Comments on: Bill makes Iowa marriage law gender neutral

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 11:57:15 +0000

There still is no evidence of a 'gay gene' so I don't know how you can claim persons with SSA are "born that way,"

Now, did you CHOOSE your orientation? Probably not.

You can't equate a behavior with an inherent genetic trait such as race.

You are aware that the radical gay agenda has long been advocating for the definition of marriage to include numerous conjugal partners, aren't you?

If the state can redefine marriage for you, they would be hypocritical not to do it for others. Let the people vote!

By: Nola225

Nola225 — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:49:25 +0000

You know, your post reminds me of something i've heard before... "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

That's from the trial judge of the interracial marriage case of Loving v. Virginia. He was arguing that the bible was right about race. Do you agree with that? If not, how do you justify your anti-gay marriage views? That when God created separate races he didn't really mean it, but when he created separate genders he TOTALLY meant it? Come on.

Also, clearly your post represents a clear misunderstanding of what it means to be bisexual. It doesn't mean you want a man and the woman at the SAME TIME! It simply means you're attracted to both genders. Marriage is all about monogamy. I believe in that. AND I WANT A MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP STATE SANCTIONED AND BASED IN LOVE! Are you going to argue that love shouldn't be a factor in marriages? Are you thus implicitly implying that you think marriages should be made IRREGARDLESS of both gender and love?

What does marriage even mean to you? Is it just about gender? Do you have any idea how many people have been in destructive terrible marriages because their spouse turned out to be gay? How sad! I wouldn't wish that on anybody!

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:57:13 +0000

You don't have a right to redefine marriage, which is a union between one man and one woman.

If you can redefine marriage to suit your situation, based solely on love, everyone else would have to be granted the same non-existent 'right' also.

Will bisexuals be allowed to marry both a male and female?

Do you think the state should be in the business of endorsing behaviors that present a danger to one's physical health? How can we sanction smoking and enforce seatbelt laws while holding homosexual acts in esteem?

By: Nola225

Nola225 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:02:27 +0000

Umm... who is limiting my expression of love? Is this a serious question? The STATE is limiting my expression of love by denying the ULTIMATE expression of love which is MARRIAGE!!

Also, forgive me for being unclear, but when I was speaking of love in the previous post, I was speaking of ROMANTIC love, not parental, brotherly, sisterly, godfatherly, grandmotherly or any other sort of love. I should have said you don't believe that two people of the same sex are capable of ROMANTIC love, yet here I am to prove you wrong and you accuse me of political posturing.

Your posts do nothing but beat around the bush on an issue that is important to thousands of people. Can you not understand the desire to get married? You say you have a daughter, can I assume you have a husband? What do you find so offensive about my own desire to have a husband? How does that impact your marriage at all?

Political posturing? My love and my life is not a political posture, and that's the key difference. Because while to me marriage is a question of living my life to the fullest, to you it is nothing but a question of politics.

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:28:05 +0000

Who is "limiting [your] expression of love"? And how?

To the contrary, I DO believe two people of the same sex are capable of love. After all, I love my mother and my daughters!

Your entire post is nothing less than political posturing.

By: Nola225

Nola225 — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:38:06 +0000

Why are any of your studies relevant? Who's been arguing that homosexuality is genetic? Should it really matter? Why should legislation exist limiting an expression of love? Your REAL problem is that you don't believe two people of the same sex are capable of love.

So let me disclose: I am a man who has had relationships with men and women, I know what it's like to be in love, and right now I am in love with my boyfriend. I would never claim that my sexuality is purely genetic. Nor would I ever say “Why would I choose to be this way?” because saying that is an insult to my boyfriend and our relationship. I may very well have chosen to be gay, but if it's what got me where I am now, than I am eternally thankful!

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:03:42 +0000

For a scientific study to be discredited, someone would have to prove a negative, right?

Can you point me to studies which have discredited any of the studies I mentioned?

And here's an Iowan's story that might be of interest to you:
http://www.dmcityview.com/archives/june/06-16-0...

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:09:05 +0000

More scientific studies have occurred. Yes, but they seem to be automaticall discounted just because the APA removed homosexuality from its DSM. Political correctness trumps science.

Would you like to discuss the studies of Simon Levay (1991) or Dean Hamer (1993), both self-identified gay men whose findings have been debunked?

I hear their studies are favorites of those who claim there is a 'gay gene.'

By: Peggy2

Peggy2 — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 10:58:09 +0000

“The controversial Kinsey studies” have long since been discredited AND they were done in 1949, so they couldn't possibly be valid. Right?

By: slincoln

slincoln — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 03:43:14 +0000

It may have been valid in 1963. It's usefulness is low, at best, since it is now 2009. Again, most of the studies from that time period have been discredited.
In regards to your “behavior” comment, please re-read my statement. It appears that you misunderstood. Sexual behaviors are manifestations of sexual orientation – but they are not the same thing according to science.