Six out of 10 Americans Say Homosexual Relations Should Be Recognized as Legal

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE ^ | May 15, 2003 | Frank Newport

[ShadowDancer]

But it is a factually baseless reason for not making it legal. Is it factually accurate that if everyone in the world practiced homosexuality that the world would cease to exist as far as being populated by humans? Yes. Is it even remotely sane to try to use that as a basis for why homosexuality should not be legalized? No. That is so far-fetched it doesn't even merit mentioning.

[JimRed]

They probably polled in San Francisco.

[Tempest]

Your kidding right?! The do you believe the authors of the constitution were all religously pious!? If that's the case then I don't understand why they insisted upon a democracy and seperation of church and state instead of a theocracy?! Do you?

Please, your asserting your desire to hold the mass of society to the accountable levels of YOUR specific religon instead of counting on goverment and society to determine it's own course of morality.

I'm quite sure that people can use COMMON SENSE to determine that difference between right and wrong without the aid of religon. Don't you?

I'm also not quite sure how my stating that the legislation of personal morality is a infringement of personal freedoms could be interpreted as juvenille. But hey if it makes you feel better to "act" mature, so be it.

[Tempest]

Errrr???? Yeah?! So are you saying that all non-manogamous sex should be crimanlized?! I would love to see you try to make your point withing the realms of intellectual consistancy.

[LuisBasco]

Now we know what you are.

I know what he is, but what are you?

[Remedy]

Errrr???? Yeah?!

Clues for the clueless are contained in the material accessed by the links in post#1. If you don't have Acrobat, use http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/access_adv_form.html or Google to view as HTML.

[First Amendment]

I am not supporting this abhorant act, I'm saying that I and therefore nor does my proxy government have the right to stop/criminalize it.

But the problem is that you are supporting this abhorrent act. If sodomy is against the law, then the cops have a legitimate reason to stop homos from doing it in the parks, in bathrooms, in beaches, and teaching it to kids. Cops are NOT going to be going into peoples' houses to see if they are practicing sodomy. The only reason this case came up in Texas is because homo activists purposely called cops to their house, left the door open, and sodomized each other ON PURPOSE in front of the cops.

If this isn't clear to you, then I assume you don't have children. Because if you had children, you would see the danger to them of learning about the wonders of sodomy in school and on the internet, and the difficulty (in some parts of the country) of going to some beaches, parks and so on because they have turned into "gay" hunting grounds.

[ffusco]

I'm someone who doesn't wish to round up and tattoo Gays on their asses. That's who I am.

I don't who/what you are- let's keep it that way.

[First Amendment]

I'm quite sure that people can use COMMON SENSE to determine that difference between right and wrong without the aid of religon. Don't you?

Nope. What is one person's common sense (or what they consider sensible pursuit of happiness) is someone else's torment. For instance, sodomy has been considered a criminal act since time immemorial by virtually every civilized society. There's a good reason for that. The argument that there is no need of religion for a civilized society has been shown to be a pipe dream - phantasmagoria - fraud - by communism. This argument is so easy to defeat I could do it with three-quarters of my brain tied behind my back!

I am not being dogmatic. I am not even a "Christian" (in the sense that a lot of people would think) or a Jew. But every monotheistic religion shares certain core values of right and wrong which form the basis of civilized behavior.

Additionally, the so-called "separation of church and state" is a fiction, the whole concept was to prevent the government from having a state supported or controlled church, as was the case in England and many (if not most or all) European countries. The founders were in general pious, whether they would be considered Christians, Jews, or deists. They never meant (and this is easy to find in their writings) that the United States - or any civilized society - can exist if not informed by basic religious principles.

[Pagey]

There are so many fewer gay people in America than people purport. Even so, I didn't see in any of thepolls quoteed, how many people were asked, which negates any rational discussion from me. 6 out of 10? Yeah, right.

[Tempest]

So I can see you guys don't really care for the American values of freedom but more for gestapo dictates of propaganda, fear tactics and social control.

Geee and I thought that this sight was a haven against Democrats. . .

[borntodiefree]

I have no problem with it being against the law (and it is in much of the country) to have sex (of any kind) in public.

I do have children, I have seven, I homeschool them to protect them until I deem them appropriate for them to know limited information. I do not allow my children on the Internet, and when I do, I will put a filter on the Internet in the rare instance that I am not with them.

[First Amendment]

So I can see you guys don't really care for the American values of freedom but more for gestapo dictates of propaganda, fear tactics and social control.

This is really funny - it's as though you are looking in a mirror, accusing others of what is on your own face. Those tactics describe the homo activists to a "T".

[Bigg Red]

post #57

Okay, thanks for the info.

[nosofar]

Do you really think men and women in heterosexual relationships would limit themselves to a BJ every time all the time? Get real. The point is that no matter what homos or lesbians engage in sexually there will be no baby.

I was just reading a book called "The Clash of Orhodoxies". This guy was arguing that when a man and a woman have sex, they become one 'reproductive principal'. I still don't understand it, but you might find it interesting. I tend to think that laws are how society states what is valuable and what is not. If homosexual marriage, a behavior from which no children can issue, is equated with heterosexual marriage, we are essentially stating that procreation is not valuable.