must offer your services to the gay community." and then I'd say, "Sorry your honor, I just closed my business and I'm taking my money and moving to the Bahamas; if the gay community wants a similar website, they're going to have to do it on their own."

I know, that is the wrong mentality to have. I think the gay community has a legitimate argument about demanding service. It is no different than a black person not being served food in a restaurant in the 50's, just because of the color of their skin.

I will say though, if the gay community wins I really hope the fetish community is right behind them demanding their equal share. You don't know how hard it is to find a 7' tall woman who likes to dress up like Tinkerbell and throw fairy dust all over me.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

eHarmony does not market itself as a dating service. It's a matching service.

Since they have a proprietary technology, I have no problem with it. I think something like match.com which would be more of a meat market would have a hard problem to make a case that they were not discriminating.

I notice no one wants to touch the questions of what if eHarmony guy can prove it doesn't work for gays and what greater implications that may have.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> IMO the bottom line is, these days not many dating services exclude people based on sexual orientation. *Just from my own limited experience, many gay couples I know have been together longer and appear to be as happy (and in many cases, much happier) than the opposite-sex couples I know.* Regardless of whether a private company is _allowed_ to discriminate (of course they are, by your logic), judging from the number of eHarmony ads recently they appear to be losing more customers than they're gaining because of this particular policy. The free market will decide it one way or the other.


I also know gay couples that are very happy in their relationship, but to me why would you care if one business doesn't offer a service you want, if there are others that do? Again, no one is being told that they can't use the dating service, but they may not like what is offered. It would be a different matter if a state passed a law that there could be no gay dating services offered in that state.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> I also know gay couples that are very happy in their relationship, but to me why would you care if one business doesn't offer a service you want, if there are others that do? Again, no one is being told that they can't use the dating service, but they may not like what is offered. It would be a different matter if a state passed a law that there could be no gay dating services offered in that state.


Lax, you've fallen into Frank's and Jack's trap. By calling it a dating service they obscure the real point they don't want to address.

What does providing an example of a happy gay couple have to do with whether the compatibility factors of gay couples are the same as straight couples?

What if eHarmony isn't being targeted because they are an exclusively straight dating service? What if they are being targeted because they claim their compatibility matching doesn't work on gays and that upsets a certain political/idealogical agenda?

eHarmony is not an inconvenience. It's a threat.

As seen by this post - Jack knows that eHarmony dude claims it doesn't work, but he refuses to address that point and just bulldozes right past it.

"What would make you think that? *I haven't seen any evidence for such a proposition. I would say that the reverse is true*: whether you're talking about same-sex or opposite-sex relationships, the great majority of people who are "eligible" to be in the relationship are not compatible. If this company has a system that improves your chances of finding one of the few compatible people, good for them. They can sit on it, or give it to friends for no charge if they want, but if they want to sell it, let them follow the law."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

To all you people that think eHarmony should be forced to offer their services to gays, do you think they should be forced to offer their services to swingers looking for other swingers? S&M? Bondage? After all, a pizza is a pizza you are maintaining.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Trenditional said:


> At the core, the issue here is discrimination. How ever eharmony wants to package it, they want to pick and chose their customers. The founders/owners apparently don't want to cater to the gay community, probably the same way they don't want to cater to the fetish community (I'd love to see a commercial showing to people in full leather and whips, "Are you looking for that special dominatrix, come to eharmony.").
> 
> Logically, I can understand how they should be "forced" to offer their services to everyone. I think where many people have a problem is looking at this situation without their personal, "You aren't going to tell me what to do" predisposition. Its not that the heterosexuals don't want eharmony to offer services to the gay community, its more the knee-jerk reaction of our own sense of freedom that people say eharmony shouldn't be forced to offer the services.
> 
> ...


I disagree. eHarmony is offering their service to anyone, however what they offer may not be what everyone wants. Using my first example again, a Muslim man can't expect a Jewish store to carry the Koran, but he is allowed to buy a kippah if he chooses to.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Lax, you've fallen into Frank's and Jack's trap. By calling it a dating service they obscure the real point they don't want to address.
> 
> What does providing an example of a happy gay couple have to do with whether the compatibility factors of gay couples are the same as straight couples?
> 
> ...


Sorry, I'm not too familiar with eHarmony, and the dating matching differences. I met my wife in college.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> I disagree. eHarmony is offering their service to anyone, however what they offer may not be what everyone wants. Using my first example again, a Muslim man can't expect a Jewish store to carry the Koran, but he is allowed to buy a kippah if he chooses to.


I totally agree! However, this is the same point I have made repeatedly that Frank calls absurd.

On same-sex marriage: no one has refused to let a gay man marry a woman of his choice and conversely straight men aren't allowed to marry other men either. It is not gay-marriage that is illegal, it's same-sex marriage. No one asks or cares if someone is gay.

Unless a gay man has been refused from finding a compatible female life partner there is no discrimination IMHO.

I still think eHarmony will lose, but they shouldn't. However, I think the unintended consequences here might be more amusing.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Laxplayer said:


> Sorry, I'm not too familiar with eHarmony, and the dating matching differences. I met my wife in college.


No problem. I haven't used it either, but this was quoted in originally linked article.

"The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages," it said in a statement.

"Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future. It's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted," eHarmony added.

I also went and read their compatibility factors. Sort of interesting. If I was single I don't know if I would try it because I never dated "looking for a wife" and women that were "looking for a husband" creeped me out.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> eHarmony is not an inconvenience. It's a threat.
> 
> As seen by this post - Jack knows that eHarmony dude claims it doesn't work, but he refuses to address that point and just bulldozes right past it.
> 
> ...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> ksinc said:
> 
> 
> > eHarmony is not an inconvenience. It's a threat.
> ...


LMAO! If a glass is half-full, it is also half-empty.

As I previously stated, they offer a Match Guarantee: (the link may not work they do some dorky session variable linkage)

I'm surprised you can have an opinion without doing any reading/research. I thought I was among the intellectual elite liberal contingent? There is a link to eHarmony in this thread. How can you legitimately claim "I haven't seen" as a defense, when you don't even look? If you view their site for any lenght of time it is plainly obvious eHarmony has a business model based on the successful matching of their proprietary technology that they feel only works for hetero couples and they guarantee it. How can they be forced to offer that to gays, particuarly since eDude is counselor with years of research behind this technology? I mentioned this in my second post in this thread "business perspective" - you bulldozed right over it, and continued to claim it was 'dating service where men and women meet and the service and consequences would be no different to eHarmony to provide to gays'. When you make that kind of assertion then YOU must provide the evidence. It's not enough to say I've seen no evidence to the contrary so the world must bend to my view.

https://help-singles.eharmony.com/c...nBfY3Y9MS4zMSZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**&p_li=&p_topview=1

Question 
How does your match guarantee work?

Answer 
Receiving matches from eHarmony is absolutely free. You may also complete our intake survey and receive your Personality Profile at no charge. You only pay when you are ready to take the next step and communicate with your matches through eHarmony.

Finding the right person for you and getting to know them can take time. Partnering with us for 12 months is the best way to significantly increase your chances of falling in love for all the right reasons. It is also the best value. However, we have created several membership plans to accommodate everyone's needs, these plans are listed below.

12 Month Membership - The eHarmony Annual Match Guarantee
eHarmony guarantees to provide 12-month members a minimum of 12 matches throughout the course of their membership. If we fail to provide you 12 matches we will either refund* your membership fee or provide you with an additional 3 months of service at no cost to you -- at your discretion.

*Annual match guarantee refund will be equal to a pro-rated membership fee based on the number of matches that a member has been provided. For example, if you receive 6 matches during the course of your membership, you will be entitled to a refund equal to 6/12 or 50% of your membership fee.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> What if eHarmony's statement said that their service is based on years of research into the traits and personality patterns of successful white marriages? Would that be okay with you?
> 
> And by the way, how is eHarmony a threat to anything I care about? If you're guessing that I'm in favor of same-sex marriage you'd be wrong.


#1 No and they never would because that's A) legal and B) still just a man and a woman. Nice attempt to change the subject with an outlandish example unrelated to the core issue though.

#2 You've already read my previous posts for the second. If they statistically prove it doesn't work by success rates, then the obvious question is "why?" and how that affects the debate of whether people are born gay or choose to be gay; are gays just like everyone else; are gay relationships acceptable adoptive parents; on and on.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Why is no one that supports eHarmony allow gays and lesbians addressing my question over swingers, bondage, and S&M folks looking for relationships? Pizza is pizza you have told us. I think we should toss polygamists in too.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Sorry Way, pizza isn't pizza. There's deep dish, hand tossed, thin crust, NY style, Chicago style, STL style etc. 
If you want New York style, don't go to a place that serves Chicago deep dish. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

pizza pizza!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Nah, nah. Liberal pizza is liberal pizza. Bitter tasting and not healthy for anyone one :icon_smile_big: 

Still mighty quiet from a certain camp though over my question.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> What if the segment of the population they don't wish to do business with were a racial, ethnic, or religious minority, rather than a sexual minority?


They should be allowed to choose not to do business with them, too.

It's called _freedom of association_, and it's a basic, human right. Simply because this basic, human right is routinely spat upon and ground under the boot of Progressivism doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.



> You ask, "Is it right that they be forced?" The answer is that they're not being forced. They have made the decision to go into business, and that business is subject to certain types of regulation.


Regulation is force. This is so obvious as to not require further explanation.



> they are required to pay their employees minimum wage, and time and a half for overtime. Is it right that they be forced to do this?


No. And if it isn't obvious in the context of legislation interfering with the employment relationship, then this eHarmony example should serve to expose the Progressives' campaign to violate our basic, human right of free association for the barbaric crime that it is.



> Once they make the decision to go into business, they are required to operate the business in conformity with the laws that society has enacted. I don't see why this would be a hard concept to grasp.


It's not hard to grasp. It's called "socialism." Or "fascism," once this disease progresses to its natural conclusion.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Phinn said:


> They should be allowed to choose not to do business with them, too.
> 
> It's called _freedom of association_, and it's a basic, human right. Simply because this basic, human right is routinely spat upon and ground under the boot of Progressivism doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.


They _should_ _not _be allowed to choose not to do business with people based upon gender/race/ethnicity/sexual orientation/religion. They _should_ be allowed to offer products that they may not want. There is a difference here.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> There is a difference here.


No, it is a distinction without a difference.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Ksinc,

Thanks for the additional link. When I went to eharmony.com I couldn't get past the registration screen without registering, which I was not about to do since I'm not looking for anyone. (Found her many years ago.)

I did follow up on the links, and here is the link they provide for the "29 Dimensions"--the "Core Traits" and "Vital Attributes" that they claim are " scientifically proven to predict happier, healthier relationships". 



If you peruse them you will see that none of these traits and attributes have anything to do with whether you are sexually attracted to a member of the opposite sex. If they can demonstrate that there is scientific evidence, published in peer-reviewed journals, that proves that these traits and attributes are valid predictors for opposite sex relationships, but not valid predictors for same sex relationships, maybe they will be able to satisfy the court that their decision to discriminate against people looking for same sex relationships is reasonable, but I very much doubt it.


----------



## MrRogers (Dec 10, 2005)

As several have mentioned and the opposition has repeatedly ignored, Eharmony is not refusing service to everyone. Gays are free to search for and match with hetero men and women just the same as everyone else. Why is this such a difficult concept to wrap your head around?

MrR


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Phinn said:


> No, it is a distinction without a difference.


It really amazes me that in the year 2007, some people still hold these views.

So you would be ok with a business that refused to allow people to shop there based upon the color of their skin or their choice in religious practices?

At the Walgreens near my office, they carry a line of products targeted at African-Americans. If they chose not to carry these products, to me that would not be discrimination. A terrible business decision in St. Louis, but not discriminatory. Now, if they refused to allow a black person to shop there, this would obviously be a case of discrimination. _That_ is the difference IMO. 
eHarmony's choice not to offer matching services for gay persons may be a terrible business decision, but to me is not discriminatory.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> They _should_ _not _be allowed to choose not to do business with people based upon gender/race/ethnicity/sexual orientation/religion. They _should_ be allowed to offer products that they may not want. There is a difference here.


LAX, I have to side with Phinn here. I, like him, realize my position will not be popular and is likely to be misunderstood, but I think businesses, especially closely held ones, should be allowed to employ who they want, pay what they want, and only do business with those they wish too. While I certainly would not like it and would take active steps to put economic pressure on a business, if I walk in and they refuse to serve me because I am white, or if I am with my wife and will not serve mixed race marriages, I feel they have every right to do that. I think a black guy that owns a business should be able to employ only blacks if he wants.

The only type of organization I do not think should be able to descriminate are government organizations. I think their workforce should mirror the general population, as the population's taxes pay for the government. Of course, it does not, minorities usually are far over-represented, so go figure.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

A few weeks ago, my wife and I were with our son at the mall. He was becoming restless, and we decided to let him play in the play area. We sat on the chairs and watched him play with the other children. White children, Hispanic children, Asian children, and Black children laughing and playing happily together. I said to my wife, "Isn't it sad that these little kids are more "mature" than their parents?"


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> A few weeks ago, my wife and I were with our son at the mall. He was becoming restless, and we decided to let him play in the play area. We sat on the chairs and watched him play with the other children. White children, Hispanic children, Asian children, and Black children laughing and playing happily together. I said to my wife, "Isn't it sad that these little kids are more "mature" than their parents?"


LAX, that sounds like a very idyllic scene.

I live "diversity" every day, being not only in a bi-racial marriage, but we also come from extremely different backgrounds where we have found simple words can have extremely different connotations for us. For instance, when we first started chatting, I living in Michigan at the time and her still at home in Hawaii, I told her I spend much of my social time in bars or pubs. This was very true, pub life is strong in Windsor/Essex County (pub life is the exact opposite of "clubbing" btw!). She was rather taken aback. To her, born and raised in Hawaii, a "bar" is a "Korean bar", which is basically a strip joint where the dancers entice the patrons to buy them high priced drinks and bottles of wine. Needless to say, her opinion of me dropped on hearing that I spend social time in "bars" and it took a half hour to sort that out. Now we chuckle about it.

However, back to the point. I still believe that people, even business owners, should be allowed the basic right of free association. To have some idiot force their idea of "diversity" on me, or anyone else, is just wrong IMO.


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

Phinn said:


> They should be allowed to choose not to do business with them, too.
> 
> It's called _freedom of association_, and it's a basic, human right. Simply because this basic, human right is routinely spat upon and ground under the boot of Progressivism doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.


I absolutely agree with you. (I'm not Caucasian BTW) I would be OK if a restaurant refuses to serve me because I'm Asian, I'll just go to another restaurant. The restaurant is missing out (potential profit), but if it chooses to do so, I think they have the right. A lot of people think I'm crazy though.......


----------



## bkdc (Mar 4, 2007)

rip said:


> I think it would be more accurate to say that the product is a relationship, in which case it's pizza and pizza.


So you'd sue a pizzeria that sold pepperoni pizzas but not anchovy pizzas just because you want anchovies?


----------



## patbrady2005 (Oct 4, 2005)

MrRogers said:


> As several have mentioned and the opposition has repeatedly ignored, Eharmony is not refusing service to everyone. Gays are free to search for and match with hetero men and women just the same as everyone else. Why is this such a difficult concept to wrap your head around?
> 
> MrR


Right, thank you!

Pizza and burgers, my friends, pizza and burgers.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Ksinc,
> 
> If you peruse them you will see that none of these traits and attributes have anything to do with whether you are sexually attracted to a member of the opposite sex. If they can demonstrate that there is scientific evidence, published in peer-reviewed journals, that proves that these traits and attributes are valid predictors for opposite sex relationships, but not valid predictors for same sex relationships, maybe they will be able to satisfy the court that their decision to discriminate against people looking for same sex relationships is reasonable, but I very much doubt it.


Thanks. I appreciate your answer and taking the time to try to investigate.

I agree none of them ask about sexual attraction to the opposite or same sex - that seems to speak in their defense that it is about relationship compatibility among heteros IMHO.

However, I had asked WHAT IF they are forced to allow gays, and then the success rate for gays is say 1% where the success rate for heteros is say 20% and they offer a guarantee so they are going to track and have reliable statistics.

Then what?

And; from whom does eHarmony recover from when they go bankrupt refunding fees to homosexual couples after being forced when their own position from the start was that it was not reliable for such couples?


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Why is no one that supports eHarmony allow gays and lesbians addressing my question over swingers, bondage, and S&M folks looking for relationships? Pizza is pizza you have told us. I think we should toss polygamists in too.


LMAO.


----------



## jbmcb (Sep 7, 2005)

Holy cow do I not care about this. Does this guy think that suing an online personality matching service will somehow improve homosexual's standing in society, or something? If eHarmony isn't filling a need, why doesn't he start his own service catering to homosexuals, or everybody, for that mater? If the need is that great, he'll make a boatload!

Full disclosure: I could care less how people associate with each other, or to whom businesses cater, or what color people are, or how they take their tea, or which tattoos they wear, or what car they drive. If everyone could manage to leave each other alone we'd all be so much happier.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> So you would be ok with a business that refused to allow people to shop there based upon the color of their skin or their choice in religious practices?


No, I wouldn't. But using *ARMED MEN* to *FORCE* that business to deal with someone -- anyone -- is patently aggressive.

Would you go into such a store and point a shotgun in the face of the owners whose business practices you don't like, and tell them that if they don't sell their products to the people you want them to, you will imprison them, and if they resist, they might get shot?

If not, why is this acceptable if you appoint an agent to do it for you?

Just think of the various _peaceful_ ways you could act on your feelings:
- refuse to buy from people whose business practices you disapprove of;
- criticize them vigorously;
- start your own business, one that takes advantage of their economically irrational practice of rejecting a pool of willing customers. The more egregious the discrimination, the larger your opportunity.

Or you could be a thug, or a cheerleader for thugs.

It used to amaze me that in 2007, so many people choose to be thugs, but I'm not amazed much any more.

I was watching my 3 year-old play with a group of kids in a playground the other day. One of the older boys brought some toy swords. They all fought imaginary monster-spiders. Not one of them used the sword to impose a tax on the productivity of any of the other kids. None of the kids was forced at the point of the (plastic) sword into playing a certain way. Each was allowed to play peacefully, or not play, as each saw fit.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> They _should_ _not _be allowed to choose not to do business with people based upon gender/race/ethnicity/sexual orientation/religion.


18 states now include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination laws, one prohibits it outright in their constitution. But short of constitutional amendments these laws don't apply to private businesses, or even to some public policies (e.g. many of the 18 states which include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination laws also have passed "defense of marriage" constitutional amendments).

So while in 49 states eHarmony is allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation, at this point it makes little or no business sense to do so. As mentioned earlier, judging from the numbers of recent ads we're seeing, the company is losing more customers than they're gaining by this exclusion policy. Mr. Warren will either go out of business eventually, or be forced kicking and screaming into the 21st Century.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> 18 states now include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination laws, one prohibits it outright in their constitution. But short of constitutional amendments these laws don't apply to private businesses, or even to some public policies (e.g. many of the 18 states which include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination laws also have passed "defense of marriage" constitutional amendments).
> 
> So while in 49 states eHarmony is allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation, at this point it makes little or no business sense to do so. As mentioned earlier, judging from the numbers of recent ads we're seeing, the company is losing more customers than they're gaining by this exclusion policy. Mr. Warren will either go out of business eventually, or be forced kicking and screaming into the 21st Century.


So then Frank, you would agree that eHarmony should be forced to help swingers, S&M, bondage people find relationships and if they do not have, say a swingers match up spot, they should be litigated into doing so?


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Thanks. I appreciate your answer and taking the time to try to investigate.
> 
> I agree none of them ask about sexual attraction to the opposite or same sex - that seems to speak in their defense that it is about relationship compatibility among heteros IMHO.
> 
> ...


It's not just that the traits don't ask about sexual attraction to the opposite or same sex, it's that every one of the traits that they ask about is equally applicable to gay or straight people. Just take one example:

" How do you relate to other people? Do you crave company, or prefer to be alone? Are you more comfortable leading, or do you prefer to go along with the group? Basic feelings such as these comprise an important aspect of who you are, and who you will be most compatible with. The elements of the 29 Dimensions which define your Social Style are: . . ."

All of these questions apply to all of us, regardless of sexual orientation.

Also, remember that they aren't promising you're going to meet the love of your life, or that there will be a lifelong match. The standard of success that they set for themselves is very low. They're basically promising an average of one "match" (another term I couldn't find defined, but that seems to refer to someone who meets some set of criteria that they think establishes a chance at compatibility) per month if you sign up for a contract of at least three months. They're not promising that you will marry, fall in love with, or even like the "matches" they set you up with. This seems like a test that is very hard for them to fail, regardless of sexual orientation.

But taking your hypothetical question at face value, if they offer their services on an equal basis to all comers, then the guarantee would also apply to all comers. That means that they would have to promise the same rate of "matches" (which I think would be better defined as referrals) to homosexual customers as to heterosexual customers. Given that I don't believe that gay customers are likely to be a large part of their customer base (for instance, I don't believe the claims that 10% of the population, or anything like that, are homosexual), I can't imagine that paying refunds to dissatisfied customers will have a significant financial impact on them.

If it did, would they be justified in offering their services to gay customers only on different terms from the terms offered to straight customers? Such as, for example, offering fewer matches, or a lesser guarantee? I don't know the answer to that, but it is clear that in that case they will be explicitly offering a lesser service to a protected class of people based on their membership in that class, so they would have the burden of justifying it.

I don't think it will be an easy burden for them to meet. I don't know anything about California antidiscrimination law, but simply showing an increased cost is ordinarily not a legal defense to a claim of intentional discrimination.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Phinn said:


> No, I wouldn't. But using *ARMED MEN* to *FORCE* that business to deal with someone -- anyone -- is patently aggressive.
> 
> Would you go into such a store and point a shotgun in the face of the owners whose business practices you don't like, and tell them that if they don't sell their products to the people you want them to, you will imprison them, and if they resist, they might get shot?
> 
> ...


I am not a police officer, so no, I would not be the one enforcing the laws of our country. If I were a cop, yes, I would have no problem enforcing the law. All I am saying is that a business should not be allowed to say that they will not serve someone based upon their race etc. If they want to sell products that are of no interest to certain groups and exclude people that way, fine. But, obviously if someone walks into a business and wants to buy something, they should be allowed to.
Also, the police would not have their weapons drawn unless they were in a dangerous situation. I don't know where you live, but I have never seen the police barge into a business and demand that the owner comply with their demands.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> LAX, I have to side with Phinn here. I, like him, realize my position will not be popular and is likely to be misunderstood, but I think businesses, especially closely held ones, *should be allowed to employ who they want*, pay what they want, and only do business with those they wish too.


Disclaimer: Before I'm accused of racism, I want to state that my following statements are merely an exercise in theory.

Isn't employment discrimination a self-punishing crime? If a white employer is presented with two candidates with different levels of skills, a well educated black candidate and an uneducated white candidate, and they choose to hire the white candidate, will their business not likely suffer because they hired the person with the fewest skills? It seems to me that this is the case and that smart business people (who hire the most qualified candidates) will be better off, and ignorant business people (who hire candidates of their preferred race without regard to skill) will be punished.

Also, don't discrimination laws imply some sort of "right" to a job provided by someone else? That irritates the libertarian side of my personality.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Kav's gay dating service, 100% success rate. #1 follow the map of Silverlake in L.A. county to one of several gay Bars. #2 insert quarter in music box and select TAKE A WALK ON THE WILDSIDE by Lou Reed. #3 smile. That will be $20, considerably cheaper than E harmony.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Kav said:


> Kav's gay dating service, 100% success rate. #1 follow the map of Silverlake in L.A. county to one of several gay Bars. #2 insert quarter in music box and select TAKE A WALK ON THE WILDSIDE by Lou Reed. #3 smile. That will be $20, considerably cheaper than E harmony.


You would dare limit a person's choice to Lou Reed? That's clear prejudice!


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I am not a police officer, so no, I would not be the one enforcing the laws of our country. If I were a cop, yes, I would have no problem enforcing the law.


You think that your hands are clean just because you hire someone to do your dirty work for you? How does that make you any different from the mob boss who orders a hit, but has an underling break the actual bones?



> I don't know where you live, but I have never seen the police barge into a business and demand that the owner comply with their demands.


That's exactly what the government does when it announces that thou shalt do business as they decree. Only they've streamlined the process. Usually they start by making you self-report your crimes. And then they send in inspectors to spot-check your compliance. If you fail to do so, they haul you before their tribunals. Then the decree of the tribunal is implemented by the men with the guns.

You think that you are somehow excused from any moral culpability for the end result because you do not do any of this personally. Because the vanguard of the threats and bullying is done by men with clipboards.

I don't know where I live, either. I thought it was the USA, but I don't recognize it.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So then Frank, you would agree that eHarmony should be forced to help swingers, S&M, bondage people find relationships and if they do not have, say a swingers match up spot, they should be litigated into doing so?


No, I'm saying I believe the free market will eventually force eHarmony to either go out of business, or include same-sex couples -- regardless of litigation.

This isn't the first time this issue has been raised. E.g. Sandals Resorts had a strict no-same-sex-couples policy for years, and eventually were "forced" to change their policy -- not by litigation but simply because it was a silly, pointless, obsolete policy that made no business sense. "Defense of marriage" laws are headed down that same road for slightly different reasons.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> No, I'm saying I believe the free market will eventually force eHarmony to either go out of business, or include same-sex couples -- regardless of litigation.
> 
> This isn't the first time this issue has been raised. E.g. Sandals Resorts had a strict no-same-sex-couples policy for years, and eventually were "forced" to change their policy -- not by litigation but simply because it was a silly, pointless, obsolete policy that made no business sense. "Defense of marriage" laws are headed down that same road for slightly different reasons.


So then, you are fine with allowing eHarmony's current policy of not allowing gays to use their service continue?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So then, you are fine with allowing eHarmony's current policy of not allowing gays to use their service continue?


Yes. I've said as much three times already.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Yes. I've said as much three times already.


Fantastic! Not only a direct answer, but IMO the correct one! Good job Frank, I am never going to not acknowledge when we are in agreement.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

O.K. I'll add Barbra Steisand and Cher. Sorry, but E Harmony is a pathetic update of mail order brides. If gays want to be EQUALLY DUMB under the law they should use this 'service.' Lets see here; drop car off at dealer for 50,000 mile servicing, buy wine, Brie and sourdough bread at Trader Joes, find a soulmate on E Harmony by week's end so I get the tax break next year, drop AEs at cobblers for new heels, post resume on Craig's List, replace blue disinfectant bar in toilet...... All of my friends and acquaintances; gay,straight and bent meet people the old fashioned way. We get out and ---DO THE HUSTLE !!!!- da, da ,da ----da da-da da da .


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

The free marketplace should decide this. Rabblerousers using the court system to harass people should not.

It's not like anyone is banning people from offering this service to gay people.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> ......some profound and deeply ingrained hatred of Western society.


hmmm...I didn't know there was something vaguely "Eastern" about homosexuality or is it that homosexuals are anti-Western?

Anyway....the posted links seem to address the issue of equal opportunity. My take on the issue is that both eHarmony and the above links have done market research to further narrowcast their targeted audience. I hope the suit is tossed.

-happy hetero


----------



## A Questionable Gentleman (Jun 16, 2006)

While the litigation is pending, can we intervene to compel eHarmony to stop those awful TV ads? I'm not a pugilistic person by nature, but there's something about Dr. Neil Clark Warren in his muted windowpane check suits with muted shirts and ties uttering his soothingly-voiced sales pitch on happiness that makes me want to punch him.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Phinn said:


> You think that your hands are clean just because you hire someone to do your dirty work for you? How does that make you any different from the mob boss who orders a hit, but has an underling break the actual bones?
> 
> That's exactly what the government does when it announces that thou shalt do business as they decree. Only they've streamlined the process. Usually they start by making you self-report your crimes. And then they send in inspectors to spot-check your compliance. If you fail to do so, they haul you before their tribunals. Then the decree of the tribunal is implemented by the men with the guns.
> 
> ...


Well, the difference between the police and the mob boss example is that the police are enforcing laws. The mob boss is ordering that a law be broken. And as I stated before, if I were a police officer, I would have no problem enforcing this law just as I have no problem allowing those that are police officers enforce the law.

It really doesn't matter anyway. It's the law, so I guess you will just have to be bitter about it, and wait for the jack-booted police thugs to come with their guns and drag you away.

It's interesting to me that both the left and right extremist types always seem to agree that the police are thugs and the government is out to get them.


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Phinn said:


> They should be allowed to choose not to do business with them, too.
> 
> It's called _freedom of association_, and it's a basic, human right. Simply because this basic, human right is routinely spat upon and ground under the boot of Progressivism doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.
> 
> ...


I take it you are a total anarchist. There should be no regulation of any sort over anything. A food service business, for example, should be allowed to use any sort of additives in their food regardless of health risks, letting the free market decide not to do business with them after a sufficient number of people have become seriously ill or died. Is that your postion about regulation?


----------



## rip (Jul 13, 2005)

Kav said:


> O.K. I'll add Barbra Steisand and Cher. Sorry, but E Harmony is a pathetic update of mail order brides. If gays want to be EQUALLY DUMB under the law they should use this 'service.' Lets see here; drop car off at dealer for 50,000 mile servicing, buy wine, Brie and sourdough bread at Trader Joes, find a soulmate on E Harmony by week's end so I get the tax break next year, drop AEs at cobblers for new heels, post resume on Craig's List, replace blue disinfectant bar in toilet...... All of my friends and acquaintances; gay,straight and bent meet people the old fashioned way. We get out and ---DO THE HUSTLE !!!!- da, da ,da ----da da-da da da .


Someone once wisely observed that their support for gay marriage was based on equal suffering for all.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

A Questionable Gentleman said:


> While the litigation is pending, can we intervene to compel eHarmony to stop those awful TV ads? I'm not a pugilistic person by nature, but there's something about Dr. Neil Clark Warren in his muted windowpane check suits with muted shirts and ties uttering his soothingly-voiced sales pitch on happiness that makes me want to punch him.


Good point. Of course, if we deleted every TV commercial that gives one of us the urge to punch somebody, what would we have left?


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

tabasco said:


> hmmm...I didn't know there was something vaguely "Eastern" about homosexuality or is it that homosexuals are anti-Western?


Homosexuality _has_ largely been taboo in Western society, outside the bounds of some specific cultures (e.g. the ancient Greeks) or specific subcultures.

Anyway, what I was driving at was that most of the people militantly agitating for the tyranny of the minority (whether that minority be defined by racial groups, gender, or sexual orientation) are in fact less concerned with fairness or the rights of those specific minorities than they are with smashing The System and sticking it to The Man.

You'll note how our resident graduates of the Frankfurt School conveniently ignored me when I pointed out that there are already plenty of companies providing online dating service exclusively to homosexuals. This doesn't matter, you see, since their agenda is not so much about providing people with access to things from which they are deprived, but is rather about bringing down the patriarchy/fundamentalists/******/et al.


----------



## Untilted (Mar 30, 2006)

rip said:


> I take it you are a total anarchist. There should be no regulation of any sort over anything. A food service business, for example, should be allowed to use any sort of additives in their food regardless of health risks, letting the free market decide not to do business with them after a sufficient number of people have become seriously ill or died. Is that your postion about regulation?


I don't know if he is an anarchist, but my step-father has always considered me as an anarchist. You can tell easily by the super narrow lapels on the sacks I wear.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Jolly Roger said:


> You'll note how our resident graduates of the Frankfurt School conveniently ignored me when I pointed out that there are already plenty of companies providing online dating service exclusively to homosexuals. This doesn't matter, you see, since their agenda is not so much about providing people with access to things from which they are deprived, but is rather about bringing down the patriarchy/fundamentalists/******/et al.


Exactly. Why would anyone fight so hard to go where they aren't wanted anyway? It's not like eHarmony is the 'promised land'.

Live and let die.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

rip said:


> I take it you are a total anarchist. There should be no regulation of any sort over anything. A food service business, for example, should be allowed to use any sort of additives in their food regardless of health risks, letting the free market decide not to do business with them after a sufficient number of people have become seriously ill or died. Is that your postion about regulation?


That is what I was thinking. And anyone outside of say Sorel, Proudhon and Sid Vicious would agree that anarchism would be a terrible idea.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I would just like to point out the difference between regulating the safe content and handling of food and forcing people to do business with people they do not wish to. 

Apples, please meet Oranges.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> Homosexuality _has_ largely been taboo in Western society, outside the bounds of some specific cultures (e.g. the ancient Greeks) or specific subcultures.
> 
> Anyway, what I was driving at was that most of the people militantly agitating for the tyranny of the minority (whether that minority be defined by racial groups, gender, or sexual orientation) are in fact less concerned with fairness or the rights of those specific minorities than they are with smashing The System and sticking it to The Man.
> 
> You'll note how our resident graduates of the Frankfurt School conveniently ignored me when I pointed out that there are already plenty of companies providing online dating service exclusively to homosexuals. This doesn't matter, you see, since their agenda is not so much about providing people with access to things from which they are deprived, but is rather about bringing down the patriarchy/fundamentalists/******/et al.


Good grief. Agendas. System smashing. Bringing down ******. The world must seem like one big liberal attack to/on you. Don't you ever get tired of living in a tiny box?

Crack your mind open just a bit and research _what has actually happened_ in any state or country which has recognized same-sex relationships to one degree or another, ranging from domestic partnerships to civil unions to marriage. Your grand gay-agenda-conspiracy-theory has been disproven in every case. Marriage and divorce rates have been unchanged. Heteros are still humping, fundies are still thumping, ****** hasn't been brought down, and the Lord Jehovah hasn't appeared from the skies to smite anyone.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Good grief. Agendas. System smashing. Bringing down ******.
> 
> The world must seem like one big liberal attack to/on you.


Nope. I just recognize cultural marxism for what it is, and it is _not_ in any way, shape, or form an intellectually honest movement toward fairness for all.



> Don't you ever get tired of living in a tiny box?


Don't you ever get tired of setting up strawmen instead of offering anything even resembling a factual argument related to real-world occurrences?



> Crack your mind open just a bit and research _what has actually happened_ in any state or country which has recognized same-sex relationships to one degree or another, ranging from domestic partnerships to civil unions to marriage. Your grand gay-agenda-conspiracy-theory has been disproven in every case. Marriage and divorce rates have been unchanged. Heteros are still humping, fundies are still thumping, ****** hasn't been brought down, and the Lord Jehovah hasn't appeared from the skies to smite anyone.


I suppose you're talking about all those European 'social democracies' where the native birthrates are so low that the elites are forced to import a new impoverished underclass from North Africa just so they have someone to exploit? Yeah, that's working out really well for them, genius.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> Nope. I just recognize cultural marxism for what it is, and it is _not_ in any way, shape, or form an intellectually honest movement toward fairness for all.


Karl Marx was a gay advocate? Who knew?



Jolly Roger said:


> I suppose you're talking about all those European 'social democracies' where the native birthrates are so low that the elites are forced to import a new impoverished underclass from North Africa just so they have someone to exploit? Yeah, that's working out really well for them, genius.


You're one of the biggest jumbles of right-wing delusion I've ever come across. Native birth rates in Europe and elsewhere have everything to do with female fertility rates, increased immigration and other factors, and absolutely zilch to do with recognition of same-sex partnerships. Denmark is possibly the best example to use, since they're been recognizing same-sex marriages since 1989:
https://www.um.dk/Publikationer/UM/English/Denmark/kap1/1-7.asp


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Well, the difference between the police and the mob boss example is that the police are enforcing laws. The mob boss is ordering that a law be broken.


Have you so deified the government that you believe that legislators are divine? That its agents, the police, perform a sacrament every time they enforce the legislative will? Have you so totally given yourself over to official decree that you have lost the ability to judge right from wrong for yourself?



> I take it you are a total anarchist.


Yes.



> There should be no regulation of any sort over anything. A food service business, for example, should be allowed to use any sort of additives in their food regardless of health risks, letting the free market decide not to do business with them after a sufficient number of people have become seriously ill or died. Is that your postion about regulation?


There is not one single thing worth doing that the state does that a free market in a voluntary society would not do better.



> anyone outside of say Sorel, Proudhon and Sid Vicious would agree that anarchism would be a terrible idea.


You should get out more. Read things.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Have you so deified the government that you believe that legislators are divine? That its agents, the police, perform a sacrament every time they enforce the legislative will? Have you so totally given yourself over to official decree that you have lost the ability to judge right from wrong for yourself?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> ...


_I am an antichrist! I am an anarchist! Don't know what I want, but I know how to get it. I wanna destroy the passerby!_
_'cause I wanna be Anarchy!_

Ludwig von Mises Institute. Yeah, I know who they are. They support the Confederate States of America right?

_There is not one single thing worth doing that the state does that a free market in a voluntary society would not do better._ Where is the proof to support this statement?

In a previous post you stated that you wonder what has happened to the USA. Enlighten me, when did the USA have a anarchist system?


----------



## jchennav (Mar 2, 2007)

I thought eHarmony was intended for people who are looking for marriage-minded people, as opposed to services that offer casual sex. Since same-sex marriage is still not recognized (and is actually against the law) in most states, there isn't much of a point for gays and lesbians to use eHarmony.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

jchennav said:


> I thought eHarmony was intended for people who are looking for marriage-minded people, as opposed to services that offer casual sex. Since same-sex marriage is still not recognized (and is actually against the law) in most states, there isn't much of a point for gays and lesbians to use eHarmony.


Same-sex marriage is not against the law in any state. What's currently denied to same-sex couples is state recognition of their marriages.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Karl Marx was a gay advocate? Who knew?


Again, another straw man from you... How about addressing what I actually say instead of what you want other people to think I said?

In any event, it is entirely true that political marxism from its earliest incarnation has been concerned with "sexual liberation" and the breakdown of the traditional family unit. Engels himself argued that monogamous male/female marital relationships are an exploitative, oppressive product of a class-based society. Marx's daughter Eleanor argued vigorously for the rights of homosexuals. One of the first acts of the October Revolutionaries in Soviet Russia was to repeal all laws allowing for discrimination toward homosexuals. This trend in thought has continued through the modern day and does indeed manifest itself in the thought of the school of social criticism appropriately called 'cultural marxism'. 


> You're one of the biggest jumbles of right-wing delusion I've ever come across.


You're hardly the most lucid of individuals yourself.



> Native birth rates in Europe and elsewhere have everything to do with female fertility rates, increased immigration and other factors, and absolutely zilch to do with recognition of same-sex partnerships. Denmark is possibly the best example to use, since they're been recognizing same-sex marriages since 1989:
> https://www.um.dk/Publikationer/UM/English/Denmark/kap1/1-7.asp


Ah, yes. So here we can clearly see that the decline in native birthrates in a European social democracy is directly attributable to policies largely promoted by the political left, to include the movement of women into the workplace and out of the home.

The immigration issue you allude to here, a product of the open borders movement and promotion of mass immigration, is likewise largely a brainchild of the political left (though here in our own country we see that the neoconservative movement have adopted it as well, though their status as members of the political right is questionable ).

It is inarguable that the promotion of homosexual 'liberation' is likewise part and parcel of this leftist agenda. We can take into evidence the fact that when I question its motives, you describe me as a jumble "of right-wing delusion"; thus, you yourself advance my argument that advocating homosexual unions is a position associated with the political left.

Thanks for playing, but you failed miserably at making a point.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> Ah, yes. So here we can clearly see that the decline in native birthrates in a European social democracy is directly attributable to policies largely promoted by the political left, to include the movement of women into the workplace and out of the home.


As I said, the world seems like one big leftist threat to some people. Blame gay people, blame working women, blame the political left etc. 
Personally I could never live in that tiny a box.

The irony is, right-wingers who complain loudest about working women are generally the same people who, out of the other side of their mouth, advocate things like supply-side economics/politics, globalization etc, things which are in fact responsible for decimating the traditional American way of life and making it necessary for most women to work in the first place.

If you're looking for someone or something to blame, your first stop is a mirror, not the political left.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The irony is, right-wingers who complain loudest about working women are generally the same people who, out of the other side of their mouth, advocate things like supply-side economics/politics, globalization etc, things which are in fact responsible for decimating the traditional American way of life....


So Frank, you are saying if we just closed our borders to trade, high wages for menial jobs, like autoworkers, would again flourish, US consumers would be happy to overpay for underbuilt products, and it would be the 1950s again?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So Frank, you are saying if we just closed our borders to trade, high wages for menial jobs, like autoworkers, would again flourish, US consumers would be happy to overpay for underbuilt products, and it would be the 1950s again?


Not at this point IMO. Nixon opened the Asian gate, and Reagan enshrined it in our corporate tax code where it's been sitting untouched for the last 20 years.

Game over. Traditional American way of life over.

As Hillary has noted, in 1965 the average corporate chief executive earned 24 times as much as the average worker. By 2005 it was 262 times as much. Any attempts to reverse this trend are met with screams of socialism and Marxism from the likes of you and Jolly.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Not at this point IMO. Nixon opened the Asian gate, and Reagan enshrined it in our corporate tax code where it's been sitting untouched for the last 30 years.
> 
> Game over. Traditional American way of life over.
> 
> As Hillary has noted, in 1965 the average corporate chief executive earned 24 times as much as the average worker. By 2005 it was 262 times as much. Any attempts to reverse this trend are met with screams of socialism and Marxism from the likes of you and Jolly.


So then you are saying that if the US had had closed borders for trade from 1965 through the present, we would still have this "Traditional American way of life"?


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> As I said, the world seems like one big leftist threat to some people.


No, the world seems like the world. There is both beauty and ugliness in it. There is both succor and danger. In it, too, there are some people who adopt political philosophies we tend to describe as clustering on the political "left".

Is this necessarily a "conspiracy", as you have suggested I believe? Of course not. Are many of the fruits of these associated ideologies dangerous or threatening? Sure. Are those who subscribe to these ideologies inherently evil or malevolent? Of course not, but they are fundamentally misguided, and it is often the well-intentioned fool who does the most harm.

By the same token, there are a number of ideologies which cluster toward the political "right" which are equally misguided and dangerous.



> Blame gay people, blame working women, blame the political left etc.


Please demonstrate where I _blamed_ gay people for anything. While you're at it, please demonstrate where I _blamed_ "working women" for anything; all I did was point out that the official Danish government document you linked to stated a causal relationship between declining native birth rates and the increasing prevalence of women in the workplace.



> Personally I could never live in that tiny a box.


Talk about a "tiny box", you're the one who tries to pigeonhole anyone who disagrees with you as a "right-winger".



> The irony is, right-wingers who complain loudest about working women are generally the same people who, out of the other side of their mouth, advocate things like supply-side economics/politics, globalization etc, things which are in fact responsible for decimating the traditional American way of life and making it necessary for most women to work in the first place.
> 
> If you're looking for someone or something to blame, your first stop is a mirror, not the political left.


If you can show a definite causal relationship between supply-side economics and the movement of women into the workforce, I'd like to see it. In any event, here again you ascribe beliefs to me which I do not hold. I support neither governmental incentives for/interference in business nor globalization, so your inane quip you mistook for the thrust of a rapier wit missed its mark by a yard.


----------



## jpeirpont (Mar 16, 2004)

hopkins_student said:


> Disclaimer: Before I'm accused of racism, I want to state that my following statements are merely an exercise in theory.
> 
> Isn't employment discrimination a self-punishing crime? If a white employer is presented with two candidates with different levels of skills, a well educated black candidate and an uneducated white candidate, and they choose to hire the white candidate, will their business not likely suffer because they hired the person with the fewest skills? It seems to me that this is the case and that smart business people (who hire the most qualified candidates) will be better off, and ignorant business people (who hire candidates of their preferred race without regard to skill) will be punished.
> 
> Also, don't discrimination laws imply some sort of "right" to a job provided by someone else? That irritates the libertarian side of my personality.


I think it depends on the job and the canidate. Some jobs require less pre existing skills than others, differences in qualifications in some case are probaly slim. I think the issue is when it becomes common practice and one can't feed their family because they can't find a job though qualified.v The business owner might suffer through lower productivity, but the group being discriminated agaist would suffer far more.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

eagle2250 said:


> Confuscious say, "man can be gay, but not a lesbian. However, a lesbian is always gay!"


There's always gaydar.com so that's a site suited for gay people.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

*this all seems so familiar*

"businesses should be able to serve who they wish"
"businesses should be able to hire who they choose"
"governments do nothing better than no-governments"

I get the image of Lester Maddox with a baseball bat or a pick handle...what was it he brandished against having to serve blacks ?
And of blacks sitting at the lunch counter getting pounded on because they sat in the white section.
And of the ICC and the Freedom Riders
And of the Suffragettes 
And of the ....get the picture ?

I think America's been there, done that, had the discussion and fought the battles, moved and evolved.

And we ain't done yet.

I'm a market capitalist, but markets don't offer safety or justice to the participants, they seem to offer opportunity pretty well. But if I'm poor, female, a child, and in poverty, things are looking bleak in my "opportunity portfolio".

-WA$P


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

https://www.gayharmony.org/

coming Soon!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I say we all pitch in and sign Frank up for the 29 areas of compatibility and see what pops out?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I say we all pitch in and sign Frank up for the 29 areas of compatibility and see what pops out?


LOL...I'm in.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So then you are saying that if the US had had closed borders for trade from 1965 through the present, we would still have this "Traditional American way of life"?


Not closed borders for trade, just fair ones. The U.S. is the only industrialized country on Earth that rewards its corporations for exporting domestic jobs.

Nixon opened the doors to China knowing full well the deck was stacked. E.g. What's a yuan worth? It's worth what the Chinese government says it's worth. What's the cost of doing business in Asia? Oh now I remember, Asian corporations don't bother with "legacy costs" such as retirement benefits, pensions, paid leave and 1000 other business costs the rest of the world has to deal with. We don't stand any kind of chance under the status quo.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> Ludwig von Mises Institute. Yeah, I know who they are. They support the Confederate States of America right?


You clearly do _*not *_know who they are, since you are so patently, irretrievably wrong.

Mises and Rothbard showed how, as a matter of universal economic truth, decentralization of government power is essential to the preservation of economic liberty, that decentralization was a key feature of the Revolution and even the early, Constitutional United States, that Lincoln and the Republicans inherited the Hamiltonian-Clay agenda of promoting a ever-stronger national, centralized government, and that this (predictably) led to the steady decline of economic liberty, and ultimately the government's disregard for its own founding charter.

To that end, they demonstrated that the legal right to secession was the one feature of American government that kept it from becoming the liberty-destroying behemoth that it became after 1865. Once the right of secession was squelched by invasion and one of the bloodiest wars in human history, centralization of power increased unabated, the effects of which we see to this day.

Please read more carefully. You stand a chance of making smarter comments if you do.



> There is not one single thing worth doing that the state does that a free market in a voluntary society would not do better. Where is the proof to support this statement?


Where is your proof to the contrary? In the absence of evidence, I'd settle for a logical argument.



> In a previous post you stated that you wonder what has happened to the USA. Enlighten me, when did the USA have a anarchist system?


It was once better than it is today. It had arguably its greatest degree of economic freedom from around 1845-60, which you might recognize as one of the greatest periods of economic expansion in the history of the world.

You see, the world isn't black and white, but many, many shades of gray. If you ever manage to gain any emotional maturity, you might understand this.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Not closed borders for trade, just fair ones. The U.S. is the only industrialized country on Earth that rewards its corporations for exporting domestic jobs.


Wow, I am sort of surprised you would make that statement again after I hounded you through several pages to verify that assertion.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Nixon opened the doors to China knowing full well the deck was stacked. E.g. What's a yuan worth? It's worth what the Chinese government says it's worth.


Ah Frank, ya make me laugh. Care to guess which country was the first one to use fiat currency?


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Phinn said:


> It was once better than it is today. It had arguably its greatest degree of economic freedom from around 1845-60, which you might recognize as one of the greatest periods of economic expansion in the history of the world.


was you an indian, you might have a different perspective on that "expansion"

- expansive benficiary


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Ah Frank, ya make me laugh. Care to guess which country was the first one to use fiat currency?


Not sure what that has to do with the current issue:

https://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/20/news/trade.php


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

Phinn said:


> Where is your proof to the contrary? In the absence of evidence, I'd settle for a logical argument.


For anarchy to work, you would need cooperation from people. People kill their own family members, you really think we can all get along well enough without any government to enforce the laws? So sure, anarchy sounds nice in theory, but it will never work in the real world. There's just no way that the absence of the state will suddenly make everyone get along. 
I believe it was Hobbes that said that the only reason people cooperate now is because the government has the legal means to punish those that break the law. There can be no social cooperation without the law.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Not sure what that has to do with the current issue:
> 
> https://www.iht.com/articles/2007/05/20/news/trade.php


But of course! I should have known you were referring to this article!

However Frank, you obviously failed to grasp the concept I was alluding to. I think that just about the last person I am going to try and discuss FX markets with here has to be you or Howard. It is too close to call.

So Frank, now we have the Chinese to blame for tax hikes to compensate for AMT reform. I have to say, you really have that whole, "Throw enough shyte at the wall and some is bound to stick" thing going.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> But of course! I should have known you were referring to this article!


It illustrates my point.



Wayfarer said:


> However Frank, you obviously failed to grasp the concept I was alluding to. I think that just about the last person I am going to try and discuss FX markets with here has to be you or Howard. It is too close to call.


An actual response to the point would have been preferable. As usual.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> An actual response to the point would have been preferable. As usual.


LOL, Mr. Ducks-giving-proof-for-his-assertions-for-10-pages? Life is too precious tonight.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

I was thinking about the topic that was originally posted and the pizza vs. burger analogy, and I decided that there have to be a few members on the liberal side of things who support the plaintiff's position in this case and also support legalized prostitution. So for those of you that support both of those positions, if prostitution were to be made legal, would female prostitutes have the right to turn down female customers? I mean, they're selling pizza (sexual favors) to men so it would seem they would also be required to sell pizza (sexual favors) to women.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> I was thinking about the topic that was originally posted and the pizza vs. burger analogy, and I decided that there have to be a few members on the liberal side of things who support the plaintiff's position in this case and also support legalized prostitution. So for those of you that support both of those positions, if prostitution were to be made legal, would female prostitutes have the right to turn down female customers? I mean, they're selling pizza (sexual favors) to men so it would seem they would also be required to sell pizza (sexual favors) to women.


I'm not aware of any prostitution laws in the U.S. which specifically prohibit same-sex pairings. If such a law does exist it's awfully silly and probably unconstitutional.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> I'm not aware of any prostitution laws in the U.S. which specifically prohibit same-sex pairings. If such a law does exist it's awfully silly and probably unconstitutional.


Perhaps I should have been more clear. If eHarmony has to provide services to lesbians wouldn't hypothetical legal female prostitutes be held to the same standard? If they're offering pizza to men, wouldn't it also be gender discrimination for them not to offer pizza to women as well?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> Perhaps I should have been more clear. If eHarmony has to provide services to lesbians wouldn't hypothetical legal female prostitutes be held to the same standard? If they're offering pizza to men, wouldn't it also be gender discrimination for them not to offer pizza to women as well?


Will that be with extra anchovies? :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Laxplayer said:


> Will that be with extra anchovies? :icon_smile_wink:


Dirty


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

ksinc said:


> I say we all pitch in and sign Frank up for the 29 areas of compatibility and see what pops out?


Why? Did he change?


----------



## fenway (May 2, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Someone argue with me! Someone pay attention to me! Please! Please! Please!


Ha. _


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

fenway said:


> Someone argue with me! Someone pay attention to me! Please! Please! Please!


No! Heh.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I say we all pitch in and sign Frank up for the 29 areas of compatibility and see what pops out?


Does the technology work? YMMV


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> Dirty


I was referring to the movie Loverboy with Patrick Dempsey.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Does the technology work? YMMV


You claim you're 38 years old?

Scary and astonishing.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

LOL...Sgt. Hulka tells you, "Lighten up Francis".


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> LOL...Sgt. Hulka tells you, "Lighten up Francis".


Already there. Still it's sad, not only to see someone who claims to be 38 making the posts he does, but the utter lack of enforcement of AAR #1 in this particular forum.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Already there. Still *it's sad*, not only to see someone who claims to be 38 making the posts he does, but *the utter lack of enforcement of AAR #1 in this particular forum.*


Perhaps, but to be fair you yourself would have to have received a warning for flames somewhere around "jumbles of right-wing delusion".


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> Perhaps, but to be fair you yourself would have to have received a warning for flames somewhere around "jumbles of right-wing delusion".


Excuse me? Read your post I was responding to. You started the name calling here, not me.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Already there. Still it's sad, not only to see someone who claims to be 38 making the posts he does, but the utter lack of enforcement of AAR #1 in this particular forum.


What? You mean you have yet to get any infraction points for all the insults you have directed me way? I have to agree with you again, I am disappointed.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> What? You mean you have yet to get any infraction points for all the insults you have directed me way? I have to agree with you again, I am disappointed.


And again I'll ask you and the mods to look up the posting history in this forum to see who has started the personal attacks. In most cases it's been either yourself or ksinc (assuming of course you're actually two different people).


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Already there. Still it's sad, not only to see someone who claims to be 38 making the posts he does, but the utter lack of enforcement of AAR #1 in this particular forum.





FrankDC said:


> And again I'll ask you and the mods to look up the posting history in this forum to see who has started the personal attacks. In most cases it's been either yourself or ksinc (assuming of course you're actually two different people).


LMAO! Frank you are really sounding pathetic. Buck up there and be a good sport!

Apparently, Zawa-Rosie is a better match for you then we first thought!


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Excuse me? Read your post I was responding to. You started the name calling here, not me.


False.

I simply pointed out the fact that those who push the hardest for things like litigation requiring companies to adapt their practices and procedures to accommodate the whims of very small but very vocal minorities tend to be informed by the school of thought known as 'cultural marxism' and are less concerned with fairness than with rebellion for the sake of rebellion.

You're the one who seemed to take offense at that.

Of course, if the red jackboot fits...


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> And again I'll ask you and the mods to look up the posting history in this forum to see who has started the personal attacks. In most cases it's been either yourself or ksinc *(assuming of course you're actually two different people).*




LOL, it's a VRWC!!! Save the children!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> False.
> 
> I simply pointed out the fact that those who push the hardest for things like litigation requiring companies to adapt their practices and procedures to accommodate the whims of very small but very vocal minorities tend to be informed by the school of thought known as 'cultural marxism' and are less concerned with fairness than with rebellion for the sake of rebellion.
> 
> You're the one who seemed to take offense at that.


I took offense not at your point, but at sarcastically being called a "genius". The first ad hom was yours not mine.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> I took offense not at your point, but at sarcastically being called a "genius". The first ad hom was yours not mine.


Oh, I'm sorry. You know, "living inside such a tiny a box" where "the whole world looks like a big liberal attack", I sometimes forget that big-hearted niceguys like you can do no wrong.

But mom, he started it!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> Oh, I'm sorry. You know, "living inside such a tiny a box" where "the whole world looks like a big liberal attack", I sometimes forget that big-hearted niceguys like you can do no wrong.


Come on, Jolly. Read what you wrote:

"...their agenda is not so much about providing people with access to things from which they are deprived, but is rather about bringing down the patriarchy/fundamentalists/******/et al."

What other logical conclusion is possible? You obviously (and outrageously) believe gay people have an agenda to "bring down the patriarchy/fundamentalists/******/et al". If that doesn't qualify as a tiny and paranoid (not to mention entire disproven by experience) psychological box, nothing else ever could. IMO.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

I thought I would sit this one out considering the source of all the turmoil, but Frankie, are you really suggesting that YOU are being unfairly treated and that YOU are a pillar of civility? I would suggest doing exactly what you outlined, that is, review your own posts, specifically, about me. After doing so, I suggest re-reading what you just wrote about moderator fairness. You have got to be kidding? Finally, I have been wondering for quite some time now given your screen name, behavior, idealogy, etc., if you are related to or are in fact Congressman Barney Frank?

As to the question posed by the thread title? Eharmony is not simply a matchmaking site where you pick and choose amongst those people you want to date, rather, based on a specific analysis of your profile through the Compatibility Matching System they developed, it chooses the right person(s) for you to marry. The software and analysis that takes place is based on Christian views held by the founder and how the application of those views can provide a deeper compatibility in marriage. It seems to me that that is a business based on faith and therefore is protected under the First Amendment. In addition, since the goal is marriage, not simply dating, and since Congress has affirmed that marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, eharmony has no problem.

I am reminded of what the gay community has stated for many years, that is, gays are only attracted to other gays, not heterosexuals. Apparently, according to them, gay men get no more rise out of viewing a hetero male than a hetero male would. If all of that is true, then eharmony's Compatibility Matching System would be incompatible with the gay community since the analysis involves a Compatibility Matching System geared toward a Christian marriage relationship.

Okay Frankie, go ahead, call me more names.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> I thought I would sit this one out considering the source of all the turmoil, but Frankie, are you really suggesting that YOU are being unfairly treated and that YOU are a pillar of civility? I would suggest doing exactly what you outlined, that is, review your own posts, specifically, about me. After doing so, I suggest re-reading what you just wrote about moderator fairness. You have got to be kidding? Finally, I have been wondering for quite some time now given your screen name, behavior, idealogy, etc., if you are related to or are in fact Congressman Barney Frank?


To start, my name isn't Frankie. Or Francis. It's also not Barney Frank, although he's certainly one of my heroes on this particular issue. It's been 11 years since he stood before the U.S. House and asked a simple question that no one has yet been able to answer rationally: "How does the fact that I love another man, and live in a committed relationship with him, threaten your marriage?"


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> To start, my name isn't Frankie. Or Francis. It's also not Barney Frank, although he's certainly one of my heroes on this particular issue. It's been 11 years since he stood before the U.S. House and asked a simple question that no one has yet been able to answer rationally: "How does the fact that I love another man, and *live in a committed relationship with him*, threaten your marriage?"


A simple *and ridiculous* question; a straw man created by a dishonorable man. No one claims to be threatened by Barney Frank. Disgusted? Yes. Threatened? No.



> Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank admitted a lengthy relationship with a male hooker who ran a bisexual prostitution service out of Frank's apartment."





> His accusation that Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) knew that Gobie had operated a prostitution service out of Frank's Capitol Hill apartment became national news after it was first reported Friday by the Washington Times.
> 
> Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress, confirmed Friday that he paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that clients were visiting the apartment.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> " . . . that no one has yet been able to answer rationally . . "


According to YOU.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

ksinc said:


> "Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank admitted a lengthy relationship with a male hooker who ran a bisexual prostitution service out of Frank's apartment."


But he's a hero.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

...on this particular issue.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> A simple *and ridiculous* question; a straw man created by a dishonorable man. No one claims to be threatened by Barney Frank. Disgusted? Yes. Threatened? No.


Disgusted isn't enough to deny gay people the right to legally recognized marriage. E.g. most Americans were disgusted by interracial marriages in the 1950's, that didn't make anti-miscegenation laws any less unconstitutional.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

Is it really that heroic to be a gay man from one of the most liberal states who is in favor of gay marriage?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> ...on this particular issue.


I have long been able to separate my personal and professional opinon of Rep. Barney Frank. I think he is actually one of the more competent members of the House Finance Committee, and I don't care that he is openly gay.

However, I must ask ... if he was a straight Republican and the hooker-GF was a woman, would he still be your hero?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Disgusted isn't enough to deny gay people the right to legally recognized marriage. E.g. most Americans were disgusted by interracial marriages in the 1950's, that didn't make anti-miscegenation laws any less unconstitutional.


No one is disgusted by the fact that he is gay. We're disgusted by the gaul of a U.S. Congressman paying his live-in prostitute for sex and claiming it's a "committed relationship".

Even you should be able to do the calculus on this one.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> Is it really that heroic to be a gay man from one of the most liberal states who is in favor of gay marriage?


Back in 1996 it was heroic, by now it's simply common sense.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Disgusted isn't enough to deny gay people the right to legally recognized marriage. E.g. most Americans were disgusted by interracial marriages in the 1950's, that didn't make anti-miscegenation laws any less unconstitutional.


As usual, you miss the point, whether on purpose because you enjoy provoking argument (troll) or because you are truly that ignorant. It was Barney Frank who tried to make the issue one of homosexual reltionships somehow destoying marriage, thus, the question he posed. This was no act of bravery, rather, it was Clintonesque misdirection. Barney Frank engaged in illegal and unethical behavior in violation of established law and House rules.

_"Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank admitted a lengthy relationship with a male hooker who ran a bisexual prostitution service out of Frank's apartment."_

_"Frank, one of two openly gay members of Congress, confirmed Friday that he paid Gobie for sex, hired him with personal funds as an aide and wrote letters on congressional stationery on his behalf to Virginia probation officials, but Frank said he fired Gobie when he learned that clients were visiting the apartment."_

Those actions led to your heroic act Frankie: "How does the fact that I love another man, and live in a committed relationship with him, threaten your marriage?"

How is it heroic to defend one's own immorality by taking up a cause not related to the behavior you engaged in? What it is is pure, unadulterated, Clinton!

What Barney Frank did should be an afront to everyone in the gay community. He used them. He was rightly attacked for what he did and he turned it into a gay issue when it was nothing of the kind. It was prostitution and abuse of authority, to start with.

I worked with an african-american lady who did not do her job very well and did not like to work, period. Every time she would get called into the office to have a discussion about her misconduct, poor attendance, etc., she would claim discrimination. Finally, she filed a lawsuit claiming discrimination and she had her day in federal court. She lost her case. She later left craft employment and joined management where SHE now has to have discussions with employees not doing their job. I have often wondered how many of those poeple are claiming discrimination every time she hauls them into the office?

What Barney Frank did is no different from what this lousy worker did. He deflected his own poor behavior by claiming it was discrimination. You want to talk about getting past certain types of behavior in society? How about some of those in protected classes stop claiming discrimination every time they get in trouble? I am thinking of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. Has either of them, much like you Frank, ever apologized when they have been proven wrong or, like you, have they ever even admitted to being wrong? Yes, that was rhetorical.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> No one is disgusted by the fact that he is gay. We're disgusted by the gaul of a U.S. Congressman paying his live-in prostitute for sex and claiming it's a "committed relationship".
> 
> Even you should be able to do the calculus on this one.


Ok, I wasn't sure how you were using the word. But aside from Frank's personal behavior (which like almost all politicians, I'd be near the end of the line in defending), if I'm wrong in claiming you're disgusted by same-sex marriage, please correct me.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Ok, I wasn't sure how you were using the word. But aside from Frank's personal behavior (which like almost all politicians, I'd be near the end of the line in defending), if I'm wrong in claiming you're disgusted by same-sex marriage, please correct me.


So, it's that thin of a line between defending someone and calling them a hero? How can he be your hero if you can't defend him? Something wrong there.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> As usual, you miss the point, whether on purpose because you enjoy provoking argument (troll) or because you are truly that ignorant. It was Barney Frank who tried to make the issue one of homosexual reltionships somehow destoying marriage, thus, the question he posed. This was no act of bravery, rather, it was Clintonesque misdirection. Barney Frank engaged in illegal and unethical behavior in violation of established law and House rules.
> 
> _"Massachusetts Democratic Rep. Barney Frank admitted a lengthy relationship with a male hooker who ran a bisexual prostitution service out of Frank's apartment."_
> 
> ...


Frank asked his question during House debate on the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996. The issue had (and has) zilch to do with his personal life.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Frank asked his question during House debate on the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" in 1996. The issue had (and has) zilch to do with his personal life.


ROFLMAO!

Frank is the one who made it personal by using himself as an example.

Perhaps by "hero", you really meant "demagogue"?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Sorry, "zilch to do with his personal problems" would have been a better phrase.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Sorry, "zilch to do with his personal problems" would have been a better phrase.


Even still, only until he intentionally linked the two together with his "simple question".


----------



## jdldore (Feb 18, 2007)

This may have been brought up already -- I have not read through all seven pages -- but I'm not clear on the distinction between eHarmony and the Augusta golf club. Absent some special law in California, and unless eHarmony accepts public funds, I don't see how an equal protection under either the California or U.S. Constitution has any place here. Further, don't the equal access statutes provide equal access to employment and housing opportunities only? Finally, I read an article a year or two ago stating that California had trimmed back its unfair competition law -- is that the case? I neither practice in California nor do I do this type of work, but, off the top of my head, I have trouble thinking of this as a winner.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

eHarmony provides a service. That service involves matching single men to single women. I would think that the "matching" software, or whatever algorithm is used, is designed for such a purpose. I would think that they have employed relationship experts with expertise in what men and women look for in one another and what personality traits are the most compatible. 

I may be wrong but wouldn't the necessity of providing the same service for homosexuals involve a different matching approach. Perhaps gay men and women look for things different in one another as compared to their hetero counterparts. If that is the case wouldn't eHarmony not only have to provide the service, but would it also not have to put resources into expanding its method of matching? Wouldn't this constitute placing an undue burden on the business? Afterall, even some buildings are exempt from certain provisions of the ADA.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

jdldore said:


> This may have been brought up already -- I have not read through all seven pages -- but I'm not clear on the distinction between eHarmony and the Augusta golf club. Absent some special law in California, and unless eHarmony accepts public funds, I don't see how an equal protection under either the California or U.S. Constitution has any place here. Further, don't the equal access statutes provide equal access to employment and housing opportunities only? Finally, I read an article a year or two ago stating that California had trimmed back its unfair competition law -- is that the case? I neither practice in California nor do I do this type of work, but, off the top of my head, I have trouble thinking of this as a winner.


Finally, common sense brought to the initial thread post, a nice change of pace from all of the non-related political debate [not that I do not enjoy that too].

What about the site that only alows "hot people" on it?:devil: You submit 3 pictures of yourself and then the members vote.  If you do not average 8 out of 10, you are not "hot enough" for them and are denied access.  I mean, ugly people are people too!


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> If that is the case wouldn't eHarmony not only have to provide the service, but would it also not have to put resources into expanding its method of matching? Wouldn't this constitute placing an undue burden on the business? Afterall, even some buildings are exempt from certain provisions of the ADA.


Exactly! The ADA requires "reasonable" accommodation that is not "unduly burdonsome." One would have to do many years of research to come up with the same profile information that is now readily accepted and available in the hetero community. That would mean lots of research and then creating a new program to incorporate the results, assuming such could be done. I would think the plaintiff would have to prove that the same theory at work for heteros would work with non-heteros. :devil:


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Come on, Jolly. Read what you wrote:
> 
> "...their agenda is not so much about providing people with access to things from which they are deprived, but is rather about bringing down the patriarchy/fundamentalists/******/et al."
> 
> What other logical conclusion is possible? You obviously (and outrageously) believe gay people have an agenda to "bring down the patriarchy/fundamentalists/******/et al". If that doesn't qualify as a tiny and paranoid (not to mention entire disproven by experience) psychological box, nothing else ever could. IMO.


No, *you* read what I wrote, which has nothing to do with "gay people" having an agenda of any sort.

Surely you realize that, or else you would not have omitted the portion of my quote in which I stated that it was people like _you_ -- whether you are gay or not -- whose ideologies are informed by cultural marxism and are concerned less with fairness and justice for the minority groups you claim to represent than with subverting traditional Western institutions.

There are gay people all across the political spectrum, and as often as not it is not they themselves who are out front clamoring for irrational, sensationalistic, and provocative notions like promoting litigation that would force eHarmony to completely revise its algorithms to account for homosexual matchmaking. I'm sure that most gay people know that if they want an online dating service, there are plenty out there that cater to their needs.

No, it's not necessarily a collective "gay people" pushing this kind of in-your-face idiocy; it's rebels without a clue like yourself and the rest of your brainless buddies in the Che Guevara t-shirt crowd who get your jollies out of annoying the piss out of the rest of us just so you can convince yourselves you're making a difference in the world.

You know as well as I do that such was my point, and now everyone else here knows that your blatant and idiotic attempt to misrepresent my argument as some sort of gay conspiracy theory by quoting me entirely out of context has failed miserably. Of course, you should be used to that by now.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

ksinc said:


> Does the technology work? YMMV


Is That Rosie O'Donnell without any facial hair?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Howard said:


> Is That Rosie O'Donnell without any facial hair?


LOL, good one Howard. Actually it is Billy Gibbons after someone shaved his beard off.....


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> LOL, good one Howard. Actually it is Billy Gibbons after someone shaved his beard off.....


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

I must confess to greatly enjoying the posts by Howard. Howard, you are either naturally funny, a sadistic/diabolical genius, or just plain have a knack for saying in a couple of words what takes the rest of us (at least myself) paragraphs to accomplish. Personally, I am leaning toward diabolical genius because you accomplish your point in this manner way too often for it to be by accident.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> No, it's not necessarily a collective "gay people" pushing this kind of in-your-face idiocy; it's rebels without a clue like yourself and the rest of your brainless buddies in the Che Guevara t-shirt crowd who get your jollies out of annoying the piss out of the rest of us just so you can convince yourselves you're making a difference in the world.


Well, recognition of same-sex marriages and partnerships is occurring faster than I ever imagined it could, so advocates on this issue are making obvious progress. It's only a matter of time before the "defense of marriage" camp runs out of steam and runs directly into our Constitution. And like interracial marriage, same-sex marriage in the U.S. will become the exact same complete non-issue as it's become in every other country that has recognized these partnerships.

As for your rant, it's an excellent example of the ignorance, bigotry and outright hatred which motivates "defense of marriage" activists. I'll give you the same advice I'd give Fred Phelps: licensed therapy might find the actual cause of all your hatred, disgust, resentment or whatever the heck it is.[/quote]


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Well, recognition of same-sex marriages and partnerships is occurring faster than I ever imagined it could, so advocates on this issue are making obvious progress. ]


Where, Frank? Frisco and the People's Republic of Massachusetts- hardly a landslide ( except in your own mind)


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Well, recognition of same-sex marriages and partnerships is occurring faster than I ever imagined it could, so advocates on this issue are making obvious progress. It's only a matter of time before the "defense of marriage" camp runs out of steam and runs directly into our Constitution. And like interracial marriage, same-sex marriage in the U.S. will become the exact same complete non-issue as it's become in every other country that has recognized these partnerships.


You _must_ live in California, because you obviously don't live in reality. You evoke the Constitution, yet in clear contrast to its tenets you appear to support imposing the morals and standards of places like Massachusetts and California on the rest of the country.



> As for your rant, it's an excellent example of the ignorance, bigotry and outright hatred which motivates "defense of marriage" activists. I'll give you the same advice I'd give Fred Phelps: licensed therapy might find the actual cause of all your hatred, disgust, resentment or whatever the heck it is.


Typical.

Page one of the Leftist activist playbook:

_When you can offer no real argument, call your opponent an ignorant, hateful bigot. Just in case that doesn't work, declare that your opponent is insane._

Hey, it worked in the Soviet Union. For a little while.

The rich irony of your attacks on me lies in the fact that I have not even offered an opinion on gay marriage or state recognition of homosexual unions. You simply took offense to the fact that I pointed out that leftist activists like yourself take your cues from the Frankfurt School (even though you probably had never even heard of that school of thought before I mentioned it here) and are less concerned with justice for the people whose causes you claim to champion than you are with childish rebellion and a ingrained desire to turn the Occidental social order on its head.

Because I have pointed out this ugly aspect of your character, you have attempted to paint me as a gay-bashing bigot. Fortunately, you have failed. Then again, you must be getting used to failure by now.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Where, Frank? Frisco and the People's Republic of Massachusetts- hardly a landslide ( except in your own mind)


Here's the current map:

Far more importantly, and despite pointless "defense of marriage" demagoguery, the road to recognition of same-sex marriages has been and will continue to be virtually one-way. As states and other countries recognize these partnerships and see positive changes in their societies, support for the politically correct gay bashing known as "defense of marriage" simply evaporates, I used to think little by little, but judging from experience this bashing evaporates at a much higher rate.

20 or 30 or 50 or X number of years from now the "defense of marriage" movement will be remembered in outright shame, the same way we today remember e.g. George Wallace barring entrance to black students at the University of Alabama: just ridiculous, pointless and mean spirited.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

whomewhat said:


> I must confess to greatly enjoying the posts by Howard. Howard, you are either naturally funny, a sadistic/diabolical genius, or just plain have a knack for saying in a couple of words what takes the rest of us (at least myself) paragraphs to accomplish. Personally, I am leaning toward diabolical genius because you accomplish your point in this manner way too often for it to be by accident.


I hope I'm not ruining the rapport on this board,At least I try to make people laugh,that's all I do.I don't want to insult anybody on here at all.If I did,My apologies.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> .... will be remembered in outright shame, the same way we today remember e.g.* George Wallace barring entrance to black students at the University of Alabama:* just ridiculous, pointless and mean spirited.


Democrats; what can I say?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I am a little mystified at the continued California bashing. It used to be we were thought of as two states; north and south with deep differences. A modern demographic investigation will show enclaves of both liberal and conservative views. The only difference is we haven't fallen into sectarian warfare like Shia and Sunni and actually talk to each other over Starbucks. Perhaps our onerous gunlaws promulgated by REPUBLICAN and DEMOCRATIC politicians, er Legistlaters has left us with only road rage against Bush bumper sticker bearers in SUVs vs Gore in hybrid cars. The fact is California has drawn people from all over the world. Besides the comment of the continent being tilted and all the fruits and nuts rolling in here; Our economy is still the 6th largest in the world if taken independently, far ahead of that other socialist state the USSR.We mature men such as Nixon, Reagan, Swartzenegger along with the Romneys and Browns and allow diversity of social experimentation alongside scientific experimentation at CALTECH and Silicon Valley. Why, we are so advanced even our natural disasters, earthquakes take place in a sunny clime. I stopped a woman at the New Age bookstore today. She had on a tin hat. I looked it over. It had once contained a apple pie. The tin plate had been produced in- Arkansas. All I know about Arkansas is it gave us The Clintons, Julia Butterfly Hill and Eric ' Ponche " Estrada is promoting real estate there on the TEEVEE in a Trader Joe's Hawaiian Shirt. That, and it's the orange state near the blue one called Kansas that also gave California our own Andy. So remember that, all you other 49 state denigraters of the Bear Flag Republic. Keep it up, and Shirley McLane will have to rearrange your chakras and send an interior desinger to apply Feng Shui principles to your wardrobe closet. And remember, John Wayne is buried here, respect hallowed ground Pilgrims!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Kav said:


> Perhaps our onerous gunlaws promulgated by REPUBLICAN and DEMOCRATIC politicians, er Legistlaters has left us with only road rage against Bush bumper sticker bearers in SUVs vs Gore in hybrid cars.


100% truth, if I did a count of Gore/Lieberman and Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers I see around Tucson, probably 65% or so of them are on SUVs getting no more than 17 MPG. The one that makes me laugh the hardest is the blonde soccer mom, talking on her cell phone while sipping a Starbuck's, I pass on a regular basis while headed to work, driving a Lexus LX (the Land Cruiser based one) with a Kerry/Edwards sticker, and an "I care about the environment" special issue license plate. Her pale children are usually strapped in, watching a DVD, completely ignored by Miss Cellphone.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

There should be websites out there that are suited for gay people.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

Kav said:


> I am a little mystified at the continued California bashing. It used to be we were thought of as two states; north and south with deep differences. A modern demographic investigation will show enclaves of both liberal and conservative views. The only difference is we haven't fallen into sectarian warfare like Shia and Sunni and actually talk to each other over Starbucks. Perhaps our onerous gunlaws promulgated by REPUBLICAN and DEMOCRATIC politicians, er Legistlaters has left us with only road rage against Bush bumper sticker bearers in SUVs vs Gore in hybrid cars. The fact is California has drawn people from all over the world. Besides the comment of the continent being tilted and all the fruits and nuts rolling in here; Our economy is still the 6th largest in the world if taken independently, far ahead of that other socialist state the USSR.We mature men such as Nixon, Reagan, Swartzenegger along with the Romneys and Browns and allow diversity of social experimentation alongside scientific experimentation at CALTECH and Silicon Valley. Why, we are so advanced even our natural disasters, earthquakes take place in a sunny clime. I stopped a woman at the New Age bookstore today. She had on a tin hat. I looked it over. It had once contained a apple pie. The tin plate had been produced in- Arkansas. All I know about Arkansas is it gave us The Clintons, Julia Butterfly Hill and Eric ' Ponche " Estrada is promoting real estate there on the TEEVEE in a Trader Joe's Hawaiian Shirt. That, and it's the orange state near the blue one called Kansas that also gave California our own Andy. So remember that, all you other 49 state denigraters of the Bear Flag Republic. Keep it up, and Shirley McLane will have to rearrange your chakras and send an interior desinger to apply Feng Shui principles to your wardrobe closet. And remember, John Wayne is buried here, respect hallowed ground Pilgrims!


In Sodom & Sacramento they love the Governor
Lets em do what they gonorr do
Degeneracy hit don't bother Kav
Be there when it falls inna Pacific, too

Sweet home Alhambra
Where the votes are so blue
Sweet home Alhambra
Maharishi, I'm comin' home to you


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Kav said:


> I am a little mystified at the continued California bashing. It used to be we were thought of as two states; north and south with deep differences. A modern demographic investigation will show enclaves of both liberal and conservative views. The only difference is we haven't fallen into sectarian warfare like Shia and Sunni and actually talk to each other over Starbucks. Perhaps our onerous gunlaws promulgated by REPUBLICAN and DEMOCRATIC politicians, er Legistlaters has left us with only road rage against Bush bumper sticker bearers in SUVs vs Gore in hybrid cars. The fact is California has drawn people from all over the world. Besides the comment of the continent being tilted and all the fruits and nuts rolling in here; Our economy is still the 6th largest in the world if taken independently, far ahead of that other socialist state the USSR.We mature men such as Nixon, Reagan, Swartzenegger along with the Romneys and Browns and allow diversity of social experimentation alongside scientific experimentation at CALTECH and Silicon Valley. Why, we are so advanced even our natural disasters, earthquakes take place in a sunny clime. I stopped a woman at the New Age bookstore today. She had on a tin hat. I looked it over. It had once contained a apple pie. The tin plate had been produced in- Arkansas. All I know about Arkansas is it gave us The Clintons, Julia Butterfly Hill and Eric ' Ponche " Estrada is promoting real estate there on the TEEVEE in a Trader Joe's Hawaiian Shirt. That, and it's the orange state near the blue one called Kansas that also gave California our own Andy. So remember that, all you other 49 state denigraters of the Bear Flag Republic. Keep it up, and Shirley McLane will have to rearrange your chakras and send an interior desinger to apply Feng Shui principles to your wardrobe closet. And remember, John Wayne is buried here, respect hallowed ground Pilgrims!


We hear a lot about blue America vs. red America, but IMO the difference has little to do with the state one lives in. If we want to lump all of America into just two political groups, this is not a state vs. state thing, it's an urban vs. rural thing. The same basic differences in political demographics between urban and country folk hold as true in e.g. Illinois as they do in California. CA, NY etc simply have more population and higher numbers of large metro areas.

Every day I thank the good Lord for who I am and where I live, because I could have easily been a 16 year-old gay kid living in Idaho or Utah with electrodes strapped to my nuts and being told by my own father (who is also the local LDS leader) that I'm the spawn of Satan simply because of my sexual orientation. Tens of thousands of American teens kill themselves every year because of institutionalized religious and cultural bigotry.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Every day I thank the good Lord for who I am and where I live, because I could have easily been a 16 year-old gay kid living in Idaho or Utah with electrodes strapped to my nuts and being told by my own father (who is also the local LDS leader) that I'm the spawn of Satan simply because of my sexual orientation. *Tens of thousands of American teens kill themselves every year because of institutionalized religious and cultural bigotry.*


?????


> Suicide is the third leading cause of death among young people ages 15 to 24. In 2001, 3,971 suicides were reported in this group (Anderson and Smith 2003).





> In 2001, 5,393 Americans over age 65 committed suicide. Of those, 85% (n=4,589) were men and 15% (n=804) were women (CDC 2004).


So, at least 500% percent of these ~4,000 suicides are "because of institutionalized religious and cultural bigotry"? Interesting.

The CDC must really be missing the obvious to say the following: 


> The overall rate of suicide among youth has declined slowly since 1992 (Lubell, Swahn, Crosby, and Kegler 2004). However, rates remain unacceptably high. Adolescents and young adults often experience stress, confusion, and depression from situations occurring in their families, schools, and communities. Such feelings can overwhelm young people and lead them to consider suicide as a "solution."


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Tens of thousands of American teens kill themselves every year because of institutionalized religious and cultural bigotry.


Okay Frank, citation please. "Homework" done, I know you are just plain full of shyte (again).


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Every day I thank the good Lord for who I am and where I live, because I could have easily been a 16 year-old gay kid living in Idaho or Utah with electrodes strapped to my nuts and being told by my own father (who is also the local LDS leader) that I'm the spawn of Satan simply because of my sexual orientation. Tens of thousands of American teens kill themselves every year because of institutionalized religious and cultural bigotry.


You know Frank, it is one thing to constantly put everyone who disagrees with you down, but it is an entirely different thing to target a particular religious group of which you have NO knowledge and spout utter nonsense. You have really crossed the line this time.

I demand that you provide any credible evidence that an LDS "leader," however you define that, has "electrodes strapped to [my] nuts" and/or has labeled his son as "the spawn of Satan simply because of [my] sexual orientation." I demand you do so or shut your big, fat mouth because this is bigotry pure and simple.

If, in fact, you can provide any evidence that a single word of what you said is true, then I demand to know the facts because I will personally see to it that the "LDS leader," as you describe him, is excommunicated from the church. No leader of the LDS church could openly condone what you suggest becasuse they would be immediately excommunicated from the church.

If you are going to be allowed to continue to spew this type of hatred towards people without any evidence to back it up then I assure you that the gloves have come off and you will not have a moment of rest you bigot!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

whomewhat:

Frank, along with the many on the left, is intent on painting the Mormon Church and its adherents into being semi-human, less than civilized, brutes not worthy of liberal "diversity" and "tolerance". The reason should be clear, they actually think Romney might stand a chance. It is therefore mandatory to marginalize the entire LDS movement so they can make an excuse that religious bigotry is not only "okay" against Mormons, it is actually the moral thing to do.

I am going to have much fun if Romney gets the nomination.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I have a feeling this one is gonna hurt.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Every day I thank the good Lord for who I am and where I live, because I could have easily been a 16 year-old gay kid living in Idaho or Utah with electrodes strapped to my nuts and being told by my own father (who is also the local LDS leader) that I'm the spawn of Satan simply because of my sexual orientation. Tens of thousands of American teens kill themselves every year because of institutionalized religious and cultural bigotry.


Amazing Frank can say this vile crap with apparent impunity when if I, the descendant of the '45 and the Clearances, can stir the ire of many for simply using the word "Papist". You just have to shake your head and chuckle some days.


----------



## CCabot (Oct 4, 2006)

Liberal hypocrisy never ceases to amuse me.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

CCabot said:


> Liberal hypocrisy never ceases to amuse me.


Indeed.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I make a tongue in cheek post to make a few points about California bashing, an activity I have yet to suffer ulcers, sleepless nights or emotional angst over. Jamgood composes a tongue out ditty and the thread has hope of a little levity. And then Franck DC bends over, grabs ankles and puts his tongue where a world weary proctologist would call in a septic tank pumping service. Do you eat with that mouth?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

LOL Kav, tell us how you really feel!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Perhaps we're being too harsh with Mr. Zawa-Rosie? 


Nah!


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> whomewhat:
> 
> Frank, along with the many on the left, is intent on painting the Mormon Church and its adherents into being semi-human, less than civilized, brutes not worthy of liberal "diversity" and "tolerance". The reason should be clear, they actually think Romney might stand a chance. It is therefore mandatory to marginalize the entire LDS movement so they can make an excuse that religious bigotry is not only "okay" against Mormons, it is actually the moral thing to do.
> 
> I am going to have much fun if Romney gets the nomination.


Interestingly, I, and many members of my church locally, are not currently supporters of Romney. The main reason, at least for me, is his previous Pro-Choice stance. Since abortion is absolutely wrong in our church with very few exceptions, it is inconceiveable to me that any member of my church could have ever been Pro-Choice. True, the church does not interfere in ones politics and so Romney is free to believe how he wishes on the issue, but it is intellectually dishonest for one to state that they are personally opposed to abortion while then claiming to support a right to choose.

Because Romney is LDS and has taken this position, I hold him to a much higher standard than I would any non-LDS candidate. I have heard his explanations and they simply are insufficient for me, at this point. That said, if his candidacy is going to elicit the type of vile, unadulterated hatred spewed by Frank here today, then it will become much easier for me to support him. In fact, first thing tomorrow I will send him a $1000 contribution and will do so because of Frank and in Frank's name.

I do hope that those few members out there in cyberspace who have, occassionally, defended Frank on any level, will now see him for the bigot he really is. He attacks me, personally, when I share personal information about my son, calls me a bigot, calls everyone else a bigot who disagrees with him, but then makes a remark like this. Some things and some people are not worthy of defense, ever, and Frank is one of them.

Okay, my last paragraph has been deleted by me since it is clear that the moderators have this under control. Thank you Alex.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Perhaps we're being too harsh with Mr. Zawa-Rosie?
> 
> Nah!


LOL....that photo was genius, don't think it was not appreciated


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

FrankDC said:


> Every day I thank the good Lord for who I am and where I live, because I could have easily been a 16 year-old gay kid living in Idaho or Utah with electrodes strapped to my nuts and being told by my own father (who is also the local LDS leader) that I'm the spawn of Satan simply because of my sexual orientation. Tens of thousands of American teens kill themselves every year because of institutionalized religious and cultural bigotry.


Frank: This is a moderator's post and not arguable:

You cite the horror of "institutionalized religious and cultural bigotry".

Your post, accusing a specific religion of torture without providing factual basis, is bigotry. Your bigotry.

I am not offering this for debate. I am telling you what you have done. Whether you recognize that fact is irrelevant. You will stop it or you will leave.

Alexander Kabbaz,
Senior Moderator


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

whomewhat said:


> Interestingly, I, and many members of my church locally, are not currently supporters of Romney. The main reason, at least for me, is his previous Pro-Choice stance. Since abortion is absolutely wrong on our church with very few exceptions, it is inconceiveable tome that any member of my church could have ever been Pro-Choice. True, the church does not interfere in ones politics and so Romney is free to believe how he wishes on the issue, but it is intellectually dishonest for one to state that they are personally opposed to abortion while then claiming to support a right to choose.
> 
> Because Romney is LDS and has taken this position, I hold him to a much higher standard than I would any non-LDS candidate. I have heard his explanations and they simply are insufficient for me, at this point. That said, if his candidacy is going to elicit the type of vile, unadulterated hatred spewed by Frank here today, then it will become much easier for me to support him. In fact, first thing tomorrow I will send him a $1000 contribution and will do so because of Frank and in Frank's name.
> 
> I do hope that those few members out there in cyberspace who have, occassionally, defended Frank on any level, will now see him for the bigot he really is. He attacks me, personally, when I share personal information about my son, calls me a bigot, calls everyone else a bigot who disagrees with him, but then makes a remark like this. Some things and some people are not worthy of defense, ever, and Frank is one of them.


FWIW, I sent Romney $100 after the GOP Debate (in my own name LOL)! I like him - so far. I tend to ignore a lot of the social issue nonsense (by that I mean political double-speak). I think he will take a businessman's perspective that I hoped to get from W regarding budgets and spending. I figure if we can get the size and cost of government under control even a little, they will be so busy running for cover they won't have time to "meddle" in people's everyday lives. I agree with Ronald Reagan's saying that the nine most dangerous words in English are, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

How I really feel? I call myself a Liberal, though many would discover I am a smorgasbourg of conservative, libertarian and liberal values. I vote Green, yet recognise that there are times in our worldy affairs a Reagan commands my vote while my old MGA still sports a "Don't Blame Me, I voted For McGovern" sticker. And I know I can be, probably have been 100% wrong on some issues and the only one who seemed to recognise an obvious truism with others. And I am guilty of being prejudiced against others who are merely doing what I myself am. I've been rude and curt to LDS missionaries. I know the salespitch, and I dismiss them like changing the channel on the Gilligan's Island Episode when They have a beauty contest and Gilligan solves the crises by crowning a girl chimpanzee. But then I'll stupidly engage members of religous cults in debate far more dangerous and inherently evil and wind up visiting the local Headquarters and thrashing the chapter leader in their mensroom in a preemptive strike and wishing I was safely messing instead with some kid from Provo instead. And then I see the Franks of this world with no appreciation for the rediculous in all of us,with all the answers and none of the questions,calling themselves left,right or whatever to the embarressment to whoever has to mop up their ideological ejaculates. And I never seem to catch them in the men's Room like that one utterly satisfying moment.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I could have easily been a 16 year-old gay kid living in Idaho or Utah with electrodes strapped to my nuts and being told by my own father (who is also the local LDS leader) that I'm the spawn of Satan simply because of my sexual orientation. Tens of thousands of American teens kill themselves every year because of institutionalized religious and cultural bigotry.


I sometimes wonder if it's a pleasant experience to live in this kind of imagined cartoon-world, populated exclusively with cliches and caricatures. Some of them must be reassuring and comfortable, given their simplicity. But cartoon-worlds are also haunted by all sorts of bogeymen, terrifying beyond all reason. I suppose that when one's mental life is nothing but a long, lucid dream, it can sometimes be a montage of rainbows and skipping through the daisies, and sometimes it can be a nightmare.

Unfortunately, people who live in a perpetual fantasy also tend to be highly susceptible to propaganda, and the fact that they have as many votes as the rest of us makes me question the basic assumptions behind democracy.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I sometimes wonder if it's a pleasant experience to live in this kind of imagined cartoon-world, populated exclusively with cliches and caricatures. Some of them must be reassuring and comfortable, given their simplicity. But cartoon-worlds are also haunted by all sorts of bogeymen, terrifying beyond all reason. I suppose that when one's mental life is nothing but a long, lucid dream, it can sometimes be a montage of rainbows and skipping through the daisies, and sometimes it can be a nightmare.
> 
> Unfortunately, people who live in a perpetual fantasy also tend to be highly susceptible to propaganda, and the fact that they have as many votes as the rest of us makes me question the basic assumptions behind democracy.


The imagery and claim of torture by the LDS made in my last post is not mine, it's taken directly from a widely distributed film called "Latter Days" released in 2003. I didn't provide a factual basis for my claim because the claim isn't mine.

The methods used to "treat" gay people (known as "reparative therapy", "aversion therapy", "conversion therapy" etc) have existed for many years, and their use by the LDS, at least past use, is also established fact. So I'm not sure what the controversy is here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparative_therapy

https://www.geocities.com/davidmaus/lvshock.html


----------



## Teacher (Mar 14, 2005)

Holy mackrel, there are a lot more hateful, bigotted people on AAAC than I would every have thought. I'm a much sadder person for having read this thread.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Teacher said:


> Holy mackrel, there are a lot more hateful, bigotted people on AAAC than I would every have thought. I'm a much sadder person for having read this thread.


Sadder, but hopefully wiser. This issue runs deep with religious fundamentalists, while gay people have been dealing with institutionalized genocide and bashing for the last 3500+ years. Read the Bible, it's God's Word.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Teacher said:


> Holy mackrel, there are a lot more hateful, bigotted people on AAAC than I would every have thought. I'm a much sadder person for having read this thread.


Yeah, Frank's attitude toward Mormons, other Christians, and even rural America in general is pretty disturbing. It's not surprising that his worldview is informed as much by Hollywood fantasy as by reality.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Sadder, but hopefully wiser. This issue runs deep with religious fundamentalists, while gay people have been dealing with institutionalized genocide and bashing for the last 3500+ years. Read the Bible, it's God's Word.


The term "genocide" is hardly applicable here.

Your abuse of the language is Orwellian in stature.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> Yeah, Frank's attitude toward Mormons, other Christians, and even rural America in general is pretty disturbing. It's not surprising that his worldview is informed as much by Hollywood fantasy as by reality.


Better disturbed than stoned to death, hanged, gassed, beaten to death and electrocuted. And to whomewhere, sorry if you took my earlier reference to the LDS personally. It wasn't intended in any way to target either you or your family. I didn't even know you were LDS until your last response in this thread.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Better disturbed than stoned to death, hanged, gassed, beaten to death and electrocuted.


Yeah, buddy, that happens in civilized Western countries about as often as "[t]ens of thousands of American teens kill themselves every year because of institutionalized religious and cultural bigotry."

In other words, it really doesn't.

You paint some vivid pictures. Thankfully, they don't represent reality.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> Yeah, buddy, that happens in civilized Western countries about as often as "[t]ens of thousands of American teens kill themselves every year because of institutionalized religious and cultural bigotry."
> 
> In other words, it really doesn't.
> 
> You paint some vivid pictures. Thankfully, they don't represent reality.


"Gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents are at increased risk for suicidal behavior. Recent general population surveys indicate that approximately 42 percent of these youth experience suicidal ideation, and 28 percent have made one or more suicide attempts during the past year."

https://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/youthsuictest304.html

We're talking about a large number of dead teenagers every year.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> "Gay, lesbian, and bisexual adolescents are at increased risk for suicidal behavior. Recent general population surveys indicate that approximately 42 percent of these youth experience suicidal ideation, and 28 percent have made one or more suicide attempts during the past year."
> 
> https://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/youthsuictest304.html
> 
> We're talking about a large number of dead teenagers every year.


Thanks for posting a source which directly and succinctly refutes your idiotically hyperbolic claim that "[t]ens of thousands of American teens kill themselves every year because of institutionalized religious and cultural bigotry."

In fact, this source points out that fewer than 2,000 American teenagers killed themselves in the year 2000. We have no idea how many of those 2,000 were influenced by social factors related to their sexual orientation, but regardless of that we can rest assured that your original claim was wildly incorrect.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> Thanks for posting a source which directly and succinctly refutes your idiotically hyperbolic claim that "[t]ens of thousands of American teens kill themselves every year because of institutionalized religious and cultural bigotry."
> 
> In fact, this source points out that fewer than 2,000 American teenagers killed themselves in the year 2000. We have no idea how many of those 2,000 were influenced by social factors related to their sexual orientation, but regardless of that we can rest assured that your original claim was wildly incorrect.


Yes. I was looking at two different references, one number from the APA (for the U.S.), and another from the WHO (globally) and got them confused. My mistake.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Yes. I was looking at two different references, one number from the APA (for the U.S.), and another from the WHO (globally) and got them confused. My mistake.


Well, by all means, please provide the data from the WHO which show that ""[t]ens of thousands" of teenagers commit suicide yearly "because of institutionalized religious and cultural bigotry."

Thanks.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

It's ridiculous and just plain dishonest when opposition to homosexual marriage is classified across the board as "hateful" and "mean-spirited." I wish more liberals would learn to separate their visceral, emotional responses from their attempted logic; it would make them much more tolerable. There is a very severe difference between believing that a relationship shared between a man and a woman is different than one shared between two people of the same sex, or even disapproving of homosexual behaviors, and disliking homosexuals. Are you unable to separate the sexual preferences of a person from who they are at their core?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

So then you are unable, when you approach a person, to separate them as a person from their sexuality? That confirms what I thought.

edit: Looks like you deleted your response.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

hopkins_student said:


> It's ridiculous and just plain dishonest when opposition to homosexual marriage is classified across the board as "hateful" and "mean-spirited." I wish more liberals would learn to separate their visceral, emotional responses from their attempted logic; it would make them much more tolerable. There is a very severe difference between believing that a relationship shared between a man and a woman is different than one shared between two people of the same sex, or even disapproving of homosexual behaviors, and disliking homosexuals. Are you unable to separate the sexual preferences of a person from who they are at their core?


Well said.

I got called a hateful bigot here, and I didn't even express an opinion on gay marriage or homosexual behavior either way. It seems that in the mind of someone like Frank, the fact that I disapprove of those who would use _issues like this_ to divide communities and attack traditional institutions automatically means that I'm ready to build concentration camps for gay people.

And he has the audacity to accuse others of delusion and paranoia! It'd be laughable if it weren't so sad.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Why does he keep deleting his posts?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> It's ridiculous and just plain dishonest when opposition to homosexual marriage is classified across the board as "hateful" and "mean-spirited." I wish more liberals would learn to separate their visceral, emotional responses from their attempted logic; it would make them much more tolerable. There is a very severe difference between believing that a relationship shared between a man and a woman is different than one shared between two people of the same sex, or even disapproving of homosexual behaviors, and disliking homosexuals. Are you unable to separate the sexual preferences of a person from who they are at their core?


Your question answers itself: sexuality in humans is an orientation, not a preference. Decades of research has shown it's as hard-wired and unchangeable for homosexuals as it is for heterosexuals:

So if someone claimed it's ok for you to be heterosexual, but also disapproved of you having sex with women, what would your response be? And who would have the actual problem?


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> So if someone claimed it's ok for you to be heterosexual, but also disapproved of you having sex with women, what would your response be? And who would have the actual problem?


My response would be to call them a Shaker. I don't think anyone would have a problem. Short of hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings, I see little reason why the religious beliefs of others should affect my life.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

And my question was not are you literally able to separate homosexual people from their sexual practices. Obviously they are desires that are going to be met. But while I may disapprove of those behaviors I am still able to find characteristics to admire in gay people who are intelligent, hardworking, responsible, etc. My disapproval of their bedroom activities does not cause me to despise them as human beings.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> My response would be to call them a Shaker. I don't think anyone would have a problem. Short of hijacking airplanes and flying them into buildings, I see little reason why the religious beliefs of others should affect my life.


Indeed. Gay people think the same way, especially when religious belief (or even worse, outright ignorance and bigotry) is used to justify civil laws which prohibit legally recognized marriage to them.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> Indeed. Gay people think the same way, especially when religious belief (or even worse, outright ignorance and bigotry) is used to justify civil laws which prohibit legally recognized marriage to them.


This has already been addressed. There is no law prohibiting a gay person from getting married if they find a member of the opposite sex with whom they want to enter into that commitment. Now, they are not allowed to marry a member of their own gender because marriage is not a commitment between two people who love each other, it's a commitment between two people of opposite gender who love each other. I think gay couples should be entitled to the rights that straight married couples are entitled to, but it is ridiculous to change the definitions of words because some people are upset that those words don't apply to them. There is no discrimination against individuals, but there is societal judgment that the relationship between two people of the same gender is different from the relationship between two people of opposite gender.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> This has already been addressed. There is no law prohibiting a gay person from getting married if they find a member of the opposite sex with whom they want to enter into that commitment. Now, they are not allowed to marry a member of their own gender because marriage is not a commitment between two people who love each other, it's a commitment between two people of opposite gender who love each other. I think gay couples should be entitled to the rights that straight married couples are entitled to, but it is ridiculous to change the definitions of words because some people are upset that those words don't apply to them. There is no discrimination against individuals, but there is societal judgment that the relationship between two people of the same gender is different from the relationship between two people of opposite gender.


Yes we have been through this, and in my view the answer is still clear: this same rationale was used for 100+ years to justify anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S. (i.e. "Everyone is free to marry someone of the same race, therefore anti-miscegenation laws are constitutional"), yet today we view these laws as shameful remnants of past bigotry. Current "defense of marriage" laws are headed for the same eventual outcome, even according to many in the movement itself.

I wish someone could explain what benefits, specifically, we as a society accrue by denying gay people the right to legally recognized marriage. The list of benefits we'd accrue by recognizing these marriages is extensive.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

I wish someone could explain what benefits, specifically, we as a society accrue by allowing the State to license and regulate marriage (or _*any other*_ mutually voluntary relationship for that matter).


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> The imagery and claim of torture by the LDS made in my last post is not mine, it's taken directly from a widely distributed film called "Latter Days" released in 2003. I didn't provide a factual basis for my claim because the claim isn't mine.


So now that you were finally called to answer for your hateful, bigoted spew, the claims you *clearly presented as true in your mind* are not "yours" and you lay them off on a small budget movie made by someone with an axe to grind? I read all three links from the posts you deleted last night Frank. The *only* claim in all three links you provided, then deleted, stated it was rumoured South Africa's military *might* have used electrodes. I did not see the movie you reference, the one you are now basing your reality around, but the link you provided did not mention scenes of electrode use. Maybe it is in this movie, but it is still an extremely sad thing you decided to present such a thing as occurring, in what one has to assume is a regular happening, from a bloody movie.

You presented your little torture scene as fact Frank. It makes me feel a little sick inside as to why you seemed to wish it was fact so badly.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Every day I thank the good Lord for who I am and where I live, because I could have easily been a 16 year-old gay kid living in Idaho or Utah with electrodes strapped to my nuts ....


No need to repeat the whole piece of hate speech, but I ask, if this does not read as someone commenting on something he feels actually occurs on a regular basis, I do not know what does. Laying the blame for this bit of hate speech on a movie is even a more cowardly move than usual.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> The only claim in all three links you provided, then deleted, stated it was rumoured South Africa's military *might* have used electrodes.


Ah. Figures.

I reiterate:



> people who live in a perpetual fantasy also tend to be highly susceptible to propaganda


----------



## cufflink44 (Oct 31, 2005)

Before some of you continue to batter Frank for his alleged "hate speech," it might be well to take a look at the facts. Seems that in the 1970s, the LDS Church-or at least Brigham Young University, whose policies I believe reflect those of the Church-did indeed engage in "reparative therapy" for gay men that involved electrodes and shock.

Here's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article, "Homosexuality and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints":In the 1970s, however, Brigham Young University conducted a number of experiments in the use of aversion therapy. In Chapter 3 of Max Ford McBride's dissertation, it states that "seventeen male subjects&#8230; were used in the study, 14 completed the treatment." Two of the men committed suicide during their "treatment". The participants on the BYU campus were shown pornographic photos of men while being shocked with increasing amounts of voltage. They were then shown heterosexual pornographic images while soothing music was played in the background. Although each man signed a statement at the end of treatment that they had been "cured", no follow-up studies were ever completed and at least six of the men have since come forward to state that they lied about being cured just to end the painful and dangerous treatments.​And here is a first-hand account by a young man who underwent such therapy.

I don't know whether such "therapy" extended beyond the '70s. My point is simply that it's not quite the fantasy some people here would like to think it is.

Frank was wrong about one thing, however. The electrodes were attached to the guy's arms, not to his balls.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

I do not think anyone here has yet to argue that diversion therapy, of one sort or another, has not occured. I also do not think anyone here has argued that the teachings of the LDS church are not those of all other Abrahmic religions (Xtian, Muslim, Judaic), i.e. homosexuality is wrong. 

The error is in presenting genital torture as a factual, accepted, and possibly common, practice in the LDS church. The suicide of "tens of thousands" of US teens yearly as a result of institutionalized cultural bigotry. That is what we all seem to have a problem with. 

The issue of the rightness or wrongness of the LDS Church's stance is not at issue, rather Frank's "facts".


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Sadder, but hopefully wiser. This issue runs deep with religious fundamentalists, while* gay people have been dealing with institutionalized genocide* and bashing for the last 3500+ years. Read the Bible, it's God's Word.


Sorry for another post, I had wanted to comment on this in the last post but could not find Frank's before I had something to do.

Genocide? Yet another of Frank's "facts".

genocide:


> Genocide is the mass killing of a group of people as defined by Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, *a national, ethnical, racial or religious group....*


From Wiki. I think we can see that Frank was not referring to any group that could possibly constitute a "genocide". Also part of the Wiki definition that is going to be very problematic is:



> ...measures intended to prevent births within the group...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

So, as someone ignorant of topics like aversion therapy for gays, is it correct for me to assume from the facts presented that no baptists or methodists have been to aversion therapy? It's only a LDS thing?


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

cufflink44 said:


> Before some of you continue to batter Frank for his alleged "hate speech," it might be well to take a look at the facts. Seems that in the 1970s, the LDS Church-or at least Brigham Young University, whose policies I believe reflect those of the Church-did indeed engage in "reparative therapy" for gay men that involved electrodes and shock.


I certainly won't describe Frank's statements here as "hate speech", a term I find to be essentially meaningless and little more than an Orwellian tool to stifle the free exchange of ideas; however, we must admit when he's either exaggerating profusely or just plain wrong.

There's a far cry between an experiment conducted in university setting using adult volunteers as subjects and Frank's fantasy world wherein Mormon fathers are electrocuting their gay sons' genitalia on a daily basis.

Frank's polemics are _not_ effectively serving the cause of gay rights by presenting a cogent argument for fairness. They simply come across as hysterical attacks on Christianity and the Mormon church.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> So, as someone ignorant of topics like aversion therapy for gays, is it correct for me to assume from the facts presented that no baptists or methodists have been to aversion therapy? It's only a LDS thing?


Maybe, maybe not. It is just that Frank and many on the left do not feel a need to make an attempt at marginalizing them and make the religion seem barbaric and medieval for the '08 election cycle. Funny how none of the Mormon bashing was going on before Romney started to make a horse race out of the nomination.


----------



## cufflink44 (Oct 31, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> I do not think anyone here has yet to argue that diversion therapy, of one sort or another, has not occured. I also do not think anyone here has argued that the teachings of the LDS church are not those of all other Abrahmic religions (Xtian, Muslim, Judaic), i.e. homosexuality is wrong.
> 
> The error is in presenting genital torture as a factual, accepted, and possibly common, practice in the LDS church. The suicide of "tens of thousands" of US teens yearly as a result of institutionalized cultural bigotry. That is what we all seem to have a problem with.
> 
> The issue of the rightness or wrongness of the LDS Church's stance is not at issue, rather Frank's "facts".


 I don't know about Islam, but the other Abrahamic religions are not monolithic with respect to their teaching on sexuality in general or on homosexuality in particular. Today you can find Jewish and Christian groups all over the spectrum, from total condemnation of gay relationships to full acceptance. I acknowledge that the source documents are generally not accepting (there is that David and Jonathan thing, though . . . ); the fact that religions can change is, I suppose, something to be said in their favor.

As for Frank's "tens of thousands" of gay youth committing suicide every year in this country, let's agree that the number is hyperbolic. What is a fact is that gay teens are considerably more likely to commit suicide than their straight counterparts.

The following quote is found on a number of web sites (e.g. ):In 1989, the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued its "Report on the Secretary's Task Force on Youth Suicide," which found that "A majority of suicide attempts by homosexuals occur during their youth, and gay youth are 2 to 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than other young people."​Ten years later, a study (referenced ) in The Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine confirmed the "three times" figure.

I for one don't need there to be tens of thousands of dead bodies to find that fact disquieting.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

It saddens me beyond words that so many would so easily accept and embrace as fact the words of a few disgruntled individuals. I have reviewed all of the sources provided here, all either anti-Mormon sites or pro-Gay sites. I told my wife last night, when I did not immediately see a response from Frank, that he was probably going to be up all night googling the issue to find sources to back him up. What does he come up with intially? The "Las Vegas Bugle," a self-proclaimed "everything gay" site. His other "sources" are equally biased. Not even ultra-liberal CNN, MSNBC, the Washington Post, New York Times, etc., just the Las Vegas Bugle.

I remember a few years ago when the mainstream media was all over the Catholic church accusing priests of rampant molestation of young boys. The San Jose Mercury News ran such an article making it sound as if, indeed, it was "institutionalized," as Frank referred to the issue at hand here, rather than a problem with individual immorality.

As a former Catholic, one who has spent 12 years of his life in private, Catholic schools, one who had been an altar boy, one who had spent several years as a Sacristan (head altar boy and the only one paid), I felt a duty to the truth. I wrote to the newspaper and entitled my response: A Mormon Missionary's Defense of Catholicism."

I was a child (Elementary School) when I became an altar boy. I was still a child when I became the Sacristan. I used to get up around 4AM every morning, ride my bike to the church, open the church, turn on the lights, light the candles, and prepare for the first morning mass, which as I remember was at 6:30AM. I had total and complete access to the church, to the priests, and they to me. I trusted, completely, the Jesuit priests that supervised me, had authority over me, and that trust was *NEVER* violated. Father Donahue - one of the greatest men I have ever known, followed closely by Father Spolatini.

I later attended an all-boys Jesuit college preparatory, Bellarmine. Again, I trusted the Jesuits who taught me completely. Again, that trust was *NEVER* violated. Those kind, gentle, Jesuit priests and scholastics had access to me in the most private and secluded environments imaginable. Nothing ever happened.

Now, does this mean or prove that there are not bad priests? Of course not. It does illustrate that not all priests are bad nor are all institutions part of some right-wing conspiracy to keep quiet what is "really going on."

As an LDS adult trying to raise his children later in life, I found my children being picked on in school because they were "different." They were different because they were LDS and lived by standards many of their peers did not live by. After my oldest son was kicked in the groin from behind by another kid, while he was in line waiting to go to class, I decided to go to the school board. After making a complaint to the school board, the same child who kicked my son pulled a knife on him, a knife in a "violence free zone!" The boy was suspended from school for a week and branded by the principal a "very good boy who is just misunderstood!"

I took my sons out of public school and put them into the same private, Catholic school that I had attended in my youth. Two Mormon boys attending Catholic school. I did so to protect my children from the same type of small-minded people that I have read from here. I simultaneously enrolled them in martial arts with the best instructors I could find in the world. After they had learned to defend themselves, I put them back into public school. No one picked on them, successfully, after that.

No one has more respect for the Jesuits who instructed me over the years, protected me from drug use, violence, and other ills that many kids were subjected to routinely in public school, than does this FORMER Catholic. When I decided to become a Mormon I went to my Jesuit priest counselor at Bellarmine. He did not try to talk me out of joining, rather, he asked me why I had decided to do so and then asked if he could assist me in any way. He answered questions I had about Catholicism and tried to be supportive. My father, a devout Catholic, complained to the school because the Father did not chastise me for my belief system. He then withdrew all funding for the school and sent out letters to his friends and clients asking them to do likewise. The priest, and the school, continued in their support of me.

I am forever indebted to those kind Jesuits and am proud of my Catholic heritage. I am proudly a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. I am proud of my two years of missionary service for my church in Brasil. I am proud of my oldest sons two years missionary service for the church in Japan.

FrankDC: "And to whomewhere, sorry if you took my earlier reference to the LDS personally. It wasn't intended in any way to target either you or your family. I didn't even know you were LDS until your last response in this thread."

Of course you meant to target me Frank, just as you did in the other thread when I talked about my gay son. Interesting, isn't it Frank, that when you review the sources you site they refer to this Mormon culture and how we treat our children who come out. My son was not disowned by his family. My son was not sent to any reversion therapy. My son has never been told he is evil, the "Spawn of Satan," or that he is any less loved because of his sexuality. That said, given his current behavior and attitude, given the influence of those around him (people like Frank), it will not surprise me if he someday writes a book about all of his repressed feelings and the horrible things that we did to him. I say this because he already posted a blog, one he did not realize we had access to, where he accused his mother of all people of saying he was "Satan." I wonder where he got such an idea and those words, Frank? From BIGOTS like YOU!

You and your sources say that the crazy things that you say are factual and true, but I reject you and your sources as liars. People like you, and your sources, want to brand the Catholic church an institution for pedophilia, as well, and I reject you and your sources again, and call you liars.

I have NEVER referred to my son in the way your sources, and you by proxy, have suggested Frank, but I do refer to YOU as such: YOU ARE EVIL FRANK! You are also a coward. You make the harshest of statements, but then claim you were only citing it. You attack me repeatedly, but then say it was not personal. You were threatened with removal from the forum so you are backpedaling faster than Lance Armstrong. But your hate speech continues anyway. You need to take your own advice and get some serious help Frank. You are a very, very sick person.

Why is it that when you find someone with my experience, an experience that is totally contrary to your political agenda, I am not cited?

No, you find a "former" Mormon:

"_Jayce still holds tightly to his Mormon beliefs and teachings. He says he still wants to be a good Mormon. "I'm still a Mormon, and I still believe, and they can't take that away from me. The faith is inside me, whether my name is on the roll -- it really doesn't matter anymore."_

The translation Frank, in case you missed it? He was excommunicated Frank, which means he is NOT a Mormon. He clearly wants the church to comform to his way of thinking, much as my own son does, and so self-proclaims himself to still be Mormon, even though he has been excommunicated. He is no more a Mormon Frank than I am a Catholic. Sure, I know a lot about the Catholic church, more than most Catholics, but I joined another faith, one whose teachings conform with my own. I did not try and change the Catholic church, reform it, mold into my own image. That is what people like you advocate. No, I found a faith that I believe in, whose teachings I accept, and moved on with my life. I did so with the greatest respect and admiration for Catholicism, but I am not Catholic, I am Mormon.

Originally Posted by *Teacher* https://askandyaboutclothes.com/community/showthread.php?p=564699#post564699 
_"Holy mackrel, there are a lot more hateful, bigotted people on AAAC than I would every have thought. I'm a much sadder person for having read this thread."_

I could not agree more. What a sad day it is indeed.

One final, important, thing Frank: While serving as a missionary in Brasil, a hate-filled, anti-Mormon placed a bomb at my apartment door. The blast left me partially deaf in my left ear and partially blind in my left eye, amongst other ill effects. I have endured far worse than the hateful speech of people like yourself. Like then, your attacks only make me stronger, more relentless in my beliefs. You have accomplished nothing Frank.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Do not make assumptions...*

Cufflink44:

First, the biggest two risk factors for suicide, and all the data supports this, is being white and male. End of story there.

To religion: I could give a crap about what they teach, but my statement is a very accurate reflection of the overall stance. Please name for me any large sect of any of the Abrahmic religions that openly embrace the act of homosexuality (vs. homosexuals, as some sects are splitting hairs about this).

Do not assume I have a single thing against gays just because I am arguing about the veracity of Frank's statements. I have stated here many times I am 110% for gays having all the legal rights of everyone else, including civil union and adoption.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

From a PM to me said:


> Why is that only FrankDC gets his knuckles rapped by the mods in the EHarmony thread when there are plenty of other questionable posts in that thread by other members? How many times are the likes of Jolly Roger and Wayfarer allowed to make personal attacks with impunity? Take a look, for example, at Wayfarer's record on the Interchange and how many times he clearly violates AAAC#1. Does he get a free pass because he is one of the regulars? Why is he allowed to remain in good standing? What good are the rules if noncompliance is not met with any consequences?


Though we moderators realize that _everything_ members write on the Interchange is immeasurably critical to the future of the world, there are some 12,100+ of you and only six of us. Thus, read as fast as we might 24/7, we are simply unable to keep pace with this neverending source of supremely vital information.

We are forced to rely heavily, though not completely, upon the assistance of those members who are inclined to be helpful. During the past few weeks, it seems as if a merry multitude of members have been eager to be of assistance in reporting the alleged mis-steps of FrankDC ... whereas the above-referenced, non-specific-yet-accusatory PM is the first notice I have seen of the Tribal Warlord and his trusty ship. Hence, it is to those "Frank is off the reservation" statutory violation reports we have responded.

Now, if the Frankness (no pun intended) of this post results in a veritable deluge of "Reported Posts" - as I suspect it will - then remember the following: If we are spending all of our time reading Post Reports, we can't be spending that time reading Reported Posts.

Nor, I suppose, can we be answering members' inquiries about shoes, shirts, clothing history, classic clothing, and trad subjects, but Hey! Why would anyone want to spend time discussing clothing when we have a forum full of bigotry and _ad hominem_ attacks upon which we ccan concentrate our time???


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

> Why is that only FrankDC gets his knuckles rapped by the mods in the EHarmony thread when there are plenty of other questionable posts in that thread by other members? How many times are the likes of Jolly Roger and Wayfarer allowed to make personal attacks with impunity?


Oh please. What kind of crybaby sends reports like this? I'll tell you: someone who can't or won't effectively argue against certain ideas and therefore hopes that some authority figure will come in and end the argument for them.

I don't see that there have yet been any "personal attacks" or comments on this thread worth moderator action, from Frank, Wayfarer, me, or anyone else. Has there been some ribbing and a few rhetorical digs? Sure. Has it been anything to go tattle-tell over? Hardly.

Of course, I obviously defer to the mods' sensibilities in this matter. Mr. Kabbaz, if you think I'm stepping over the line or coming close to deserving censure, just let me know.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Yes we have been through this, and in my view the answer is still clear: this same rationale was used for 100+ years to justify anti-miscegenation laws in the U.S. (i.e. "Everyone is free to marry someone of the same race, therefore anti-miscegenation laws are constitutional"), yet today we view these laws as shameful remnants of past bigotry. Current "defense of marriage" laws are headed for the same eventual outcome, even according to many in the movement itself.
> I wish someone could explain what benefits, specifically, we as a society accrue by denying gay people the right to legally recognized marriage. The list of benefits we'd accrue by recognizing these marriages is extensive.





Phinn said:


> I wish someone could explain what benefits, specifically, we as a society accrue by allowing the State to license and regulate marriage (or any other mutually voluntary relationship for that matter).


So far, this is the closest thing to an answer to my question as has been offered in this thread. The answer to your question has already been given both here and in courtrooms across the U.S. There's no shortage of examples to use where the State was (and is) able to show a compelling interest in denying marriage rights to a given class of American, e.g. incestual relationships, polygamists etc. In each case the practice results in substantial increased costs to the State (incest), or is predatory to children and women (polygamy), etc. But the state has failed to show a compelling, or frankly even rational interest in denying marriage rights to same-sex couples, and the claims made by the "defense of marriage" camp about the practice (such as claiming birth rates would decline, divorce rates would rise etc) have already been disproven in states and foreign countries where these marriages are recognized.


----------



## cufflink44 (Oct 31, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> Cufflink44:
> 
> First, the biggest two risk factors for suicide, and all the data supports this, is being white and male. End of story there.
> 
> ...


Wayfarer:

To take your points in reverse order:

I certainly haven't assumed you're anti-gay; if that came across in my post, sorry-it was unintended. I've noted and I applaud your support of legal rights for gay people.

As for religion, I'm less qualified to speak about Christian doctrine, but I know something about Judaism. Of the recognized branches-Orthodox/Ultra-Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, and Reconstructionist-the last two are supportive of gay relationships. Interesting information here. An excerpt:The Reform Judaism movement, the largest branch of Judaism in North America, has rejected the traditional view of Jewish Law on this issue. As such, they do not prohibit ordination of gays and lesbians as rabbis and cantors. They view Levitical laws as sometimes seen to be referring to prostitution, making it a stand against Jews adopting the idolatrous fertility cults and practices of the neighbouring Canaanite nations rather than a blanket condemnation of same-sex intercourse or homosexuality. Reform authorities consider that, in light of what is seen as current scientific evidence about the nature of homosexuality as a biological sexual orientation, a new interpretation of the law is required.​The Reform branch allows the ordination of gay rabbis and cantors; admits gay men and lesbians, including gay couples, as fully participating members of the synagogue; and permits rabbis to officiate at gay commitment ceremonies. As far as I know, however, they're still against outright gay marriage. All in all, though, not bad.

Note that this is emphatically _not _a question of "love the sinner, hate the sin." I'd say that celebrating the committed relationships of active homosexuals, as the Reform movement does, comes pretty close to fulfilling your requirement of "openly embrac[ing] the act of homosexuality." (By the way, I'm not trying to be difficult, but "the" act of homosexuality is, of course, many acts. Gay men and lesbians can relate to each other physically in a number of different ways, just as heterosexuals do.)

Finally, I understand you're a health care professional, and I won't argue about your statement that the biggest risk factors for suicide are being white and male. But unless my understanding of statistics is seriously off, it seems to me that your fact is not incompatible with mine, namely that gay youth are at a two- to three-times risk for suicide compared to straight kids.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*I have a fan!*

And I am tickled pink (excuse any pun-like quality) about it! My only disappointment is that it is an anonymous fan from some Good Sir, Madame, or gender neutral salutation.

:icon_viking:


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Cufflin44:

Thanks for the info about those branches of Judiasm, I will read up on that.

Also, you are correct, being gay does up the risk for suicide, no doubt there. And that is not in contradiction to what the two biggest single risk factors are, namely being white and male.

Lastly, thank you for noting my actual position on the topic.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Yesterday being Sunday, I taught my usual group of 8 year old children in their Primary class, similar to Sunday school. The lesson yesterday was on the parable of the "Good Samaritan" and the concept of loving your neighbor, as the parable was speaking to. One of the issues we touched on was the idea that good begets good and bad begets bad. I challenged the kids to think of someone at school that is an outcast, for whatever reason, someone who needs a friend, and then asked that they befriend them, show them kindness. Of course, I had no idea what was waiting for me when I got home in this thread. 

Tonight being Monday night, our family will gather together for our "Family Home Evening." Given the events that have transpired here, I think it would be appropriate to enlighten our children as to what they can expect from the world as they grow up, members of the church. I will print out some of FrankDC's comments, read them to my family, and then ask for input on how we can turn all of this hatred into something good.

Some ideas I have, addressing areas that Frank has specifically touched, include making a contribution in Frank's name to the Brigham Young University education fund, specifically, the physcology department. Since my gay son is a physcology major, it seems ironically appropriate. I am also aware of a young man from our local ward who will be leaving for his mission soon. He lacks full funding for his mission and I think it would be appropriate for our family to support his efforts, in Frank's name. I have already called the local LDS temple and had Frank's name placed on the prayer rolls for the temple, this way, tens of thousands of Mormon faithful can pray for Frank, anonymously.

Knowing my 9 year old daughter as I do, I suspect she will want to make Frank a get well card, one that she will create from her heart. When she is done, I will scan the card and post it here. Afterall, it will be meant for Frank and how else can I get it to him?

Good must beget good. The ripple effect of Frank's hatred must be stopped and I will focus all of my efforts there. It is my duty to forgive and love all, not some, all. That includes Frank. I am not there yet, or even close, of course, but I am trying.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Whomewhat:

That sounds like some very kind and productive ways to deal with some of the rather nasty accusations that have been floating around here. While I remain religiously godless ( :icon_smile_big: ) I try and foster volunteerism and public service as I can. I had been planning to sponsor a developmentally disabled teenager for a paid work program at my organization this summer and I shall dedicate the donation required to all those that define "diversity" as conformity to their views.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Maybe, maybe not. It is just that Frank and many on the left do not feel a need to make an attempt at marginalizing them and make the religion seem barbaric and medieval for the '08 election cycle. Funny how none of the Mormon bashing was going on before Romney started to make a horse race out of the nomination.


Wayfarer, please explain how someone, in fact anyone who takes what is written in the Bible or the Book of Mormon literally can be called something other than barbaric and medieval. It's written there in black and white: homosexuals are to be put to death. The Book of Mormon says the same thing about adulterers. You either believe these teachings or you don't.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> There's no shortage of examples to use where the State was (and is) able to show a compelling interest in denying marriage rights to a given class of American, e.g. incestual relationships, polygamists etc. In each case the practice results in substantial increased costs to the State (incest), or is predatory to children and women (polygamy), etc.


That is simply incorrect. Polygamy is not intrinsically predatory to children! That is just more of the same crap. Many cultures with arranged marriages often arrange it at a very young age, are you maintaining arranged marriages are predatory to children?

Is it very true that polygamy, as practised by some splinter groups, involves unwilling child brides? Certainly. However, this does not create the logical necessity that polygamy as a concept does nor does it prove a compelling interest of the State to prohibit it. How about polyandry? Are you going to maintain that is inherently predatory to men? Group marriages of multiple people? No Frank, you just do not want to allow a legal union between more than two people and that is just as unfoundedly bigoted and biased as any other.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Wayfarer, please explain how someone, in fact anyone who takes what is written in the Bible or the Book of Mormon literally can be called something other than barbaric and medieval. It's written there in black and white: homosexuals are to be put to death. The Book of Mormon says the same thing about adulterers. You either believe these teachings or you don't.


And so does the Koran. And we all remember what happened to the city of Sodom, right? And plucking out your eye if you see a woman and covet her? So are you willing to deem all Xtians and Muslims barbaric and medieval? If not, you have singled out Mormons for special attention and you have my suspected reasons why.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

When I was 8 years old we just beat kids like that up.


----------



## tabasco (Jul 17, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I wish someone could explain what benefits, specifically, we as a society accrue by allowing the State to license and regulate marriage (or _*any other*_ mutually voluntary relationship for that matter).


I think it has something to do with all that messy "legitimate heir" business...children.

-parent


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Wayfarer, please explain how someone, in fact anyone who takes what is written* in the Bible or the Book of Mormon* literally can be called something other than barbaric and medieval. It's written there in black and white: homosexuals are to be put to death. The Book of Mormon says the same thing about adulterers. You either believe these teachings or you don't.


You mean in like 19 years of Sunday School, I somehow missed the "thou shalt kill all gays" lessons right there in front of me in black-n-white?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You mean in like 19 years of Sunday School, I somehow missed the "thou shalt kill all gays" lessons right there in front of me in black-n-white?


No one that went to your Sunday School is making what appears to be a strong run for POTUS ksinc. There's the difference.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> That is simply incorrect. Polygamy is not intrinsically predatory to children! That is just more of the same crap. Many cultures with arranged marriages often arrange it at a very young age, are you maintaining arranged marriages are predatory to children?


This is your usual sidestep tactic. No one said anything about arranged marriages or group marriages. Except you.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> ... the claims made by the "defense of marriage" camp about the practice (such as claiming birth rates would decline, divorce rates would rise etc) have already been disproven in states and foreign countries where these marriages are recognized.


Frank, I would be interesting in seeing whatever evidence you might have to back up these assertions.

I recognize, of course, that it might not be entirely possible to establish clear causality between the legalization of gay marriage/unions and declining birthrates; however, if we are to be intellectually honest we must admit that birthrates in those highly secular social democracies that have legalized gay marriages have indeed declined, except amongst those immigrant groups which remain highly religious in nature and do not themselves approve of or recognize the validity of gay marriages.

Also, your claims about the divorce rates are somewhat disingenuous in that overall _marriage rates_ in favor of simple cohabitation have declined in those secular European social democracies that have recognized gay unions. In the Netherlands, for example, the rate of children born out of wedlock increased by 13% in the first six years after they legalized same-sex unions.

So while it may not be possible to directly show a causality between the legalization of same-sex unions and declining birth rates or the dissolution of traditional marriage, it is safe to say that they are all three symptomatic of an increasing secularism in European society.

Worth noting, too, is that these same trends do not apply to the increasing numbers of Middle Eastern and North African immigrants, who themselves do no subscribe to these liberal and secular tenets. As the demographic strength of this youthful, fertile, and fundamentally religious segment of European society increases, as it has been and will continue to do, the aging secular social democrats of Europe will find in their midst an ever-increasing number of people who do not ascribe to their liberal beliefs. This will only imperil their secular, liberal society, and they may well eventually find themselves in a situation where they are subject to a type of Shari'a law which does not recognize in any way the rights of gays, women, or atheists. But any attempt to have a frank (no pun intended) discussion of this demographic problem is met from those same self-righteous liberal leftists with cries of "hater", "bigot", and "nazi!"

Liberalism is a vicious circle. It usually ends up swallowing itself in the end.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> I think it has something to do with all that messy "legitimate heir" business...children.


In the first place, even if we assume that this is the State's actual motivation for seizing control over the marriage process, which it isn't, courts still somehow manage to deal with messy contract problems every day, but we don't have to obtain governmental pre-approval to make a contract with someone else. Not yet, anyway.

In the second place, legitimacy of heirs is a defunct concept, and has been for quite some time, at least in the various jurisdictions where I have worked. And even if it hadn't been abolished, DNA technology has put the nail in the coffin of disputed paternity.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You mean in like 19 years of Sunday School, I somehow missed the "thou shalt kill all gays" lessons right there in front of me in black-n-white?


It probably wasn't covered in your Sunday School. They also likely did not provide lists of "this is what we believe from Bible" and "this is what we don't believe from the Bible".


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> This is your usual sidestep tactic. No one said anything about arranged marriages or group marriages. Except you.


It is not a side step, it is what one usually calls "debate", to draw in similar and parallel cases. However, let us dispense with such hi' falutin' things and just deal with polygamy then so you can concentrate.

*DEMONSTRATE THE LOGICAL NECESSITY THAT REQUIRES PREDATION OF CHILDREN AND/OR WOMEN IN POLYGAMY OR YOU ARE ONCE AGAIN SHOWN TO BE FULL OF NOTHING BUT HATE TOWARDS ANYTHING REMOTELY MORMON AND A RELIGIOUS BIGOT.*

It is really that simple. I simply cannot believe that you are continuing on with your pogrom against Mormons.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> Frank, I would be interesting in seeing whatever evidence you might have to back up these assertions.
> 
> I recognize, of course, that it might not be entirely possible to establish clear causality between the legalization of gay marriage/unions and declining birthrates; however, if we are to be intellectually honest we must admit that birthrates in those highly secular social democracies that have legalized gay marriages have indeed declined, except amongst those immigrant groups which remain highly religious in nature and do not themselves approve of or recognize the validity of gay marriages.


https://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-5119233_ITM

https://www.psychpage.com/gay/gmkurtz.html



Jolly Roger said:


> Also, your claims about the divorce rates are somewhat disingenuous in that overall _marriage rates_ in favor of simple cohabitation have declined in those secular European social democracies that have recognized gay unions. In the Netherlands, for example, the rate of children born out of wedlock increased by 13% in the first six years after they legalized same-sex unions.


You appear to be repeatedly quoting from the same Kurtz nonsense. If you think about it logically, how could recognition of same-sex unions affect the rate of children born out of wedlock? Last I checked two people of the same sex cannot procreate, and gay people as a rule don't magically become heterosexual, marry and start families just because George W. Bush tells them to.



Jolly Roger said:


> So while it may not be possible to directly show a causality between the legalization of same-sex unions and declining birth rates or the dissolution of traditional marriage, it is safe to say that they are all three symptomatic of an increasing secularism in European society.
> 
> Worth noting, too, is that these same trends do not apply to the increasing numbers of Middle Eastern and North African immigrants, who themselves do no subscribe to these liberal and secular tenets. As the demographic strength of this youthful, fertile, and fundamentally religious segment of European society increases, as it has been and will continue to do, the aging secular social democrats of Europe will find in their midst an ever-increasing number of people who do not ascribe to their liberal beliefs. This will only imperil their secular, liberal society, and they may well eventually find themselves in a situation where they are subject to a type of Shari'a law which does not recognize in any way the rights of gays, women, or atheists.
> 
> Liberalism is a vicious circle. It usually ends up swallowing itself in the end.


To the contrary, it's hardly surprising that same-sex marriage has become a non-issue in states and countries which have recognized them, the exact same way interracial marriages became a non-issue in short order after anti-miscengenation laws were relegated to the scrapheap of historical bigotry.


----------



## Alexander Kabbaz (Jan 9, 2003)

Jolly Roger said:


> Oh please. What kind of crybaby sends reports like this? I'll tell you: someone who can't or won't effectively argue against certain ideas and therefore hopes that some authority figure will come in and end the argument for them.
> 
> I don't see that there have yet been any "personal attacks" or comments on this thread worth moderator action, from Frank, Wayfarer, me, or anyone else. Has there been some ribbing and a few rhetorical digs? Sure. Has it been anything to go tattle-tell over? Hardly.
> 
> Of course, I obviously defer to the mods' sensibilities in this matter. Mr. Kabbaz, if you think I'm stepping over the line or coming close to deserving censure, just let me know.


Just to be perfectly clear, Frank did *not* write that PM.

This time. 



Wayfarer said:


> While I remain religiously godless ( :icon_smile_big: ) ...


 Philistine. You're probably a philanderer, too, eh? Darn warlords. Give 'em a small harem and they thing they rule the heavens.


----------



## Phinn (Apr 18, 2006)

> gay people as a rule don't magically become heterosexual, marry and start families just because George W. Bush tells them to.


I'm pretty sure that it was Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You mean in like 19 years of Sunday School, I somehow missed the "thou shalt kill all gays" lessons right there in front of me in black-n-white?


You missed that Sunday? Well let me tell you, that was a good one. They even taught how to pick a good stone for throwing. Make sure you attend the next session!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Alexander Kabbaz said:


> Philistine. You're probably a philanderer, too, eh? Darn warlords. Give 'em a small harem and they thing they rule the heavens.


No, I am also hopelessly faithful. Thankfully we became a couple at 32 so all my youthful indescretions had long ago been resolved


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Wayfarer said:


> No one that went to your Sunday School is making what appears to be a strong run for POTUS ksinc. There's the difference.


ROFL! ok, ok. I get it!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> This is your usual sidestep tactic. No one said anything about arranged marriages or group marriages. Except you.


Oh yes, and Francis, speaking of side steps, tell us why all other forms of Xtianity is not medevial and barbaric, as they have such statements in the bible. And all Muslims, as not only does it state this in the Koran, some countries actually still do it.

So please, explain to us all why you have this special place in your heart for Mormons?


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> https://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-5119233_ITM
> 
> https://www.psychpage.com/gay/gmkurtz.html


Wow. While we can hardly take as impartial any such screed that attacks everyone who questions the rectitude of gay marriage as "self-serving politicians, sectarian moralists, or thinly veiled bigots grasping at any straw they can to support policies reflecting their anti-gay prejudice. (Some are all three.)", I don't see how what you have posted contradicts in any way the point I have made.

That point, once more in case you didn't quite understand it the first time, is that the dissolution of tradition marriage (acknowledged in your referenced article), historically low birthrates (acknowledged in your referenced article), the increasing prevalence of children born outside the bonds of marriage (acknowledged in your referenced article), and the state recognition of same-sex unions are all concurrent developments accompanying an increase in secular liberalism in Northern Europe.

Once more, thanks for making my point.



> You appear to be repeatedly quoting from the same Kurtz nonsense. If you think about it logically, how could recognition of same-sex unions affect the rate of children born out of wedlock? Last I checked two people of the same sex cannot procreate, and gay people as a rule don't magically become heterosexual, marry and start families just because George W. Bush tells them to.
> 
> To the contrary, it's hardly surprising that same-sex marriage has become a non-issue in states and countries which have recognized them, the exact same way interracial marriages became a non-issue in short order after anti-miscengenation laws were relegated to the scrapheap of historical bigotry.


Ok, we heard that sloganeering the first several times you posted it. Not surprisingly, though, it has absolutely zero to do with the issues I just raised. Would you care to address those issues, or shall we just acknowledge that you don't have a logical leg to stand on?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Phinn said:


> I'm pretty sure that it was Clinton who signed the Defense of Marriage Act.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Those damn facts!


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> Wow. While we can hardly take as impartial any such screed that attacks everyone who questions the rectitude of gay marriage as "self-serving politicians, sectarian moralists, or thinly veiled bigots grasping at any straw they can to support policies reflecting their anti-gay prejudice. (Some are all three.)", I don't see how what you have posted contradicts in any way the point I have made.
> 
> That point, once more in case you didn't quite understand it the first time, is that the dissolution of tradition marriage (acknowledged in your referenced article), historically low birthrates (acknowledged in your referenced article), the increasing prevalence of children born outside the bonds of marriage (acknowledged in your referenced article), and the state recognition of same-sex unions are all concurrent developments accompanying an increase in secular liberalism in Northern Europe.
> 
> Once more, thanks for making my point.


If Kurtz had to contort the numbers any harder to make his pre-ordained conclusions, we would have had to call an ambulance for him. The numbers prove one thing conclusively: the overwhelming causes for the decline in marriage and birth rates, and increase in divorce rates over the last 40 years have been the changes in women's roles in our societies, and liberalization of divorce and immigration laws. Gay people have had zilch to do with it, and heterosexuals have made a mockery of the institution all by themselves.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

"Wayfarer, please explain how someone, in fact anyone who takes what is written in the Bible or the Book of Mormon literally can be called something other than barbaric and medieval."

Okay, I am not Wayfarer. Not to get into a religious debate here since no one can ever win such a debate, but I do feel it imortant to answer the question about aspects of the Bible that Frank has referenced. 

Most Christian faiths that I am aware of, without claiming to know what they all teach, are based on the teachings of Jesus Christ, hence the term, Christianity. Speaking for myself, the Old Testament is based on the "Law of Moses," or the lesser law, where in fact stonings for certain crimes was permitted. When Christ began to teach and assumed his position as head of the church, we began what is known as the "Law of Christ," or the higher law. Christ, in fact, condemned stonings of adulterers and even forgave the woman he saved from such. Under the Law Of Christ, such punishment is not permitted.

One can accept the Old Testament as the Word of God, applicable in whole to the people of Abraham and Moses, and only in part today, as modified by Jesus Christ. Their simply is no contradiction or barbarism, as Frank wishes to mischaracterize it. 

Actually, it is similar to what Frank's hero, Hillary Clinton, said in the debate last night about the issue of "Don't Ask Don't Tell." She said, not wanting to criticize her husband, that it was "transitional" and what the people were ready for at the time. Now, according to her, we are more enlightened and ready for the "higher law," as she sees it. Obviosuly, I completely disagree with her on this issue, but the point of "transitional law" works very well here.

I cannot believe that such a simple concept is missed by one as clearly intellegent as Frank.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> If Kurtz had to contort the numbers any harder to make his pre-ordained conclusions, we would have had to call an ambulance for him. The numbers prove one thing conclusively: the overwhelming causes for the decline in marriage and birth rates, and increase in divorce rates over the last 40 years have been the changes in women's roles in our societies, and liberalization of divorce and immigration laws. Gay people have had zilch to do with it, and heterosexuals have made a mockery of the institution all by themselves.


Now you are saying gays are statistically irrelevant/insignificant?


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> If Kurtz had to contort the numbers any harder to make his pre-ordained conclusions, we would have had to call an ambulance for him. The numbers prove one thing conclusively: the overwhelming causes for the decline in marriage and birth rates, and increase in divorce rates over the last 40 years have been the liberalization of divorce and immigration laws. Gay people have had zilch to do with it, and heterosexuals have made a mockery of the institution all by themselves.


I'm not sure if you are have difficulty with reading comprehension or if you are just deliberately avoiding addressing anything that I actually say.

I prefer arguments with substance and arguments that evolve as they progress, so I hesitate to repeat myself, unlike certain other parties whose argumentative technique seems to involve spouting the same meaningless slogans _ad infinitum_, but for your sake I'll go back and retrieve one of my previous statements:



Jolly Roger said:


> So while it may not be possible to directly show a causality between the legalization of same-sex unions and declining birth rates or the dissolution of traditional marriage, it is safe to say that they are all three symptomatic of an increasing secularism in European society.


Since you seem to be struggling with that, let me simplify it for you:

I never said that recognition of same-sex marriage causes the institution of traditional marriage to break down. I never said that recognition of same-sex marriage causes low birth rates. I never said that recognition of same-sex marriage causes children to be born out of wedlock. What I said was that all of those things, including the state recognition of same-sex marriage, are products of secular liberalism and the erosion of the traditional Western social order.

While you may blithely trip along thinking that all of that is just hunky-dory, I say you're wrong. And I notice that, despite the fact that I've asked you about it several times now, you _still_ have not addressed the issue I raised in regards to the fact that massive immigration into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa -- another social development rabidly defended by secular liberals -- itself places that secular liberal society into a position of great peril.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> "Wayfarer, please explain how someone, in fact anyone who takes what is written in the Bible or the Book of Mormon literally can be called something other than barbaric and medieval."
> 
> Okay, I am not Wayfarer. Not to get into a religious debate here since no one can ever win such a debate, but I do feel it imortant to answer the question about aspects of the Bible that Frank has referenced.
> 
> ...


That's YOUR take. Fred Phelps would beg to differ.

Also, the Book of Mormon states:

"41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed cadultery and shall be destroyed."

https://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/41-44,61-63#41

This is the New Testament (or whatever equivalent term the LDS uses), not the OT. Do you believe the above teaching from Jesus or don't you?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> While you may blithely trip along thinking that all of that is just hunky-dory, I say you're wrong. And I notice that, despite the fact that I've asked you about it several times now, you _still_ have not addressed the issue I raised in regards to the fact that massive immigration into Europe from the Middle East and North Africa -- another social development rabidly defended by secular liberals -- itself places that secular liberal society into a position of great peril.


What indication do you see that Europe is trying to roll back our social progress clocks? In many cases they're at the forefront of global liberalism and have been for decades, while the Land of the Free and Islamic/Judaic theocracies remain mired in religious fundamentalism.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> That's YOUR take. Fred Phelps would beg to differ.
> 
> Also, the Book of Mormon states:
> 
> ...


Fred Phelps? C'mon, Frank. Phelps is the pastor of one church in Kansas, and not even a very large church. You would be hard pressed to find many in the Christian church that agree with anything that clown says.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> That's YOUR take. Fred Phelps would beg to differ.
> 
> Also, the Book of Mormon states:
> 
> ...


Not going to answer my questions again huh Frank? And you accuse me of "side stepping". Precious.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> That's YOUR take. Fred Phelps would beg to differ.


Fred Phelps is a gadfly, an insane annoyance who, along with his tiny following, have managed to alienate adherents to mainstream Christian denominations, American patriots, and military families as much as he has gay people.

Your attempt to introduce guilt by association into the argument is a logical fallacy of the first order. Saying that 'Fred Phelps doesn't approve of gay marriage, so therefore all people who don't approve of gay marriage are as crazy as Fred Phelps', just doesn't cut it. It's not honest, and it's not true.



> Also, the Book of Mormon states:
> 
> "41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed cadultery and shall be destroyed."


I suppose you're theologically qualified and versed enough in the scripture of the Book of Mormon to define for us exactly what is meant by "shall be destroyed" here? Are you able to tell us whether that refers to earthly punishment or something awaiting her in the afterlife? What are your qualifications for making such a judgement? Thanks.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Laxplayer said:


> Fred Phelps? C'mon, Frank. Phelps is the pastor of one church in Kansas, and not even a very large church. You would be hard pressed to find many in the Christian church that agree with anything that clown says.


That's getting to the root of the problem, Laxplayer. In my view and experience "defense of marriage" is a very thin, politically correct mask over a face of very ugly bigotry, hatred and fear. Phelps preaches what in written in the Bible, while e.g. the Roman Catholic Church tells gay people to abstain from homosexuality. It's a tough call to choose which of the two is in fact more evil.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> In my view and experience "defense of marriage" is a very thin, politically correct mask over a face of very ugly bigotry, hatred and fear.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Wow, you're being pretty harsh on Bill Clinton there Frank.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> I suppose you're theologically qualified and versed enough in the scripture of the Book of Mormon to define for us exactly what is meant by "shall be destroyed" here? Are you able to tell us whether that refers to earthly punishment or something awaiting her in the afterlife? What are your qualifications for making such a judgement? Thanks.


Which is worse, to kill a woman for committing adultery, or threatening her with eternal damnation for it? I'd think most christians would say the latter, so the former is of little consequence.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> What indication do you see that Europe is trying to roll back our social progress clocks? In many cases they're at the forefront of global liberalism and have been for decades, while the Land of the Free and Islamic/Judaic theocracies remain mired in religious fundamentalism.


Let me try to use fewer big words, so you can keep up:

Secular, liberal Europe has for the past forty or so years been welcoming lots and lots of immigrants from the Islamic world. The vast majority of these Islamic immigrants do not accept the ideals of secular, liberal Europe. Secular, liberal European policies have created a decline in native European birthrates, while birthrates among Islamic immigrants remain high; therefore, secular, liberal Europeans are finding themselves cohabiting with a large group of people who do not believe in secular, liberal ideals like women's rights, gay rights, rights for atheists, etc. Unfortunately, any time someone points this out, those same secular, liberal Europeans accuse them of racism or fascism; therefore, secular, liberal Europeans have themselves created and rabidly defend the conditions that will destroy their way of life.

Is that clear enough for you?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Which is worse, to kill a woman for committing adultery, or threatening her with eternal damnation for it? I'd think most christians would say the latter, so the former is of little consequence.


SIDE STEPPING! The issue you raised was *people* doing it, not a deity.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> That's YOUR take. Fred Phelps would beg to differ.
> 
> Also, the Book of Mormon states:
> 
> ...


Frank. This is the danger of people who are not of a particular faith claiming expertise in that faith, nonetheless.

You state, and this is a direct quote from YOU:

"Also, the Book of Mormon states:

"41 And as ye have asked concerning adultery, verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man receiveth a wife in the new and everlasting covenant, and if she be with another man, and I have not appointed unto her by the holy anointing, she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed."

https://scriptures.lds.org/en/dc/132/41-44,61-63#41"

You then follow that with this:

"This is the New Testament (or whatever equivalent term the LDS uses), not the OT. Do you believe the above teaching from Jesus or don't you?"

Frank, you just said "the *Book of Mormon states*" followed by "*This is the New Testament*."

First, YOU contradict yourself since no one on earth, other than uninformed anti-Mormons like you, has ever claimed the New Testament (Bible) to be the Book of Mormon. You are, apparently, making this claim.

What is even funnier, however, and reason enough to simply ignore all of your citations in the future is that the quote you provided is NOT from the Book of Mormon, rather, as it states at the top of the page that you took it from: "THE DOCTRINE AND COVENANTS OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS SECTION 132"

Your quote is NOT from the Book of Mormon Frank, it is from the Doctrine and Covenants, which is additional scripture we accept in our church. Frank, you really need to leave my faith to faithful Mormons because you are simply making a fool of yourself here.

Now as to the quote itself: "she hath committed adultery and shall be destroyed." First, it is her soul that will be destroyed, and only if she does not repent. You cannot continue to do as you always do, which is, to take a portion of scripture, one that you think makes a point you want to make, while leaving out the rest. I did tell you I was a returned missionary, right Frank? Nice try though.

Beyond these limited points, I will not comment further. To be perfectly blunt Frank, without being to cruel, you are simply not sufficiently inspired to understand the teachings of the full Gospel of Jesus Christ and it would be an exercise in futility to try and teach truth to someone not interested in truth.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Which is worse, to kill a woman for committing adultery, or threatening her with eternal damnation for it? I'd think most christians would say the latter, so the former is of little consequence.


I think you'll find that the Bible condemns adultery on the part of a man as well.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> I think you'll find that the Bible condemns adultery on the part of a man as well.


Actually, verse 43, which Frank conveniently left out, I suppose, to make it look like Mormons have one set of rules for men and another for women, states:

"43 And if her husband be with another woman, and he was under a vow, he hath broken his vow and hath committed adultery."


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> I think you'll find that the Bible condemns adultery on the part of a man as well.


Just curious, would (or do) you support civil laws which outlaw adultery? How about civil laws against homosexuality?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

*Final Question.*

Before I bow out of this thread, one serious question Frank. What in your life transpired to make you so rabidly anti-Mormon? This is not the only thread where you have singled out Mormonism, it is fairly obvious this is personal for you. Maybe if you share with us you will feel better and we will have some insight as to why you have a personal pogrom going against Mormons.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Just curious, would (or do) you support civil laws which outlaw adultery? How about civil laws against homosexuality?


Frank, I am not a moral crusader. Quite honestly, I don't really care what people get up to in their own bedrooms. It's their lives, and they can make their own decisions. In the privacy of their own homes, people can smoke weed and have buttsex while worshipping satan for all that I care.

I'm not even entirely opposed to state recognition of same-sex unions, as a matter of fact. My concern is with those who use issues like this as a means to undermine the Occidental social order and attack our traditional institutions.

I honestly believe that most Americans don't really care what their neighbors might get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms. What most Americans _don't_ want, however, is for their kids to see a bunch of guys in ass-less chaps prancing down the street and chanting, "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" They don't want people making waves in their churches over non-issues like the ordination of gays and women, they don't want people using judicial fiats to sidestep the fundamental 'majority rules' legislative process on which our Republic is predicated, and they don't want a tiny but vocal minority to impose the morality of places like California and Massachusetts on places like West Virginia and Oklahoma.

It seems some people just can't grasp the fact that by making a big stink all the time, they're just alienating lots of people who otherwise wouldn't care.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> In the privacy of their own homes, people can smoke weed and have buttsex while worshipping satan for all that I care.


You just described a few years in my early 20's...albiet from a heterosexual standpoint


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> Before I bow out of this thread, one serious question Frank. What in your life transpired to make you so rabidly anti-Mormon? This is not the only thread where you have singled out Mormonism, it is fairly obvious this is personal for you. Maybe if you share with us you will feel better and we will have some insight as to why you have a personal pogrom going against Mormons.


I don't specifically target any religion. I target anyone who wishes to impose their own set of religious beliefs on everyone else, in the form of civil laws.

Recognition of same-sex marriage is not a gay agenda. The denial of it to gay people is a religious agenda. Look at who's behind the organized "defense of marriage" demagoguery across the U.S. and the answer to your question becomes clear.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I don't specifically target any religion.


You can say that, but your actions repeatedly and specifically refute that statement.



FrankDC said:


> Look at who's behind the organized "defense of marriage" demagoguery across the U.S. and the answer to your question becomes clear.


Bill Clinton signed it into law so I guess you are referencing him?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> You can say that, but your actions repeatedly and specifically refute that statement.


That's simply incorrect.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> That's simply incorrect.


Is not!

This has started to resemble a Monty Python skit. Time for me to let this thread go. Why don't you head back over to that Peggy Noonan thread Frank, and enumerate all of Dean's ideas in that video clip? ic12337:

:icon_viking: :aportnoy: :icon_viking:


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> I honestly believe that most Americans don't really care what their neighbors might get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms. What most Americans _don't_ want, however, is for their kids to see a bunch of guys in ass-less chaps prancing down the street and chanting, "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!"


Be honest: have you ever been to a gay pride parade or festival? I don't mean the 30 second/drag queen/assless-chap-prancer "highlights" shown on the nightly news every year during the parades, but actually attended one?


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> Be honest: have you ever been to a gay pride parade or festival? I don't mean the 30 second/drag queen/assless-chap-prancer "highlights" shown on the nightly news every year during the parades, but actually attended one?


Why would I, and what does that have to do with anything except for you trying to avoid addressing my points?

For what it's worth, I've been to the Love Parade in Berlin and that was close enough for me.


----------



## cufflink44 (Oct 31, 2005)

Jolly Roger said:


> I honestly believe that most Americans don't really care what their neighbors might get up to in the privacy of their own bedrooms. *[1]* What most Americans _don't_ want, however, is for their kids to see a bunch of guys in ass-less chaps prancing down the street and chanting, "We're here, we're queer, get used to it!" *[2]* They don't want people making waves in their churches over non-issues like the ordination of gays and women, *[3]* they don't want people using judicial fiats to sidestep the fundamental 'majority rules' legislative process on which our Republic is predicated, and *[4]* they don't want a tiny but vocal minority to impose the morality of places like California and Massachusetts on places like West Virginia and Oklahoma. [Reference numbers added.]
> 
> It seems some people just can't grasp the fact that by making a big stink all the time, they're just alienating lots of people who otherwise wouldn't care.


1. Bringing up "guys in ass-less chaps prancing down the street and chanting" in the context of a discussion about gay marriage is not unlike introducing Fred Phelps in a discussion of Christianity (except, of course, that Phelps is many orders of magnitude more odious than the guys in chaps). If you agree not to point to the worst among us as exemplars of who we are, we'll afford you the same courtesy.

By the way, I have a lot of gay friends. I don't know a single individual who owns a pair of chaps, ass-less or otherwise. (As for me, my taste runs more to MTM suits--and soon, I hope, bespoke.)

2. I myself could(n't) care less what happens in churches, synagogues, or mosques as long as it doesn't affect me, but for a lot of people, the question of whether religious leadership is open to women and gays is hardly a "non-issue." For better or worse, religious people of all stripes take such things very, very seriously.

3. You don't like "judicial fiat" that circumvents majority rule. How do you feel about, say, Brown v. Board of Ed.? If we had left it to the majority in 1954, do you think we'd have ever have thrown out "separate but equal"? Isn't "majority rule" supposed to be tempered with "minority rights"?

4. This is less an argument than an observation, but in juxtaposing California and Massachusetts with West Virginia and Oklahoma in your point about imposing morality, you seem to be implying that the former states are somehow morally inferior to the latter. That seems . . . um . . . odd.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> Why would I, and what does that have to do with anything except for you trying to avoid addressing my points?


It's got everything to do with opinions which are based on ignorance, and your abysmally skewed view of gay advocacy.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

cufflink44 said:


> 1. Bringing up "guys in ass-less chaps prancing down the street and chanting" in the context of a discussion about gay marriage is not unlike introducing Fred Phelps in a discussion of Christianity(except, of course, that Phelps is many orders of magnitude more odious than the guys in chaps).
> 
> If you agree not to point to the worst among us as exemplars of who we are, we'll afford you the same courtesy.
> 
> By the way, I have a lot of gay friends. I don't know a single individual who owns a pair of chaps, ass-less or otherwise. (As for me, my taste runs more to MTM suits--and soon, I hope, bespoke.)


Fair enough, and again I never stated nor intended to imply that these types of people are in any way representative of gay people as a whole. My point was that these types of people -- and surely you must acknowledge that they exist -- are to the cause of gay rights what Fred Phelps is to the cause of Christianity; they think they're helping by bringing attention to an issue, but all they do is alienate and offend people who otherwise wouldn't care.



> 2. I myself could(n't) care less what happens in churches, synagogues, or mosques as long as it doesn't affect me, but for a lot of people, the question of whether religious leadership is open to women and gays is hardly a "non-issue." For better or worse, religious people of all stripes take such things very, very seriously.


That's also true. Still, the religious freedoms ensconced in our Bill of Rights allow people who have problems with established churches to dissent, split off, and form their own churches. People who agree with them are free to follow. Of course, some people just want to rock the boat and subscribe to the notion that there's no such thing as bad publicity. I assert that they couldn't be more wrong.



> 3. You don't like "judicial fiat" that circumvents majority rule. How do you feel about, say, Brown v. Board of Ed.? If we had left it to the majority in 1954, do you think we'd have ever have thrown out "separate but equal"? Isn't "majority rule" supposed to be tempered with "minority rights"?


While I don't feel that these issues are quite equal, I will note a few salient points here.

Firstly, the sentiment behind the Brown decision may have been noble, but it has -- and will continue to be, as we can see here -- been disastrously used as a legal precedent allowing the courts to do away with all sorts of institutions at the behest of small but vocal minorities, from school prayer to sedition laws to capital punishment.

Secondly, just a few decades after the Brown decision, we see all kinds of self-segregation occurring, from Black families in Detroit rejecting busing in favor of all-Black schools with all-Black faculties to the state-run Harvey Milk School for "for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youth" in New York.



> 4. This is less an argument than an observation, but in juxtaposing California and Massachusetts with West Virginia and Oklahoma in your point about imposing morality, you seem to be implying that the former states are somehow morally inferior to the latter. That seems . . . um . . . odd.


I suppose it might seem odd to a Californian.  Perhaps the prevailing morality in California is better... for Californians. Ours is better _for us_. The point is that the imposition of California's (and other such "progressive" places') morality on places like West Virginia essentially amounts to cultural colonialism, and its been taking place for years, through Hollywood, the educational system, and now through the federal courts.

You guys out there may _think_ you know what's good for the rest of us, but we can look at you and clearly see that you _don't_.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> It's got everything to do with opinions which are based on ignorance, and your abysmally skewed view of gay advocacy.


...says the guy who thinks that Mormon fathers all over the country are strapping electrodes to their children's genitalia.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I was a military SP assigned to the gay district of San Francisco. Oil Can Harry's made the Cantina scene in Star Wars about as exciting as the used book section of a Salvation Army store. But it was safer than the Oakland Doggie Diner where I almost got into a shootout with a pimp out of central casting. And I went to the infamous Hooker's Ball twice ,the Hollywood Halloween parade once and a handfull of Gay Pride festivals. I was invited by friends and honoured the friendship. I've also attended LDS services and family Home evenings for servicepeople. I was invited by friends and honoured the friendship.And I know the Christian Church somehow got along nicely until the Bible was codified. So my newly embraced Eastern Orthodoxy is based as much on unbroken tradition as Sola Scriptura . I accept the bible to be a work of man as much as God. It's a menu, not the meal. It's probably a good thing I have a fiancee' I seriously doubt E harmny could match me with anyone. But at least I can show a modicum of civility to others- most others.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> ...says the guy who thinks that Mormon fathers all over the country are strapping electrodes to their children's genitalia.


"All over the country" is your (and Wayfarer's, and maybe other's) extrapolation, not mine.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> "All over the country" is your (and Wayfarer's, and maybe other's) extrapolation, not mine.


Sorry, it must have been the whole part about _you saying you were thankful you were born in California instead of somewhere else because otherwise your Mormon father would be strapping electrodes to your nuts_ that confused me.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> Sorry, it must have been the whole part about _you saying you were thankful you were born in California instead of somewhere else because otherwise your Mormon father would be strapping electrodes to your nuts_ that confused me.


That isn't what I said. I said could, not would. Any relationship between the two words exists entirely between your left ear and right ear.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

FrankDC said:


> That isn't what I said. I said could, not would. Any relationship between the two words exists entirely between your left ear and right ear.


At least there's _something_ in there, which is more than can be said for certain other parties around here.

Anyway, this has been an interesting discussion with the _other_ participants, and trying to wrangle _you_ into actually addressing a point has even been kind of fun, too.

Still, I'm calling it quits on this one. I've told myself a thousand times that I shouldn't argue politics on the internet anymore, even if guys like you make it so easy. Just about everybody who actively participates in a discussion like this online comes across looking like some kind of extremist or weirdo.

I'm not going to pull out my Guilty White Liberal Credentials card and play the _I've got gay friends_ game, but let me extend a hand to those who might have been offended by any of my posts here. I would hope that all of you out there can see the validity of some of my points, just as I can see the validity of some the points you others have made (except for one rather hard-headed individual who hasn't offered a valid argument yet).

I'm married to a woman who spent her youth behind the Iron Curtain in a country where atheistic socialism was not just some revolutionary ideal toward which some people aspired; it was the law of the land. Sure, the rhetoric was noble enough -- the universal brotherhood of the working class; equal rights for all; the destruction of oppressive institutions like churches and capitalism in favor of a new social order. But the stark reality was very different -- government interference in _every_ aspect of a person's personal life; either being a member of The Party or not being able work or leave one's hometown; never knowing which of your neighbors was an informer for the secret police; people having their lives utterly ruined for voicing criticisms of the government.

And now that they have reunified with the half of their country which _wasn't_ subject to such totalitarian oppression in the name of the common good, no one wants to go back to that way of life (though in an inevitable backlash against its Socialist past, that part of the country has seen a disturbing rise in the popularity of extreme right political parties). Is it any wonder, then, that when I hear the same kind of rhetoric from naive, middle-class wannabe revolutionaries, I find it frightening? Is it any wonder then that when the same kind of rhetoric comes from the mouths of mainstream political candidates, I instinctively recoil from all that they stand for?

In any event, I came here to learn about and talk about clothes, not to pick fights over politics. This has been my first real foray into the Interchange, and it will be my last. I've said my piece, and this is turning petty. Go head and have the last word, Frank or whoever else has something to say. I'll see you guys on the other side.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Jolly Roger said:


> I'm not going to pull out my Guilty White Liberal Credentials card and play the _I've got gay friends_ game


Yikes. Couldn't have summed it up better myself.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> "All over the country" is your (and Wayfarer's, and maybe other's) extrapolation, not mine.


I never extrapolated "all over the country". Again you are either lying or simply incorrect. I am done with this thread as you are simply incapable of even a shred of honest debate so screw off misquoting me just for a while, m'kay?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> I never extrapolated "all over the country". Again you are either lying or simply incorrect. I am done with this thread as you are simply incapable of even a shred of honest debate so screw off misquoting me just for a while, m'kay?


Your exact quote, just for the record:

"The error is in presenting genital torture as a factual, accepted, and possibly common, practice in the LDS church."

The first part of that is incorrect (it has happened), the second was never claimed (at least by me), and the last is absolute extrapolation on your part.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Your exact quote, just for the record:
> 
> "The error is in presenting genital torture as a factual, accepted, and possibly common, practice in the LDS church."
> 
> The first part of that is incorrect (it has happened), the second was never claimed (at least by me), and the last is absolute extrapolation on your part.


Frank, show us the proof it has happened. Show it or just shut up and stop your ceaseless trolling.

Surely even you can see what I said is completely different from "extrapolating it is happening all over the country"? Surely?

No, of course not. *sigh* Go away Frank.

To the nameless person that wants me punished, I hope you can see what a hopeless troll Frank is and the restraint I am demonstrating. If you cannot, you and Frank should hook up.

Edit: and just to pre-empt the typical Frank bullshyte, you SPECIFICALLY said it happened in the LDS Church, the only hint of proof you provided....then quickly deleted....were events in South Africa. LOL, a long way from Salt Lake City.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Mr. Wayfarer:

Well, Frank has still not responded to the multitude of errors he made in first claiming that the Book of Mormon and New Testament were one in the same and then completely missing the boat by claiming that said quote was from said source when in fact it came from a completely different one. He missed this even though he sourced it and provided a direct link to the LDS site. 

He has completely discredited himself and does not have the decency to simply admit he was wrong and should not have talked about something he is completely ignorant of (sorry, that might limit his ability to discuss anything).

"To the nameless person that wants me punished, I hope you can see what a hopeless troll Frank is and the restraint I am demonstrating."

Frankly, I was surprised that my name was not in that list given the hell I have received. That said, my opinion on that is this. 

Some years ago I ran for public office, Planned Parenthood took out a full-page ad in our local newspaper wherein they branded me, and this is a quote: "The most dangerous man to a woman's reproductive rights in the county." This because I was honest in defending my position on abortion whereas my opponent, a self-proclaimed devout Catholic who gave communion to parish members in her church, refused to answer, publicly. In private endorsement interviews in front of organized labor, she claimed to be Pro-Choice, a position that would exclude her from her duties in church. Publicly, she simply refused to answer so as to protect her status with the church and its membership. That intellectual dishonesty made her a hero to Planned Parenthood while I was branded dangerous. Since the day that ad ran, I have worn the designation of "most dangerous" as a badge of honor.

Should I be banned from this forum, or any other, because I refused to take Frank's bigotry lying down and defended my faith, I would wear such as an even greater badge of honor.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

whomewhat:

You are proof that when well meaning people approach a topic in intellectual honesty, even though they might have completely antipodal opinions, they can respect each other's position. I am much more honoured to be in disagreement with you on a topic than I would be to be in agreement with Frank. You have done nothing but show you are a quality person.

Regards


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

Mr. Wayfarer:

I greatly appreciate your kind words and feel much the same as you do. You know, the very best friend I have in the world is pretty much the complete opposite of myself. We have little in common: He drinks, frequently, I do not drink at all; he smokes, frequently, I do not smoke; he likes to smoke "special" cigarettes, I am opposed to such; he lives with his girlfriend, I do not believe in premaritial sex or cohabitation. These are just a few of the issues we do not share. 

That said, I have no friend I trust more, respect more, and care about more. He is honest to a fault and respectful of my family, which is most important to me above all else. Like me, he places a high value on loyalty and trust and that is our basis for common ground. 

You may very well disagree with me on just about everything, but treat me with respect, as you have, and the rest works itself out. Again, thank you for your kindness.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> Should I be banned from this forum, or any other, because I refused to take Frank's bigotry lying down and defended my faith, I would wear such as an even greater badge of honor.


Personally I'd never wish for you or anyone to be banned from this forum. 
I made a reference to the LDS, as they are portrayed in a Hollywood movie, which you took or are still taking personally. For the second (or is it third) time this reference wasn't intended to target you or your family. It was simply meant as an accurate reference to a film. Replace the "LDS" in my original comment with some other religion name if you choose. It won't be accurate, but do it anyway.

What I rant against in general is gay bashing, whether this bashing is violent, emotional or civil is just a matter of degree IMO. When any group organizes to introduce and pass civil laws which are based on their own set of religious beliefs, and which do nothing except deny a specific class of individual (gay people) a specific basic human right (marriage), both the laws which were introduced and the groups who were responsible for demagoguing them into passage should be open for outright ridicule. Unfortunately this includes most flavors of Christianity.

I again apologize if you took my beliefs personally, and for the third (or is it fourth) time it was never intended as such.

With that said.. If you don't like how the LDS is portrayed in "Latter Days" please complain to those who made that particular film.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> a specific basic human right (marriage)


Oh yes, I've been waiting for this moment all thread. This is my favorite liberal move. When you're ideas have been disproved, claim that what you're advocating is a basic human right and hope that nobody thinks about it. It always happens.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> Oh yes, I've been waiting for this moment all thread. This is my favorite liberal move. When you're ideas have been disproved, claim that what you're advocating is a basic human right and hope that nobody thinks about it. It always happens.


Supreme Courts from Massachusetts to Hawaii have said marriage is one of the most basic of all human rights, for every American. They've agreed that if race (by itself) is insufficient grounds to deny a marriage license, then certainly gender (by itself) is insufficient grounds. States have consistently tried to prove a compelling interest in denying these licenses to same-sex couples, and have consistently failed to do so.

It's the specific reason why "defense of marriage" laws and constitutional amendments were introduced in the first place, and it's also why these laws are doomed to eventual extinction.


----------



## guitone (Mar 20, 2005)

patbrady2005 said:


> Is someone going to sue J-Date next?


JDate does not discriminate by religion or race, anyone can sign up, but I don't know that from personal experience:icon_smile_wink:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Supreme Courts from Massachusetts to Hawaii have said marriage is one of the most basic of all human rights, for every American. They've agreed that if race (by itself) is insufficient grounds to deny a marriage license, then certainly gender (by itself) is insufficient grounds. States have consistently tried to prove a compelling interest in denying these licenses to same-sex couples, and have consistently failed to do so.
> 
> It's the specific reason why "defense of marriage" laws and constitutional amendments were introduced in the first place, and it's also why these laws are doomed to eventual extinction.


Once again, no one (neither a man nor a woman) has been denied a marriage license because of their gender. Unless you are going to claim gay as a new gender. Gay is a sexual preference.

You always try to confuse the issue by using endearing labels like gender discrimination and gay bashing. Neither of these has anything to do (really) with 'same-sex marriages'.

The reason a 'defense of marriage' law would be doomed to extinction is because the number of people that just don't care about marriage is falling. It's falling for many reasons other than the same-sex issue. It's fine for those promoting same-sex marriages to use that tactically, but at least be clear about what you are doing. Example: there is an issue now in Cali with live-in couples that are not married demanding the same benefits as married couples. Pretty soon marriage won't mean anything.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Once again, no one (neither a man nor a woman) has been denied a marriage license because of their gender. Unless you are going to claim gay as a new gender. Gay is a sexual preference.


It's a sexual orientation, not a preference. It's not something a person does, it's one of the most fundamental parts of who a person is. Virtually all credible psychological/psychiatric/medical organizations around the world have reached the same conclusion in their research. Trying to ignore or deny it doesn't make any difference to the fact itself.



ksinc said:


> You always try to confuse the issue by using endearing labels like gender discrimination and gay bashing. Neither of these has anything to do (really) with 'same-sex marriages'.


We're going over the same points again. Your same logic was used a half century ago to justify anti-miscegenation laws. If those laws qualified as racial discrimination then certainly "defense of marriage" laws qualify as gender discrimination. I don't know if you've read any court decisions on this issue, but how some people try and avoid this simple logic is often downright hilarious. Read e.g. Scalia's dissent in the Lawrence vs. Texas case, which struck down sodomy laws that applied only to same-sex couples. He was reduced to basing his decision on popularity contests instead of our Constitution. What a complete moron.



ksinc said:


> The reason a 'defense of marriage' law would be doomed to extinction is because the number of people that just don't care about marriage is falling. It's falling for many reasons other than the same-sex issue. It's fine for those promoting same-sex marriages to use that tactically, but at least be clear about what you are doing. Example: there is an issue now in Cali with live-in couples that are not married demanding the same benefits as married couples. Pretty soon marriage won't mean anything.


Same-sex partnership has become a non-event in every state and foreign country that has recognized them, and I don't understand why some people believe any other result is even possible. You don't defend any set of rights, especially one as basic as marriage by denying it to 10-30 million Americans who have broken no laws and who aren't hurting anyone. Look at interracial marriages: for as much as America screamed bloody perversion, predicted the collapse of society yadda yadda, to what degree have they been responsible for the decline in marriage and birth rates, increase in divorce rates etc since 1960? The relative numbers of these marriages and their impact on our society have been essentially zero, and our experience is showing the exact same thing is true for same-sex unions.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> If those laws qualified as racial discrimination then certainly "defense of marriage" laws qualify as gender discrimination.


How so? You just arbitrarily state that over and over, but never any logic to back up your claim. Those racial discrimination laws and these laws have nothing in common. They would if they were based on gender, but they are not. If you want to begin to make a point with some intellectual honesty start arguing against sexual preference or orientation discrimination. These are not gender based laws.

FWIW, I will not surrender the sexual preference vs orientation ground. You have failed repeatedly to debate that issue such as in the eHarmony case. I state here what I asked there - if eHarmony offers gays the same matching technology as straights, and it is statistically proven unsucessful then what would that do to your orientation vs. preference distinction in regards to the strong gay relationships are just like strong straight relationships argument? I believe the eHarmony case is a pandora's box that gays don't really want opened.

Your stated facts about the psychological pseudo-science is not fact, either. I dare say there are more dissenting views in psychology on this issue then there were say on Iraq Intelligence which you claim was manipulated. You need to be consistent and honest about what is and isn't a statistcal consensus IMHO you can't have it both ways. Global warming, et al. An avalanche of liberal, social-progressive propaganda does not science make. You can't just decide the rest aren't part of the "virtually all credible" hand-picked set you like. I can admit I don't know many gay people, but when I did know a few they preferred preference to orientation because at the time the attitude was, "Well then what's 'wrong' with them?" As if they were born gay they were broken somehow. Which I thought was rather cruel and distasteful and discriminating. Frank you seem unable to accept that people can accept gay people, not bash them, even associate with them and like them, and still not support same-sex marriage. We can even believe it's a preference without wanting to see them subjected to 'aversion therapy', torture, or discrimination. I'm somewhat dismayed that because I believe people are free to do as they choose, I'm somehow out-of-touch and a hate-filled bigot. There are more people to the right of me than you might imagine. Certainly more than 10-30 million. Please re-adjust your mainstream thought detector and forego the fascist, one-mindset, group-think you insist on imposing on the rest of us.

We only go over the same points again and again because you keep insisting the world is flat. None of your claims have any merit - such as this gender discrimination claim. That's just nonsense and everytime you bring it up. Yes, I and others confront you with the same set of facts.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> How so? You just arbitrarily state that over and over, but never any logic to back up your claim. Those racial discrimination laws and these laws have nothing in common. They would if they were based on gender, but they are not. If you want to begin to make a point with some intellectual honesty start arguing against sexual preference or orientation discrimination. These are not gender based laws.


They're strictly gender based laws. If you believe otherwise, try and find a single one that doesn't contain the words man or woman. Just one. We'll wait patiently.



ksinc said:


> FWIW, I will not surrender the sexual preference vs orientation ground. You have failed repeatedly to debate that issue such as in the eHarmony case. I state here what I asked there - if eHarmony offers gays the same matching technology as straights, and it is statistically proven unsucessful then what would that do to your orientation vs. preference distinction in regards to the strong gay relationships are just like strong straight relationships argument? I believe the eHarmony case is a pandora's box that gays don't really want opened.


First of all you're comparing apples to oranges. eHarmony is a private business and should be able to cater to their selected market. "Defense of marriage" laws are civil laws which are supposed to apply equally to everyone, but in fact serve no purpose whatsoever except to define and bash a group of 10-30 million Americans.

Secondly, relationship success rates (and divorce rates) follow gender, not sexual orientation. E.g. divorce rates for lesbian couples average ONE THIRD those of opposite-sex couples in places where these unions are recognized, while divorce rates for male same-sex couples are higher (sometimes much higher) than opposite-sex couples. The net effect is still neutral, and long-term will likely reduce divorce rates.



ksinc said:


> Your stated facts about the psychological pseudo-science is not fact, either.


Well, the longer your side persists in these kinds of silly and outrageous denials, the sooner gay couples will have their right to legally recognized marriage. Keep on truckin'.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> They're strictly gender based laws. If you believe otherwise, try and find a single one that doesn't contain the words man or woman. Just one. We'll wait patiently.


That's really weak; even for you. Based = containing the words?


----------



## whnay. (Dec 30, 2004)

FrankDC said:


> It's a sexual orientation, not a preference. It's not something a person does, it's one of the most fundamental parts of who a person is. Virtually all credible psychological/psychiatric/medical organizations around the world have reached the same conclusion in their research. Trying to ignore or deny it doesn't make any difference to the fact itself.


So being gay is a part of a person's DNA sequence? Please explain further...


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> That's really weak; even for you. Based = containing the words?


Based = essential. In the case of DOM laws this isn't even debatable.


----------



## hopkins_student (Jun 25, 2004)

How about everybody make a list of terms that don't describe us but that we would like to have describe us and we'll then get Frank to argue that the definitions of those words should be changed to include us or otherwise there is discrimination.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> I made a reference to the LDS, as they are portrayed in a Hollywood movie, which you took or are still taking personally. For the second (or is it third) time this reference wasn't intended to target you or your family. It was simply meant as an accurate reference to a film. Replace the "LDS" in my original comment with some other religion name if you choose. It won't be accurate, but do it anyway.





FrankDC said:


> Every day I thank the good Lord for who I am and where I live, because I could have easily been a 16 year-old gay kid living in Idaho or Utah with electrodes strapped to my nuts and being told by my own father (who is also the local LDS leader) that I'm the spawn of Satan simply because of my sexual orientation. Tens of thousands of American teens kill themselves every year because of institutionalized religious and cultural bigotry.


Okay Frank. The first quote is what you now claim to be true. The second quote is what you actually said. If you can show me any reference to a film about LDS in that second quote, if you can show me where it suggests, even remotely, that you were not speaking about yourself and what could have happened to YOU, I will save the moderators and Andy, and anyone else who might want me gone, the trouble by simply canceling my account. If you cannot, then you ought be man enough to simply cancel your account since your thousands of posts make clear you will never admit to being wrong or apologize to anyone, without excuse.

Yes, yes, I know Frank, you will say, okay this is now the fourth or is it fifth time . . . . yatta yatta . . . . Above are your exact quotes Frank. You seem to pride yourself on your intelligence and ability to express yourself so are you now saying that you did not say what you said or did not mean what you said? Either way Frank, even your hero Bill Clinton understood that when you are caught, literally in his case, with your pants down the only thing left to do is apologize.

You just cannot do it, the true sign of narcissism. If you simply were to state, you know: "I really screwed that one up. I saw this in a film, took it as facutal, and then applied it to myself to make a point for emphasis and it backfired. I am really sorry for that." If you did that Frank, this would be over and done with, but instead you keep making excuses, pretending you did not say what you did, and then making these half-hearted apologies.

Be a man Frank, a real man, and I know I will certainly let it go. You just do not get it that words mean something and so it is important to say what we mean and mean what we say. When it comes out wrong, if that is truly what happened here, then it should not be this difficult to take responsibility and simply apologize, without qualification. The problem is, when one refuses to admit they were wrong, refuses to accept responsbility, refuses to apologize unconditionally, then whatever effort they do make appears disengenuous.

One last chance Frank and then I give up. In fact, if saving face is so important to you, you can even PM me with a private apology, one I promise not to make public, and the issue will be done. Just be a man.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whnay. said:


> So being gay is a part of a person's DNA sequence? Please explain further...


Studies have shown a strong physical component for it, whether genetic, hormonal etc:

https://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/60minutes/main1385230.shtml

Studies have shown an environmental component to it as well. But if it's not completely genetic, we know it's at least partially genetic. An average of 50% of identical twins both grow up to be gay, even when they're raised by different families in separate environments. This is double the rate of fraternal twins and over four times the rate of non-twins. But if sexual orientation was strictly genetic then both identical twins should be gay 100% of the time. They're not.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

hopkins_student said:


> How about everybody make a list of terms that don't describe us but that we would like to have describe us and we'll then get Frank to argue that the definitions of those words should be changed to include us or otherwise there is discrimination.


"Male" and "female" accurately describes pretty much everyone, except of course for hermaphrodites (1 in 1000 births, their sex is "chosen" by their doctors at time of delivery and is based on a best-guess criteria).


----------



## yachtie (May 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Studies have shown a strong physical component for it, whether genetic, hormonal etc:
> 
> https://www.worldpolicy.org/globalrights/sexorient/twins.html
> 
> ...


Not necessarily true, depite your claims otherwise, since a genetic characteristic that drives the person expressing that characteristic away from reproductive activity will not long survive in the gene pool.

To put is simply, if it were genetic, the mutation would have died out after a couple of generations since the people having it don't reproduce.

Please try again.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

whomewhat said:


> Okay Frank. The first quote is what you now claim to be true. The second quote is what you actually said. If you can show me any reference to a film about LDS in that second quote, if you can show me where it suggests, even remotely, that you were not speaking about yourself and what could have happened to YOU, I will save the moderators and Andy, and anyone else who might want me gone, the trouble by simply canceling my account. If you cannot, then you ought be man enough to simply cancel your account since your thousands of posts make clear you will never admit to being wrong or apologize to anyone, without excuse.
> 
> Yes, yes, I know Frank, you will say, okay this is now the fourth or is it fifth time . . . . yatta yatta . . . . Above are your exact quotes Frank. You seem to pride yourself on your intelligence and ability to express yourself so are you now saying that you did not say what you said or did not mean what you said? Either way Frank, even your hero Bill Clinton understood that when you are caught, literally in his case, with your pants down the only thing left to do is apologize.
> 
> ...


I've already apologized if you took what I said personally. I most definitely will not apologize for making the reference to the film, or for taking a swipe at the LDS or any other group who, as part of their "beliefs", practices torture (whether physical, emotional or civic) on gay people. END OF STORY.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> An average of 50% of identical twins both grow up to be gay, even when they're raised by different families in separate environments. This is double the rate of fraternal twins and over four times the rate of non-twins. But if sexual orientation was strictly genetic then both identical twins should be gay 100% of the time. They're not.


Ok. Questions:
#1 Where did you come up with this one - another movie?
#2 How large could the statistical universe of identical twins raised by different families in separate environments be and what is your sample size?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I've already apologized if you took what I said personally. I most definitely will not apologize for making the reference to the film, or for taking a swipe at the LDS or any other group who, as part of their "beliefs", practices torture (whether physical, emotional or civic) on gay people. END OF STORY.


How about simply apologizing for expedient lying - "tens of thousands"? Come on. Admit you knew that wasn't true.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

yachtie said:


> Not necessarily true, depite your claims otherwise, since a genetic characteristic that drives the person expressing that characteristic away from reproductive activity will not long survive in the gene pool.
> 
> To put is simply, if it were genetic, the mutation would have died out after a couple of generations since the people having it don't reproduce.
> 
> Please try again.


Genetic "mutation" doesn't require a pre-existing "mutation". Your logic is flawed.


----------



## Gradstudent78 (May 7, 2003)

yachtie said:


> Not necessarily true, depite your claims otherwise, since a genetic characteristic that drives the person expressing that characteristic away from reproductive activity will not long survive in the gene pool.
> 
> To put is simply, if it were genetic, the mutation would have died out after a couple of generations since the people having it don't reproduce.
> 
> Please try again.


Not necessarily true. If it was a trait that didn't cause homosexuality in the heterozygous form but offered some other benefit it could be selected for (like sickle cell trait trait in populations with high rates or malaria). It would also be selected for if those with the trait increased their inclusive fitness. Also homosexuality could be an extreme form of a continuum from pure heterosexual to pure homosexual. If the intermediate forms had a higher fitness then it could keep the trait in the populations.

Point is there are genetic senarious imaginable where the trait wouldn't necessarily be selected out. We simply don't know enough about the genetic basis if there is one to rule them out.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Genetic "mutation" doesn't require a pre-existing "mutation". Your logic is flawed.


Gay people are a "mutation"? OMG Frank! If anything more hateful has been implied on this board I cannot recall it.


----------



## Gradstudent78 (May 7, 2003)

ksinc said:


> Gay people are a "mutation"? OMG Frank! If anything more hateful has been implied on this board I cannot recall it.


Blue eyes is probably a mutation too and I (having blue eyes) dont really take any offense at it.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Ok. Questions:
> #1 Where did you come up with this one - another movie?
> #2 How large could the statistical universe of identical twins raised by different families in separate environments be and what is your sample size?


1. No.

2. References are there for your use. It's not just one study but many. I've always been fascinated with this subject and have read at least a dozen twin studies over the last 20 years. The 50% number has been consistent.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> 1. No.
> 
> 2. References are there for your use. It's not just one study but many. I've always been fascinated with this subject and have read at least a dozen twin studies over the last 20 years. The 50% number has been consistent.


"Bailey and Pillard recruited 110 pairs of male twins, half identical, half fraternal. In each case, they knew that one twin was gay. They then sent a questionnaire to the other brother in each pair, to determine his sexual orientation. Among the identical twins, 52 percent of the brothers were gay. Among the fraternals, the number was 22 percent, high enough above the background population rate to suggest that there was something distinctive in those families. The researchers found a very similar pattern with lesbians."

There's nothing in there about identical twins raised in separate environments. Still you are talking about 55 pairs if my math is correct (half of 110). Not very many. Have you ever taken statistics?

"Still, Bailey worries that the survey methods-he and Pillard advertised for participants through gay newspapers-may have produced slightly inflated results. That is, people who read advocacy newspapers, who choose to respond to a publicly advertised survey, who enjoy the scrutiny, who like to call attention to their lifestyle whatever it may be, may not reliably represent the entire community."


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> "Bailey and Pillard recruited 110 pairs of male twins, half identical, half fraternal. In each case, they knew that one twin was gay. They then sent a questionnaire to the other brother in each pair, to determine his sexual orientation. Among the identical twins, 52 percent of the brothers were gay. Among the fraternals, the number was 22 percent, high enough above the background population rate to suggest that there was something distinctive in those families. The researchers found a very similar pattern with lesbians."
> 
> There's nothing in there about identical twins raised in separate environments. Still you are talking about 55 pairs if my math is correct (half of 110). Not very many. Have you ever taken statistics?


Yes. Have you ever turned off your silly computer and visited a freaking library?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Yes. Have you ever turned off your silly computer and visited a freaking library?


Yes, but what does that have to do with your invalid reporting and use of statistics in your arguments?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> Yes, but what does that have to do with your invalid reporting and use of statistics in your arguments?


Don't confuse invalid reporting with your own ignorance. Dozens of studies are out there on this issue. If you're interested go read them and make up your own mind about it.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> ....this isn't even debatable.


Nothing with you is debatable. Facts contrary to your views do not exist. Fictional movies get presented as facts....until you get busted. Everyone else is a <insert bigotted insult here> and denying "basic human rights"...except to polygamists of course...they can be denied their right to marriage as they see fit. ic12337:


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Don't confuse invalid reporting with your own ignorance. Dozens of studies are out there on this issue. If you're interested go read them and make up your own mind about it.


ROFLMAO!

This is from your own link

"The essential genetics may not directly code for homosexuality at all, but something correlated with it," Bailey emphasizes. "Something that's advantageous. What is it? We don't know. The alternative idea is that it's simply darned hard for biology to guarantee heterosexuality every time, that it's not a stable system. The problem with that [theory] is that if it's hormones that set sexual orientation, they don't seem to have much problem guaranteeing that men get penises. So, why can't they keep sexual orientation straight? On the other hand, homosexuality is very rare&#8230;in other words, we don't know."

So, the only expert has no idea, but you are sure the scientific community has a consensus that is not even debatable? Hilarious!


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Gradstudent78 said:


> Not necessarily true. If it was a trait that didn't cause homosexuality in the heterozygous form but offered some other benefit it could be selected for (like sickle cell trait trait in populations with high rates or malaria). It would also be selected for if those with the trait increased their inclusive fitness. Also homosexuality could be an extreme form of a continuum from pure heterosexual to pure homosexual. If the intermediate forms had a higher fitness then it could keep the trait in the populations.
> 
> Point is there are genetic senarious imaginable where the trait wouldn't necessarily be selected out. We simply don't know enough about the genetic basis if there is one to rule them out.


So then should we start screening for the "trait" and warn people getting married, as we do with people carrying the sickle cell, that they should not have children? Now THAT would something FrankDC would NEVER agree with.


----------



## Gradstudent78 (May 7, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> So then should we start screening for the "trait" and warn people getting married, as we do with people carrying the sickle cell, that they should not have children? Now THAT would something FrankDC would NEVER agree with.


Thats not what I was suggesting, but ultimately it would depend on whether or not ther person having children consider the trait a negative attribute. However, its probably not a simple trait with one gene determining it and mostly like is highly interactive with the enviroment. That would make it very hard to screen.

Just to add to the discussion:
Keep in mind that twin studies on this type of thing don't show the trait is genetic in nature. Twins share fetal environment, if fetal environment is a determing factor in sexuality then twin studies wouldn't be able to tease that influence out no matter what controls you use. Ultimately we wont be able to determine genetic influence until people start identifying specific genes involved.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

Wayfarer said:


> So then should we start screening for the "trait" and warn people getting married, as we do with people carrying the sickle cell, that they should not have children? Now THAT would something FrankDC would NEVER agree with.


Your assumption is incorrect. Parents should and would know.

If you knew in advance that getting your wife pregnant would likely produce gay children, would you still have children with her? I'd love to hear some honest responses from y'all on that question.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Gradstudent78 said:


> Thats not what I was suggesting....


But that is what would happen.

Well there you go, you just learned a life lesson for when you finally get out of grad school....


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Gradstudent78 said:


> Ultimately we wont be able to determine genetic influence until people start identifying specific genes involved.


Hard to argue with that! I think we can say with 100% certainty that genetic influence will not be determined until the genes involved are determined. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Gradstudent78 (May 7, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> But that is what would happen.
> 
> Well there you go, you just learned a life lesson for when you finally get out of grad school....


It's unlikely it would happen because of the nature of such a complex genetic trait, if it is a genetic trait. Whether or not people should be able to make designer babies is another discussion entirely.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> If you knew in advance that getting your wife pregnant would likely produce gay children, would you still have children with her? I'd love to hear some honest responses from y'all on that question.


I'll answer. If likely, then no. However, I also don't believe it's genetic and per the last group of posts it seems it can't be proven either.

However, if it is genetic, I don't even believe it's likely I'll have a girl which has caused several arguments! LOL

My family tree is all studs. My Great GrandFather was the oldest, my Grandfather was the oldest of nine boys, my Father was the oldest grandchild and I am the oldest great-grandchild. All boys. My Mom's sister had a girl for their second child, but I think I have explained her husband is a hippie, snow-flake from Berkley. LMAO!

As the first great-grandchild I was always called 'the baby'. AFAIK, I'm probably the shortest. My Dad is 6'3" as his Dad. I'm 6'1" and this morning weighed 204# @ 9% BF 

Telling, isn't it that you think anyone would feel they need to answer such a foolish question dishonestly.

Please explain what is your perceived difficulty in answering this question?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Gradstudent78 said:


> It's unlikely it would happen because of the nature of such a complex genetic trait, if it is a genetic trait. Whether or not people should be able to make designer babies is another discussion entirely.


Funny, the last two posts you've said how unlikely finding the gene is. Why are you getting posts directed to you concerning a genetic nature? Why this would be the reason:



Gradstudent78 said:


> Not necessarily true. If it was a trait that didn't cause homosexuality in the heterozygous form but offered some other benefit it could be selected for (like sickle cell trait trait in populations with high rates or malaria). It would also be selected for if those with the trait increased their inclusive fitness. Also homosexuality could be an extreme form of a continuum from pure heterosexual to pure homosexual. If the intermediate forms had a higher fitness then it could keep the trait in the populations.
> 
> Point is there are genetic senarious imaginable where the trait wouldn't necessarily be selected out. We simply don't know enough about the genetic basis if there is one to rule them out.


Because you were arguing how the genetic trait could be passed on in mating couples, much like the sickle cell trait is. So which is it?


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> I'll answer. If likely, then no. However, I also don't believe it's genetic and per the last group of posts it seems it can't be proven either.
> 
> Please explain what is your perceived difficulty in answering this question?


Personally, it wouldn't influence whatever mutual decision me and my wife have made about raising a family. If she's up for it, so am I. If not that's ok too.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Wow!

This thread is still going!


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Personally, it wouldn't influence whatever mutual decision me and my wife have made about raising a family. If she's up for it, so am I. If not that's ok too.


You didn't answer the question.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You didn't answer the question.


Yes I'd still have kids with her.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> Yes I'd still have kids with her.


I'm confused now....you're married?


----------



## Gradstudent78 (May 7, 2003)

Wayfarer said:


> Funny, the last two posts you've said how unlikely finding the gene is. Why are you getting posts directed to you concerning a genetic nature? Why this would be the reason:
> 
> Because you were arguing how the genetic trait could be passed on in mating couples, much like the sickle cell trait is. So which is it?


I argued that such a trait could be passed on if one existed in response to someone elses post that such a trait would be selected out and could not persist. We can't rule out that genes which would influence a person to be homosexual would persist in the gene pool and may actually be selected for because we don't know what these genes are and what other effects they have. The sickle cell trait was an example, but not a model.

It is unlikely to find a single gene, as such a complex trait would most likely be influenced by multiple genes that are highly interactive with the environment. As it stands now we don't really know if genes do influence homosexuality just by the evidence of twin studies. If you want to know genes influence homosexuality you need to actually start to identify such genes. 
Genetically selecting children for something with simple inheritance and low levels of environment influence like sex or eye color is possible, however selecting a child for more complex traits that interact highly with the environment would be a much more difficult if not impossible task.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> Yes I'd still have kids with her.


You didn't answer my question.

"Please explain what is your perceived difficulty in answering this question?"

You said you'd love to hear some honest answers implying it would be difficult in your perception for some to do so. Why do you think that?


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Gradstudent78 said:


> It is unlikely to find a single gene, as such a complex trait would most likely be influenced by multiple genes that are highly interactive with the environment. As it stands now we don't really know if genes do influence homosexuality just by the evidence of twin studies. If you want to know genes influence homosexuality you need to actually start to identify such genes.
> Genetically selecting children for something with simple inheritance and low levels of environment influence like sex or eye color is possible, however selecting a child for more complex traits that interact highly with the environment would be a much more difficult if not impossible task.


Wow, thanks for educating me on that! You plan to be a university prof, don't you?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Gradstudent78 said:


> I argued that such a trait could be passed on if one existed in response to someone elses post that such a trait would be selected out and could not persist. We can't rule out that genes which would influence a person to be homosexual would persist in the gene pool and may actually be selected for because we don't know what these genes are and what other effects they have. The sickle cell trait was an example, but not a model.
> 
> It is unlikely to find a single gene, as such a complex trait would most likely be influenced by multiple genes that are highly interactive with the environment. As it stands now we don't really know if genes do influence homosexuality just by the evidence of twin studies. If you want to know genes influence homosexuality you need to actually start to identify such genes.
> Genetically selecting children for something with simple inheritance and low levels of environment influence like sex or eye color is possible, however selecting a child for more complex traits that interact highly with the environment would be a much more difficult if not impossible task.


Thank you for that interesting and objective explanation with a true scientific approach to the twin studies. Seriously.


----------



## JDC (Dec 2, 2006)

ksinc said:


> You didn't answer my question.
> 
> "Please explain what is your perceived difficulty in answering this question?"
> 
> You said you'd love to hear some honest answers implying it would be difficult in your perception for some to do so. Why do you think that?


I had to think about the honest answer for a while, and wondered if anyone else might have do the same. The kneejerk reaction is to say "no kids", but IMO it's hardly the practical or correct answer. My wife (and I'd guess a lot of guys' wives) would still have the say about a family: it's her body and her choice to do so, regardless of what sexual orientation our kids might have.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FrankDC said:


> I had to think about the honest answer for a while, and wondered if anyone else might have do the same. The kneejerk reaction is to say "no kids", but IMO it's hardly the practical or correct answer. My wife (and I'd guess a lot of guys' wives) would still have the say about a family: it's her body and her choice to do so, regardless of what sexual orientation our kids might have.


ok, then.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

No dating website in my mind should be forced to offer services to gay people,It should be allowed.


----------



## whomewhat (Nov 11, 2006)

FrankDC said:


> If you knew in advance that getting your wife pregnant would likely produce gay children, would you still have children with her? I'd love to hear some honest responses from y'all on that question.


Because unlike you, I am actually honest, I will answer the question. No, I would not have had children.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

There are plenty of websites out there that cater to gay people around the world.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Howard said:


> There are plenty of websites out there that cater to gay people around the world.


But if you dated someone from around the world Howard, could you make it to Pathmark on time?


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> But if you dated someone from around the world Howard, could you make it to Pathmark on time?


No,Unless I'm able to work at a Pathmark where that person lived.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

Howard said:


> No,Unless I'm able to work at a Pathmark where that person lived.


Howard, you see right to the nub of issues. Good man.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

Wayfarer said:


> Howard, you see right to the nub of issues. Good man.


Thank You Wayfar,I appreciate it.


----------

