Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and in this post (http://www.city-data.com/forum/20127453-post272.html) talking about legally married gay couples you say: "They still aren't 'married' in my eyes, and no law can make them so. Call it what you wish; it's lost on me"
So in review, you believe sex is sinful if outside of marriage (meaning all sex outside of marriage is immoral). You also believe gay people cannot marry - "period." Therefore, aren't you saying that gay people (minus gay virgins) are immoral?
and in this post (http://www.city-data.com/forum/20127453-post272.html) talking about legally married gay couples you say: "They still aren't 'married' in my eyes, and no law can make them so. Call it what you wish; it's lost on me"
So in review, you believe sex is sinful if outside of marriage (meaning all sex outside of marriage is immoral). You also believe gay people cannot marry - "period." Therefore, aren't you saying that gay people (minus gay virgins) are immoral?
I don't know if anyone posted this since I try to jump over the "I said, you said" posts that get personal.
I remember being taught that the way we turn out has to do with nature and nurture. I think this is why most people get confused with homosexuality. Since scientists have not proven anyone is born a certain way, even though we all like to think so, then we have to fall back on nurture having a big impact on our lives.
People are afraid our kids are being influenced. I was taught pre-teens go through a stage where they have crushes on the same sex. They grow out of this stage. Can you imagine that kid in the crush stage having a trusted adult, like a teacher, saying, "will most possibly you are gay."
When I was younger our society was not so sex saturated so kids went through this stage and people mostly found humor in it knowing it was just a stage, but not now with all the teaching and talk about homosexuality. Now kids would seriously think that just may be who they are.
Actually, it has a "it's offensive" and "it's a great ad". The parts after the initial "yes" or "no" make them not only loaded answers, it's also academic dishonesty. If the responses were "Yes, it's offensive" and "No, it's not offensive", that would be different. But there's one more problem....
And the bolded is that problem. The question actually reads: "Does this Ad help the Same Sex Marriage Cause?" not "Do you find it offensive?" There is a difference.
It's along the same lines of the question "When did you stop beating your wife". Whereas, instead of two questions merged together ("Did you beat your wife" and the conditional "When did you stop?"), the poll answers have multiple answers (that may or may not match) merged together. For instance, per the actual poll question of "Does this Ad help the Same Sex Marriage Cause?" I feel that it does not help, but I don't find it offensive.
Baloney! You're injecting your own bias here .... the question reads:
"Yes, it's a great Ad ...... blah blah blah ..."
"no It's offensive ..... blah, blah blah."
So it's pretty simple ... you think it's great, or offensive. Simple as that. Of course you can make it more complex by breaking that down further to include "it's a great Ad" or "it's a good Ad" or "it's a mediocre Ad" ... and just as verbosely, you could say "no, it's offensive' or "it's somewhat annoying" or "slightly disconcerting" or whatever breakdown one might choose. But at the end of the day, the bottom line question is ... is it offensive or not? Yes or no. It's not a loaded question, except for those who aren't comfortable with their own answers.
And of course you could go out of your way to be sensitive to ALL opinions and offer the obligatory "undecided" as a choice for those who don't have an opinion ... but in those cases, silence is golden ... and if one has no opinion ...they can very easily convey that situation by keeping their mouths shut.
Personally, I did not look at it. Kids with foul mouths are offensive to me to begin with so it's offensive for more reasons than one. Just put down offensive for me on so many levels.
If gays think they will win over the general public by being raunchy, they have it backwards. It's like the gay pride parades. Shaking your butts at people will not convince anyone the gay life is to be admired.
Personally, I did not look at it. Kids with foul mouths are offensive to me to begin with so it's offensive for more reasons than one. Just put down offensive for me on so many levels.
If gays think they will win over the general public by being raunchy, they have it backwards. It's like the gay pride parades. Shaking your butts at people will not convince anyone the gay life is to be admired.
Mardi Gras, Frat houses, and any Friday night at your local bar doesn't make the straight life too admirable either.
Mardi Gras, Frat houses, and any Friday night at your local bar doesn't make the straight life too admirable either.
Agreed. But I don't recall seeing those images as part of a social/political campaign to change society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
