Medicine Man wrote:

As for homosexuals, I have been told that the Chumash American Native people of the California Santa Barbara region, honor homosexual people as some of their most powerful medicine people. The reason for this belief, that was given to me, anyone that survived an incident that would alter ones basic procreation tendencies, must be honored for the courage it would take to continue this earthly journey.


I've read about this many times, but never knew if the belief was maintained to this day. Thank you for letting us know.

tfarrell wrote:

fefifofob wrote:

I used match.com & gay.com because they were the most popular in the google searches I did and they didn't contain the total filth I found elsewhere.

That doesn't alter the fact that you're comparing apples and oranges, or that match.com is not a straight-only dating site.

OK, they have a difference. One has both hetero and homosexuals and one is just gays. Maybe the difference is because of that.

As I pointed out, the comparison is invalid because their content policies differ. Of course match.com will have ads without sexual content: they censor sexual content.

Have you ever considered that they might censor sexual content because most heterosexuals find it offensive? Have you considered that this may also have some bearing on the fact that most gays sites do less censoring of sexual content because that's what the people who go to those sites are interested in? This is my point.

I haven't seen a hetero only site that compares to gay.com or any of the more graphic gay dating sites either. Maybe they exist. Show me.

I privately sent you a list of six.

I went to a few of those and almost invariably the people were looking for either men or women to have sex with. I'm not sure this makes them heterosexual sites. These are sites for people who want any kind of sex. I guess that would make them bisexual, but I'm not even sure that covers everything. If this is your best evidence that heterosexuals have the same focus on sex that homosexuals do, it's pretty lame.

All you've been doing so far is dismissing my point that they are different with the argument that they are different.

I think that's perfectly valid. Your argument is meaningless as long as the comparison you gave purportedly to prove it is meaningless.

Either show me a gay only site that doesn't revolve around sex or show me a straight only site that does revolve around sex.

I sent you six of the latter. I'm a bit tired and can't think of any gay only personals sites besides gay.com at the moment. (I think gay.com used to allow straight personals too, I'm annoyed to see they don't any more.) Most personals sites don't exclude heterosexuals. However, I'll address this a little more below...

Oh, I can tell you that I've seen enough in the past week to last a lifetime. Gay.com is mild compared to any other site I've seen. Gay.com will put 'adult picture' thumbnails over the most disgusting pictures, so you have to actually click on them to get the filth. Every other one I've seen just lets porn fill the screen. It gets quite nauseating rather quickly.

Are you in favor of bisexual marriage?

I know several very nice bisexual couples. One is married, another is planning to be. The married couple happen to be a man and a woman, with two beautiful kids, and if you met them casually you'd probably think they're the very vision of heterosexual respectability, and would be surprised to learn that they were personally denounced on the floor of the US senate as being the very model of everythign that is wrong and immoral in America today. (They're very proud of it.)

I understand that there are some who not only are the vision of respectability, but really are respectable. However, what I am saying is that the majority of gays are not. Wasn't it you who was saying that one example doesn't mean anything?

Actually you asked me about my thoughts about bisexuals marrying, and I answered.

And I commented on your answer and asked a question about how your valid your single individual example is. It was supposed to be a kinder way of pointing out that you have dismissed most things I have pointed out as being a 'single example.'

People who are proud of being denounced on the floor of the Senate might not be the best argument for evoking a picture of responsibility.

Being denounced as immoral by Jesse Helms is a badge of honor. Especially since it's so nutty... he denounced them as immoral for saying they're bisexual, which they are, but they're actually married in a heterosexual relationship. What, exactly, is the sense of denouncing them for that?

I'll admit Helms is out there a ways.

He said they were immoral because they are bisexual? If you are married to someone of the opposite sex and you are bisexual, doesn't that mean they are having sex with people outside of marriage? I don't think that's something I would value in a marriage. It tends to show the pursuit of pleasure over the commitment of marriage. Call me straightlaced, but that's immoral.

I'm not going to post any of those web addresses here. I'm sure if you wanted to put one ounce of effort into it, you could find dozens of examples like what I found.

Sure. And I could make sure every one of those examples is of heterosexuals. But what's the point? If people want to exhibit poor sexual morality, that's not illegal. Heterosexuals do it, but they're allowed to marry. Thus, it's not a valid legal reason to deny marriage to gay couples.

A valid legal reason for denying marriage to gay couples is that it is illegal in most states. I'm not sure I can get more valid and legal than that.

You're trying to change the subject again. I pointed out that the web sites you consider to be immoral don't constitute adequate legal ground for banning marriage. Are you going to try to argue with that, or just change the subject?

I was giving the web sites for evidence that gays are more interested in sex that the other aspects of a relationship like trust, honesty, commitment and responsibility. It's just a piece of evidence, it's not the entire reason for denying marriage to homosexuals, it's just a piece of evidence. You trying to state that it my entire reason for this is changing the subject. I'm sorry I didn't point it out to you previously. I had a hard time understanding that you were trying to use this evidence as my entire argument.

to be continued...

I have no idea how much effort it would take to refute my example because I didn't find any, none, zero, zip, zilch, nada which I would be willing to show to my 9 year old daughter.

Either you didn't look very hard or your daughter is overly sheltered. I've seen many, many gay personal ads that are innocent to the point of being tedious.

Show me... Please... Not just a select set you pick out, but a web site or a magazine or some other grouping that screams out 'homosexuals as a group are interested in more than sex.' I can't find anything. Maybe with your connections, you can shed some light on this.

Try chemistry.com . There are lots of gay men looking for relationships there.

Just because you said so, I went through all the questions and filled out the blurbs about myself to make an account. After I was finished, I didn't get matched with one gay man. I don't see anywhere to search for people, so I can't tell if there's even one gay man on that site. I don't see any way you can tell if there's 'lot's of gay men' on that site. How do you know?

Actually, I pointed out the problem with your sample size, and I pointed out the complete lack of validity of comparing gay.com to match.com because of their differing editorial policies (which you're still dodging instead of addressing), and I pointed out that match.com is not a heterosexual-only dating site anyway (which you're also still dodging instead of addressing). But you don't want to actually deal with these facts, you just want to spew out some vitriol that tries to distract everyone by accusing me of not having said anything.

There's some validity in the comparison. One site has both hetero and homosexuals and one has only gays. One has much more of a focus on relationships and what involved in making a good one and one has much more of an emphasis on sex. Maybe it doesn't show exactly what you want, but there is some tiny bit of information to be gleaned from that. Maybe that tiny bit of information is wrong, but you have not given on shred of evidence to the contrary.

The point is that it doesn't show what you want. The only information I can glean from it is that you don't know how to compare gay people to straight people, because you picked sites with vastly different editoral policies and treated them as equivalent.

It shows what I wanted just fine. I can understand that they aren't totally equivalent and without them being exact in every detail except one is gay and one is straight that you aren't going to see any comparison. I've got news for you, the six sites you sent me in a PM aren't even close to qualifying for my criteria, the ones I looked at seem to be filled with people who just want sex. They don't care where it comes from. I guess this makes them bisexual. They certainly don't qualify for heterosexual. I'm flabbergasted that you call my comparison invalid and then come up with this.

The point isn't that you have seen a gay personal ad. I believe you when you say you have seen a lot of them. What I don't believe is that there an entire segment of a communication medium that I missed which shows that what the majority of gays is interested in is stable, responsible relationships. If your vast experience gives you some insight I am not aware of, please share it.

I'm saying gays are immoral. I have yet to see a web site or magazine where most people were looking for someone of the opposite sex and they had to expose themselves and/or almost exclusively talk about the sexual aspect of a relationship.

I sent you a list of six.

Those are supposed to show me that heterosexuals are only interested in sex. Almost all of these people don't qualify as heterosexuals. To be heterosexual means you are interested in the opposite sex, not just sex with anything that moves.

I have yet to see a magazine or web site where most people were looking for someone of the same sex (or either sex) where they didn't expose themselves and/or almost exclusively talk about the sexual aspect of a relationship.

I named one. You could also look at the gay personals on match.com or yahoo.com.

Yahoo also used to have PLENTY of straight guys looking for sex in its personals, but they seem to have banned that category of personals and revised their whole system quite a bit.

I've looked at the gay personals on match.com & yahoo.com. Have you tried doing a search for gays in their 30s within 50 miles of your city? Now try the same search on gay.com. In case you can't work up the requisite energy, here's the results.

Match.com - 37
Gay.com - over 250

Whoops, these aren't really good numbers, let's try decreasing it to 25 miles.

Match.com - 32
Gay.com - over 250

Hmmm, OK, 10 miles

Match.com - 29
Gay.com - over 250

Well, this is getting old, now let's try decreasing the ages to 30-35

Match.com - 13
Gay.com - over 250

How about only 30 year olds...

Match.com - 2
Gay.com - 118

Success! These gays are 59 times more likely to prefer an ad on gay.com rather than match.com. I know it's not a scientific test, but there must be some small amount of information which can be gleaned from this little test.

2) Show me how same sex marriage can be a right and illegal in most places.

For all citizens to be treated equally under the law regardless of race has been a right since the constitution was written, but it wasn't until the late 1960's that the many, many, many laws which violated this right were struck from the books by the supreme court.


There are plenty of exceptions to equal treatment which are completely valid and legal. There are people who get special treatment because of their needs and there are people who get less because of their needs. I've pointed these exceptions out several times and all you can do is get offended because I'm comparing other groups to gays. The simple fact that there are differences has been lost on you. All I can say is I'm sorry you are so narrow minded.

tfarrell wrote:

fefifofob wrote:

tfarrell wrote:

Do you make a habit of opposing people's rights before coming up with a reason for doing so?


Yes, I believe the evidence of my eyes and ears. Once it becomes important, I ensure that my thoughts, feelings and opinions have a good basis in reality. It looks to me like this is a lot more than most people do.


You know, I didn't really expect an answer to that question, it was actually rhetorical. Even less would I have imagined that you'd answer "yes". I am truly stunned.

This is only stunning if you assume that what you want is a 'right' and that nothing else deserves to be looked at in determining if you have a valid argument. I call this pinpoint perspective. It means you are looking at your argument from such a narrow perspective that you cqan only see what you want to see.

tfarrell wrote:

I am asking for nothing. I am demanding that this nation give me the equal protection of the law that is my birthright as an American, by allowing me to marry the person of my choice, my mutual consent, like everybody else can.


It's not a right. The supreme courts of severals states have already agreed with the constitutionality of the laws banning same sex marriage.

The supreme courts of several states have already agreed that it's constitutionally forbidden to give special rights to heterosexual couples only while denying them to gay and lesbian couples. One said that required gay marriage, two others said that gay marriage would be an acceptable solution to resolving the existing violation of our rights.

Do you plan to hold a battle of the state supreme courts?

Courts can only interpret the law. Thay cannot create the law.

Doing exactly what you want is not a right.

Go read the constitution. You can do anything you want until the right to do that thing is revoked by due process of law. And then that law can be fought in court.

tfarrell wrote:

Next, over the years I have seen homosexual behavior with my own two eyes, I have noticed that it has a lot of earmarks of an addiction. There seems to be a lot of obsessive compulsive behavior and addictive priorities in the persuit of sex.

I find that to be equally true of straight people, if not more so.

There's some, but it doesn't seem greater. I am a proponent of doing something to fix this problem rather than adding to it. If you care to offer a shred of proof, feel free.

Proof of which part, that straight people obsessively pursue sex? Go talk to any male teenager. Or any male college student, and a lot of the female ones. I would think anyone would have observed this by now. That straight people pursue it more obsessively? That'd be impossible to prove one way or another. I would suggest however that you consider that straight people can do so directly, easily, because our society is set up in a manner that allows men and women to meet easily, while gay people have more obstacles, which causes us to need to be a bit more blunt about what we want in order to find it, and also, since we already have to violate society's biggest taboo in the first place just to admit we're gay, we have a lot less reason to feel inhibited about being a bit more specific.

Well, you've sent me a list of sites where people want sex. Everyone seems to want sex with everyone. No one seem to limit their attraction to the opposite sex. This is not an indication that heterosexuals are obsessively pursuing sex.

tfarrell wrote:
Frankly, I've seen far worse sexual behaviors from straight people than I've ever seen from gay people. I saw a straight couple, fully nude, having wild sex on the lawn of a church in full view of a high-rise apartment block. And she was a screamer, so believe me, everyone noticed. I saw a woman performing oral sex on a man on a subway car in front of 50 or so horrified onlookers. I've never seen gay people do anything approaching that.

Again, fix the problems that exist rather than using them for an excuse to create more.

Straight people having sex in public strikes me as a problem. Gay people getting married doesn't seem like any sort of problem to me, so your argument doesn't hold water for me.

It strikes me as a problem too. And just how did you know they were heterosexual? Maybe they were bisexual. Did you ask them?

to be continued...

...continued

tfarrell wrote:

You're seriously claiming that personal ads, no matter how explicit the text, are more sexual than nude photos that were deliberately taken as pornography? Are you out of your mind?

Yes, I am seriously claiming that.

You read it here first folks... I had to see him say it to believe it...

And the rest of my paragraph explaining why is below...

If you can't post an ad looking for a friend without a nude photo or explaining what kind of sex you are interested in, then that tells me that all they are interested in is the sex. Not commitment, not responsibility, not trust, just sex. It's the whole point I'm trying to make here if you didn't understand that.

So, people look for differing stuff in personal ads. Some look for sex. If someone is looking for sex, well, I would think it would be expected that they might have sexual content. If you search a personals site that tracks what you're looking for and you don't choose to tell it you're only looking for relationship ads, well, you get what you asked for. Looking for sex is legal in our society. If you don't like it, I'm afraid that's just too bad.

Some people go looking for relationships, and all they want to talk about is the relationship, and that's just fine. Good for them, I'm sure they're more likely to get your approval.

Some people go looking for relationships and they want sex too. That's pretty normal. Most people want sex in their relationships. Among straight people, people know... hmm, how to put this delicately? I'll use a metaphor I think you'll guess at... People know which of the two involved straight people wears the pants to the bedroom and which wears the skirt. For a gay male couple, you don't know whether a given guy wears the pants or wears the kilt or has a more diverse wardrobe. If two guys who both strongly prefer to wear the pants try to get together, they're going to have some disagreement in the bedroom. If two guys who both strongly prefer to wear the kilt try to get together, they're going to be rather bored in the bedroom. (I've had one of these problems a few times, I'm not going to tell you which.) So, just saying what you like in that regard up front saves a lot of time going on dates with guys who later turn out to be incompatible in the bedroom.

Did I mention somewhere that sex isn't important and forget about it? If I did, then I was mistaken. I thought I was saying that having an obsession with sex to the point of ignoring other values was the problem. I'm anot sure where I said this, but thanks for bring it to my attention and allowing me to clear this up.

tfarrell wrote:
Hey, I've got a personal on match.com. It's not a straight dating site. It's just a dating site. (And I used to have one on gay.com, but I took it down.)

Well, that narrows it down a bit. Aren't you the one who is tired of the dishonesty and those only interested in sex? If so, then you should be agreeing with everything I say here.

I am not interested right now in men who are only interested in sex; nevertheless, I respect their right to want and look for that. It just doesn't happen to be what I want or need in my life in the moment.

That's great. I hope you don't decide differently later. There's great value in being interested in someone for more than sex. The point I'm trying to make is that the vast majority of gays seem to be only interested in sex.

Even when I was young and the hormones were flowing incessantly, I knew there was more to a relationship than sex. It was just a given, I don't understand how someone would be willing to give all this up just for sex. I've seen people who are willing to do it, but it seems they have lost a lot in doing so. Most of the heterosexuals I've talked to knew something was wrong and wanted to change. Most of the gays just accepted it.

tfarrell wrote:

Have you ever heard of a 'gay bar?' Why do you think they exist? Gays tend to socialize with others who will accept their lifestyle. They tend to avoid people who are critical of their choices.

Uh... are you stupid? Gay bars exist so gay people can have a place where they know they're safe to socialize, and where single gay people can meet other single gay people and express interest in them and know that the person they're trying to chat up isn't some bigot who will beat the crap out of them. We're not so concerned about avoiding people "critical of our choices" as we are about avoiding people with guns and knives.


I did a search for the phrase 'hate crime' on this site. I got a Jewish hate crime, a 2 religious hate crimes, a disabled hate crime, 3 racial hate crimes, a change to hate crime law... OK, here's a gay hate crime article, but it happened in Massachusetts. Here's an arson that could possibly be hate crime, but they don't say who hates who. Another religious hate crime, An article about hate crime legislation undermining the 2nd amendment, more about the proposed hate crime bill. And I've made it to January 1st 2006. Eight months and zero hate crimes against homosexuals in Utah county.

I was able to find hate crime statistics as of a few years ago, but utah county didn't report its statistics for three quarters of the year I found, so it's impossible to tell whether utah county isn't having hate crimes or whether they're just not reporting them. Counties of the state of Utah reported 59 hate crimes that year overall. Actually, that seems very good; New Jersey, that bastion of liberalism, reported 769. California reported 1,393. I would have to do more digging to normalize this against population, however, so I don't know how meaningful the totals are. Regardless, most states actually have plenty of hate crimes, so we gay people still have plenty of reason to stick together and look after each other.


All hate crimes are not gay bashing. I keep up with the news pretty well and I haven't seen many instances of hate crimes against homosexuals around here anyway. I seem to remember one in Salt Lake last year or maybe the year before. I would be willing to bet there have been more hate crimes because of religion than there have been because of sexual orientation.

People who do drugs tend to socialize with other people who drugs. People who are habitual criminals tend to find people who are criminals. These people tend to be less judgemental of each other because they have both lowered their ethical standards. It's easier to be around people who don't try to explain why your behaviors are harmful.