Lula and Ted, you understand completely. I wasn't judging just asking folks in general what their threshold of tolerance it. When is enough...enough? And, when one reaches that point isn't it hypocritical to deny someone else's "right" to happiness? There will always be someone to push special interests. IMO this topic is not for the government to decide. If states want to grant benefits similar to those afforded to married couples, so be it, but be prepared for every fringe concept of matrimony to come forward demanding their "rights" too and rightly so. Everyone should get the same deal, one can't pick and choose.

Marriage, like all things (except for some people's brains), evolves.

An extreme generalization which is just as much bullshit as saying heterosexual marriage is always good.

Another stupid, irrational fear of people who are different from the usual group of bigots.

Infidel,

Check out what has happened in Massachusetts after it went (by judicial fiat) for homosexual "marriage".

Without parental permission, Kindergarten kids are given books that depict homosexuality as normal,natural, even good. ONe of them brought it home and his parents raised a furor with the school over it.  

The schools are trying to teach the kids tolerance. Something your religion apparantely can't do.

Why would they need parental permission for that? Homosexuality is normal and natural and there is nothing good or bad about it outside the context of specific religions. I am sure the schools teach that certain religions condemn homosexuality. I assume they also teach that other religions permit, condone, or even encourage it. That's what schools are supposed to do.

I'd fear a school in which Lula's views on Judaism, Islam, and Israel are taught!

Personally, I don't care care if my children learn in school that homosexuality is good, bad, or strawberry-flavoured according to Lula's Christianity. It's not my religion anyway, so why would it be important that those views be taught in school? They should teach my religion's views, not hers. (Careful! That statement is a trap!)

In today's connected world, tolerance is a much more important value than any specific religion's teachings.

Lula will just have to learn that not everbody in the world is a Christian of her type (or a Muslim fundamentalist, a tribe who have similar views as she).

Infidel, are you capable of being part of this kind of discussion without spewing hate all over us?  

Praise Almighty God....and blessings and thanks to Maine voters......once again they voted to uphold traditional marriage.

Everyone has their own idea of what is normal and ones position doesn't necessarily invalidate another's. Homosexuality might occur naturally in the wild, so do two-headed cows. So speaking  from a biological stand-point it is an animally. Just because something can occur doesn't mean everyone needs to accept it as normal. Pedophilia occurs (from the large number of reported cases, it doesn't appear to be isolated) among the population, should that make it acceptable? Some would say yes, possibly some that wouldn't engage in the practice themselves.

It seems everyone wants to jump on religion as the anti-gay scapegoat. Yet it amazes me to no end, that some the same folks will gravitate to sketchy science such as "climate change" (get the weekly weather right, then I might consider) while ignoring simple biology. I think emotion is trumping fact. People that are disabled want to be treated as normal (nothing wrong with that), The same could be said for gays. The only difference is that given a choice few people would want to be disabled if they had a chance.  If gays didn't have anything invested in their life style would they choose to be as they were biologically intended to be? Science may one day be able to detect and correct this anomaly in the future. How many of those people would grow up and say thank goodness I didn't have to go through all that? Some people would be outraged at the very idea, yet might support it if it could eliminate pedophilia. Mercy or meddling? Boils down to ones personal beliefs.

I'm not suggesting gays be treated differently, they are people. I'm not suggesting people with disabilities be treated differently, they are people. In fact I abhor special treatment. But is it wrong to look at a person and acknowledge they have a condition that beyond the confines of what is considered normal? So IMO a condition can be natural, but that hardly makes it normal. If gays could reproduce and their offspring were gay, that would be normal. IMO it's an anomaly (no offense implied). Now maybe you have or know or are a person with this condition. It's natural to be sympathetic and supportive. Just don't tell me the sky being red is normal, because you've convinced yourself it is, and I'll let you live in the comfort of your belief.

You seem to be under the impression that it's the schools responsibility to do that. I'm sure you also think the Gov't should make all decisions for us too. You can call it what you want but as a parent it is my right to teach my child what I believe is right, it's not the Gov'ts job to determine what I should teach my child. For that matter we should just throw freedom out the window.

I always wonder why do some people think the Gov't is somehow better at chosing for us, a system composed of people just like the rest of us. It's not as if working for the Gov't requires some kind of special breed.

Evolution is usually for the better, this is not evolution this is de evolution.

Another stupid, irrational stereotyping, ignorant comment.

LOL, last I checked everything we fear is usually different. When was the last time you were afraid of someone that was like you? What a genius this guy is.

Actually, biologically...what we term as homosexuality, is actually prevalent in the animal kingdom, history, and has been shown by scientific studies is highly likely biological/innate. Go look it up.

~AJ

I think of Infidel as a hit and run.  I have yet to see him offer anything of substance.   

I don't think there's anything normal or natural about homosexuality.  It's abnormal and unnatural not only in my opinion but just looking at it from a logical standpoint.  It's just not normal or natural in any shape or form. 

yes and this should be a very loud wake up call because Maine is VERY liberal and if any state would have been on board for homosexual marriage it would have been Maine.  I'm even surprised at this outcome. 

yes, exactly.  You put your hand on the button here with this statement Nitro.  We have abandoned common logical sense and instead are getting caught up in emotion which has a tendency to take us down the wrong road.  Our emotions cannot be trusted to make sane decisions. 

no it's not.  If you take male mice and put them together they WILL have sex with each other but that doesn't make it NORMAL!  As soon as you put females in the mix, the mice abandon the males they were turning to and instead have sex with the females.  Every single time. 

The men in prison do it too.  Why is that?  Is it because they are homosexual or is it to relieve basic sexual tension? 

Over all I'm not surprised because of what I've heard and read about the No on 1 campaign and how some of its supporters campaigned; it seems like some were too hardline. Hopefully this will get overturned and/or deemed unconstitutional. 

“Pure logic is the ruin of the spirit.” ~Antonie de Saint-Exupery

Oddly enough KFC, logically....The Bible doesn't add up, so does that make it normal? Or for that matter, how about miracles, angels, and so on so forth>

KFC, if it isn't normal (occurs naturally, within "norm" of species without influence, etc.) - then what do you call it when it happens in hundreds of species in the animal kingdom? I highly doubt there are some LGBTQ agenda czars running around forcing this 'poor defenseless animals' to do their bidding, to push their agenda.

Obviously something drives them innately to mate with the same gender, and remember, animals have no conscious - they cannot make choices. So they're not deciding to engage in sex with the same gender, they're not being forced, they're essentially driven by instinct. 

An instinct, KFC, is NOT learned. 

If that drive really is instinctual as it's come across - even if that instinct is merely to reproduce or be sexually active (or whatever) - the fact is, animals naturally show those signs; they do it. (No pun intended)

It's not about whether what they do is right or wrong, because right and wrong have no place in the animal kingdom. Right and wrong is pretty much a human concept. 

To head you off, because I can think of a few things you might say:

Yes, these are animals; however, as you have claimed that I cannot use animals as a basis to argue FOR homosexuality because they are animals, different, and are not human and so on -- neither can you. You claim that animals engaging in what appears to be homosexuality isn't right. Fine, that's YOUR opinion. You base it on the fact that there is a difference between the the two. Okay. But then you can't argue your claim, because there's a difference. Your words, "there is a difference," which implies that the rules that govern us, do not necessarily govern animals. 

We humans are driven by more than instinct - we're driven by logic, reason, passion, et al. Animals? Pretty much instinct. 

I'm curious: If God designed everything, then why did he infuse such an instinct into one of his creatures?

~AJ

Btw, you took the studies waaaaay out of context. I remember them correctly, the males went to the females only a few times. 

Satan did it. Easy as pie that answer. 

Well of course, the proof is in the Devil Frog, and having to clean up after your pets! Bloody satanic things, why can't they act like humans?

~AJ

Never implied it doesn't occur (twist any meaning you like into it). However, if in a biological sense being gay was normal we would all be gay (and nearly extinct) and heterosexuals would be the anomaly. You can dream though.

AJ do you always get this irritated when a large group disagrees with your philosophy? Yet somehow there is that underlying desire to believe, "because I think so, it must be right". I read you new blog and it says an awful lot about you (you do realize you can make an article that no one can post a comment on, that or you only seek condolence from those with similar views). I didn't post there, because I hate to see a grown man cry or have a fit, but surely you must realize you can't have your way all the time? And that makes neither you or the the people you rail against right or wrong.

First off, I want to address something. I went and read about it and talked to a few professors as well. Your argument using Pedohpillia is ridiculously fallacious. The reason is that, setting aside individual sense of normalcy, it is a mental disorder/illness and IS NOT normal. It has been clearly show to be an irregularity in normal over all development. Even if you add in personal sense of normalcy, science still shows that it isn't normal for humans; biologically, there is something wrong. To the best of my knowledge and that of the professors - homosexuality, has not been shown to be like that.

Apples and oranges man, sorry. 

Secondly, your comment. 

No, wrong. Just because something is the way it is, doesn't imply that it is irregular. Simply because both things are biological in nature (no pun intended), that doesn't mean that it would wind up like that. 

Example: Crime is normal in our society - does that mean that we all commit crime? 

Yes I do know, but why hide behind that? First, you already have your opinion about me and likely won't change it. Second, by making it private i'm implying that I just might fear the responses to my rant. I believe in what I believe in, and I'm going to stand by it. I'm not gonna hide it, or hide behind it. You know?

I get irritated when people are being discriminated against, there is bigotry, ignorance, hate, abusice democracy, oppressive democracy, manipulation, bible thumping/beating, etc. The entire issue is not about me, it's never been about me. It's been about others who are trying to live their lives. They don't want people screwing them over; they don't mean any ill will toward anyone (even the anti-ssm people)...yet, they're being subjugated to these actions. Sorry, but that's wrong. 

Again, it's not about ME. It's about them, and fighting for what is right and for others. 

What you call crying or a fit is often passion, irritation, shock, etc. depending on the topic/case/scenario. 

When it comes to our nation, and what the founding documents say - it's clear and concise: life, liberty, equality (etc.). 

~AJ

Leauki posts:

nitrocruiser posts:

Exactly. Even psychiatrists disagree as to whether or not homosxuality is "normal".

Homosexuality is not natural as the body parts don't fit. The only life homosexuality produces is bacteriological and it isn't good.

Lula, Nitro:

..and...

Took me less than thirty seconds to find it; here's some data/empirical evidence...the APA/UC Davis...those darn experts. In the matter of disagreement, it comes down to bias simply. 

Source: http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/HTML/facts_mental_health.HTML

~AJ

So did you ask your professors what causes Pedophilia (that was used as an example, I'm not associating that with being gay) or Homosexuality? I'm sure it's neurological in both cases. It's definitely not a a physical phenomenon. Although I did hear a few years back that scans of the pituitary gland in straight males were different in gay males, not sure how accurate that info was and it doesn't seem to account for lesbians. So if both are conditions of the mind, I believe they are more related than your well meaning professors might suggest (lawsuits are rife these days). If you have a source of cause (for either) I'd be interested to hear it. IMO you're not born with a personality, you develope one over time

If you do find it to be neurological (either case) or chemical imbalance, wouldn't you agree the most compassionate thing to do would be to find a cure?

Then why did you state (in the other thread) that those with different opinions need not respond.

And yet it was just a couple of decades ago that Homosexuality was considered a mental disorder.  How did it get taken out of the DSM-IV?  Popular vote.

If pedophilia ever gets taken out of the DSM-IV, will you continue to think of it as a mental disorder?  or will you follow "popular vote" and consider it "normal"?

This is not to say that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia, because it isn't.  However, if you are going to base your arguments on something, at least do it on a basis that can't be changed as readily as the DSM.

First...

How do things get passed in the democratic process in our country? Popular vote essentially; you either vote on it, or you vote for a congressman/woman to represent you and vote on it (still...popular vote, same principle).

Second...

Your comment is annoyingly ignorant.

DSM <--- APA Panel review <--- Rigorous peer review <-- Research (Experiements, with empirical evidence/proof, et al.)

That's usually the normal way things get into it. So, your comment is wrong, because it's not changed as "readily" as you think. They don't do it with a mere raise of hands like a grade school class. 

Third...

Pedophilia will NOT get out of it, because evidence CLEARLY shows that it is a disorder/illness; where as homosexuality never did. There's a difference between taking out something that was put in under heavy influence from Psychoanalysts. Heck, right off the bat there's the problem of bias; then they generally knew the person was homosexual, subsequently that knowledge skewered results. There's no validity what-so-ever in it's process. 

So, which would you believe when it comes to a science....a process that ensures that it is unbiased/empirically based and seeks to make sure that the results are valid? (i.e. double blind, etc. ) Or...a process that takes into account prior information that - when such is the case - taken into account with the analyst's bias (etc)...? You get the picture...

For the record Ted, I based it off of those who are the experts (not you, not limbaugh, not olbermann...them)

~AJ