"Reproductive rights," don'tcha know.
Posted on 07/02/2003 6:54:57 AM PDT by VRWC_minion
Wrong.
Procreation doesn't occur as a result of homosexual unions. That's a biological disaster from a biologist's point of view.
The definiton of homosexual is when an individual prefers sexual activity with the same sex partner. Rape don't count. You know that.
With the exception of the duties of my profession, nope, never been to prison.
And, if that includes minors and others who cannot give informed consent, that not's good at all.
"Reproductive rights," don'tcha know.
No because it was forced.
Wrong question. The more we remove barriers of entry and make the definition so broad marriage will loose its meaning. It isn't an issue of whether gays can or cannot keep the same contract. Its a question of redefining the terms of the contract until they are meaningless. Changing the eligible parties is setting the path toward redefining everything. The process can be controlled or it can be left to the whim of the court.
I never said it did. Prison rape occurs, depending on the prison, at a rate of 14-25% of the population.
A 1982 study of a medium-security prison in California found that 14 percent of inmates had been forced into oral or anal sex. If that figure applies to all jails and penal institutions, about one million males are raped behind bars each year. Wooden, Wayne S., and Parker, Jay. Men Behind Bars. New York: Plenum Press, 1982. The one million figure is based on the fact that about 8.6million males pass through jails and prisons each year, according to the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, 1990, Tables 6.33, 6.63, 6.89, and 6.90.
In 1996, Cindy Struckman-Johnson of the University of South Dakota published a survey of the Nebraska prison system showing that almost 1 in 4 inmates had been "pressured or forced to have sexual contact against [their] will."Struckman-Johnson, Cindy, Ph.D., and Struckman-Johnson, David, Ph.D. "Men Pressured and Forced Into Sexual Experience." Archives of Sexual Behavior, Vol. 23, No. 1 (1994), pp 93-114.
Consensual homosexuality on the other hand in prison runs at a rate between 41-70% and I’ve read as high as 78% in the Florida prison systems though I can’t put a finger on that cite at the moment.
In prisons, many males are involved in homosexual sex. Dr. Frank Rundle who …"believes that it's almost universal," involving "almost everybody at least sometime." Another professional gives a 70 percent estimate Rideau, W. and Sinclair, J (1982). Prison: The Sexual Jungle. in Scacco, Jr., Anthony M., Ed… 3-29.
Questionnaire responses from 13- to 17-year-old girls in four all-female and three coed institutions were used to determine rates and causes of institutional homosexuality. Rates were as high in coed as in single-sexed institutions. The overall rates of homosexuality for all seven institutions were 14% for "going with or being married" to another girl, 10% for passionately kissing, 10% for writing love letters, and 7% for having sex, beyond hugging and kissing, with another girl. The data suggest that previous homosexuality, often experienced in other correctional programs, explains much of the variance in institutional homosexuality. LESBIANISM IN FEMALE AND COED CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS, ALICE M. PROPPER, JOURNAL OF HOMOSEXUALITY, 1978, VOL3(3), P265-274.
Sorry. I thought you were claiming homosexuality has a biological basis. You still owe me a trillion.
Response: We are repeating it! Right now! Today! With the approval of 6 members one one of the great branches of our government. With the help of members of Congress, the State legislatures. With the general population going Burp! Braack! Golly! 'Everybody's got that there privacy uh! Huh! Yup!' The President of The United States dodging and weaving and seeking like hell to avoid offending any bloc of votes.
It is wrong. It will be done. It will open doors to further bile..and in the long run, it will continue to break down our once great nation. Before you know it..the word CHRISTIAN and CONSERVATIVE will have no meaning.Why?
Because NO ONE stood up and fought for our nation, our moral standing in the world, or our families. They were all too concerned about "equality". WE all wanted to be PC. It is sad..
Nope, it won't hurt marriage. You just keep remembering that. Marriage is safe. It is those that follow us, that I worry about. Think about it.
i know, but if they had created it without a court mandate, is that the kind of 'seperate but equal' solution you are proposing?
I do agree however, that legalizing gay marriage is a step in the wrong direction, but firmly believe too, that if it occurred, it would totally backfire on the gay community because it would give them what they've fought for and yet, by and large, none of them actually want to make that type of commitment. So the ability to marry is virtually mitigated by desire.
Yes. The "traditional" marriage will remain sacred (set apart) from other relationships.
They are looking for acceptance. A same sex marriage will never be looked at the same as a male-femal marriage. As long as biology drives the women to have children and as long as they need to be dependent in the process and as long as mothers prefer to raise their own children then male-female marriage will always be held as more sacred than any other relationship.
hey, it was your question.
i was very surprised that social conservatives did not latch on to the vermont solution as a good compromise. as you say, it won't be long before they are not in a position to compromise. i think it exposes the meanness of some in that group that they are not content to simply perserve their socio-religious institution, but are bent on keeping gays a stigmatized and even criminalized underclass.
That is certainly part of it but those are just the angry sqeeky wheel of a larger group. Many of them are far more forward thinking than that. Over the past several years I have given more thought to their arguments about various issues without dismissing them out of hand.
I expect the view point will be that gays won't be satisfied with a separate definition of marriage. They are ultimately drive by the desire for acceptance and until they can literally put on a tux and white dress, order wedding cake etc, they won't be satisfied. They will always think that if only they can have the same marriage that hetero's have they will be fully accepted.
So, the social conservative may be saying that, heck, if they won't stop until its fully the same marriage then why not draw the line in the sand right now.
So, no. I disagree that the main thrust of social conservatives is based on meanness. Rather, its based on looking at the progression of the past and taking it to its logical extension.
My personal view is that, done right, the conservatives can take the energy of this movement and redirect it in a way that takes away many of the gay arguments of equality and at the same time make their case for keeping a heterosexual marriage "sacred" (set apart). The danger that the social conservatives are trying to avoid is coming anyway so they are better off leading the parade.
Interesting read, and I don't doubt the data presented.
However, the definition of a homosexual (I think I posted this on this thread earlier) is someone who prefers to have sex with members of the same sex.
As far as the determing factors go regarding how or whether one becomes a homosexual: I don't think anyone knows of a general rule of either biological or social factors or mere choice. That this is learned is not well, to say the least, supported. The same holds true for biological factors.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.