Did you read THIS article from Journal of Sex Research?

http://www.jstor.org/discover/.....0963261433

Three studies conducted with students at six different universities revealed a consistent tendency for heterosexual males to express more hostile attitudes than heterosexual females, especially toward gay men. The same social psychological variables appear to underlie both males’ and females’ attitudes toward both gay men and lesbians: religiosity, adherence to traditional ideologies of family and gender, perception of friends’ agreement with one’s own attitudes, and past interactions with lesbians and gay men.

In other words dear, you are a textbook case of bigotry.

Cool!

“Leave it to the homosexuals” is a generalization usually used in the context of “the blacks”.

Anything after “the” usually denotes a disgust with what’s coming after “the”.

You’re basically saying they are not in the same category as you.

Just admit you’re homophobic and I’ll admit I don’t like people who hate others, based on color, race, creed, culture, religion, or sexual orientation.

You admit that, and I won’t breakdown the bible for you again, since you were the one who wants to bring up Christian beliefs.

“The Homosexuals” Man please. Don’t try to clean it up now.

You said: “look, we all know that this isnt about rights and its not about marriage. the majority of homosexual “marriages” are anything but monogomous. its about normalizing the behavior in the public sphere.”

No we all don’t know that. I seriously doubt you know any homosexual couples. The couple I work with is very monogomous. But I’ve heard that spewed before, from my father. It’s profiling. Are you cop? Cops are good at profiling.

The only thing that keeps me from getting pulled over are my disabled veteran license plates.

Your stereotypes are classical and can be downloaded anywhere, from the local men’s watering hole to the grafitti on the stall walls in your neighborhood truck stop.

Stop being so insecure about your own manhood and leave those people alone.

Or – consequently, you can just come out of the closet and make your neighbors happy.

FYI – You also said “rectum”. Now that was funny. Have a good weekend.

What do I get for my regulatory prowess? (Although I guess I didn’t really demonstrate any this week).

I can’t think of a more horrifyingly “legalistic” conclusion someone could reach — that finding evidence that someone was indeed innocent wasn’t, in and of itself, sufficient to get them out of jail.

Also, the flaming loonie attempted to gut the Wetlands protection regulations in some places because he didn’t understand hydrogeology, but thought that he did.

As for your disgust — hey, it’s yours, and I believe you that you are disgusted by the idea of 500 sex partners (it wouldn’t be my choice, either), and you can certainly say so. I’m sure that there are a lot of people who agree with you (and they had nice chicken sandwiches to show their solidarity with Mr. Cathy). However, most of us who have weighed in on this threat don’t agree with you.

As for your statements on organized religion — I agree with you, as, I believe, others who contribute to this thread probably do, too.

A lot of gals would agree with you….;)

You mentioned environmental performance and S.C. Johnson. As a chemical manufacturer (among other things), Johnson Wax does make information on their environmental performance available to the public (beyond simply the Toxics Release Inventory figures that EPA releases each year). In addition, companies like S.C. Johnson, which are very sensitive about their images as “clean” companies, also make available information on the “social” effects of off-shore operations.

You might remember back a few years ago during the flap over much-debated Cap-and-Trade legislation to address Global Climate Change. A number of companies (mostly publicly owned, but some private, as well) bolted very publicly from their memberships with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce over its stance on Global Climate Change (they supported the deniers) because the companies (former members) found the chamber’s advocacy to be incompatible with their own stand on climate change and their efforts to reduce greenhouse gases.

You may also remember the scandal involving a flurry of letters that were sent to various legislators, also regarding Cap-and-Trade, that were supposedly from–for example–a local NAACP chapter, a Latino Chamber of Commerce and Jobs, residents of nursing homes (who either didn’t exist or who had no knowledge of the letters), and others. These letters were all bogus, and an investigation revealed that a PR firm working for the Clean Coal Association hired another PR firm (for plausible deniability), which did the deed. Clean Coal took it on the chin for that (as well they should).

Although willingness — or an obligation — to make disclosures to the public about environmental and social responsibility performance, including advocacy, varies among sectors (e.g., companies engaging in manufacturing, particularly chemical manufacturing, and waste management have been under fire for enough decades, particularly regarding environmental performance, that many of them have been making proactive disclosures for years), what I have seen, particularly after Citizens United (a very, very bad decision), is that the public has become a lot more sensitive about where the money they spend is ultimately going.

Personally, I would prefer that my power company not lobby (particularly in a covert fashion using front groups and the like) against reasonable environmental legislation. And in some cases, people may make choices regarding companies from which they buy consumer goods, foods, or services based on what they know about whether its owner/management embraces certain activities. I have never gone to Chik-Fil-A, in part because I am concerned about “factory farmed” meat, but also because I was aware of their anti-choice stance against abortion. I never demonstrated outside their store in my town, but I certainly wasn’t going to add money to their coffers. Ditto the workout studio, Curves, whose owner also supports anti-choice politicians.

I believe that you are going to be seeing more interest in/concern for business organizations’ advocacy activities in the future, both because of Citizens United here in the U.S., and also because of the rapid adoption (at this point, outside the U.S.) of the International Organization of Standards (ISO) standard 26000, which addresses Social Responsibility, which includes an examination of organizations’ advocacy.

This standard is only two years old at this point, and U.S. companies have thus far shied away, in part, because we come up woefully short in regard to the availability of healthcare for everyone in communities. Although there is no certification for ISO 26000, in the case of other ISO standards (ISO 14000, environmental, 9000-9100, quality) it has become necessary for businesses to adhere to them and become certified under them if they expect to sell their products to manufacturers in other parts of the world.

I’m sure that purveyors of consumer products and services, such as Chik-Fil-A and Curves, will be able to continue their advocacy — certainly, there are people who support them, and if there are enough that do, or don’t care, then they can plod along anyway they like. (BTW — I don’t think that cities or their mayors should be making noises about “keeping them out” because of their advocacy — that really would be a violation of free speech.) But you certainly aren’t going to see multinational, publicly held manufacturers, such as Dow Chemical, coming out (tee-hee- a pun) as agressively anti-gay. I am quite sure that this would lose them business in Europe, where governments often own stakes in a lot of the larger manufacturers and the public isn’t anywhere near as priggish or weird about sex and sexuality as people are here in the U.S.

So yes — there are a lot of private companies who, depending on their industrial sector, are pretty much compelled to make disclosures, including, increasingly, in the area of Social Responsibility and Responsible Advocacy. And you can expect to see more of it when people see the degree to which corporate interests will be “buying” elections in November.

Quote me one “word in red” where Christ states that two people of the same sex cannot love each other?

Josepg, I could care less about the Bible. Organized religion was developed as a means of control. Read Leon Uris “Trinity” to get a good feel for that in Ireland. You were a heretic if you said the earth was round.

No, my opinion is strictly personal. You do your thing, I do mine. Just dont tell me I have to accept something I dont agree with.

Its really very simple.

The patient said, “Yes, but will I live to be a hundred?”

“That depends,” said the doctor. “Do you smoke?”

“Oh, never. What a filthy habit!”

“Do you consume alcohol?”

“Of course not! It’s bad for the liver!”

“How is your diet?”

“All organic, strict vegan, and two meals a day.”

“Exercise?”

“I run a mile every morning. With sunscreen on, of course- UV rays are so harmful.”

“Then you never go to the beach?”

“Oh, no, the sun and the microorganisms are so harmful!”

“Well, and how often do you have sex, and with whom?”

“Never!” the patient shuddered.

“One more question,” the doctor said.

“Yes?”

“WHY do you want to live to be a hundred?”

but do not tell me I HAVE to accept it. do not cram it down my throat. wont happen. ever.

look, we all know that this isnt about rights and its not about marriage. the majority of homosexual “marriages” are anything but monogomous. its about normalizing the behavior in the public sphere.

when I read in the journal of sex research that 50% of adult homosexuals have had more than 500 sexual “encounters”, and 25% more than 1000, you know, public restrooms at parks and such, well is it any wonder the Boy Scouts want nothing to do with them?

I’ll be happy to provide the Journal of Sex Research excerpt. If you can stomach it.

if that makes you feel better about yourself, so be it.

personally, I’ll stick with the female form in all its beauty.

Yes, orgasms really do require laws. And that laws states we should all have them. But probably not all the time.

Because then nothing would get done. And the men would probably be tired all the time.

Sure would be fun, though.

I think we’d all like to know who the corporations (or should I call them “people” because that is how SCOTUS views them) give money to for political reasons.

Unfortunately the Republicans in particular don’t want any rules on that because they argue it might harm their businesses if citizens actually knew which corporations were backing which candidates.

As far as I am concered, I prefer Chick-fil-A’s open bigotry than all the closted bigots who never have to face any public scrutiny.

My limited understanding of Christian theology is that ALL people are sinners, without exception, i.e., “original sin”, and that includes our dear friend Louis. The only redemption from sin is not ten-toes-up ten-toes-down sex with a lawfully-wedded opposite-sex spouse, but indeed the price paid by Christ on the cross.

Secondly, if you want to go to ancient hebrew scriptures, let’s not parse them out to suit your present day political agenda. If the old testament condemed homosexuality per se (which as Joseph points out, it arguably did not), it also encouraged polygamy, arranged marriages, the obligation of marrying your sister in law in case her husband died, and relatively easy divorce (if you were male). Sex wasn’t really part of the marriage equation except for procreation, and people didn’t as a rule get married because they were sexually attracted.

Many of the criticisms of sexual morality in the New Testament on the other hand go back to Paul. Given that Paul was living in Roman lands and faced with increasing mistrust due to secretive rites and the ancient Jewish tradition of kissing to greet, even between men. Romans were notoriously lenient about physical intimacy behind doors but even married citizens did not display intimacy in public life, so it is pretty clear that Paul’s message was a pragmatic one: don’t do anything to piss off the really very conservative Romans and get us all killed.

In my faith sex and marriage are up to every person and don’t require a lot of religious thought. Our only precept (the equivalent of a commandment) on sexual morality is to be loving and responsible, regardless of gender or marital status. Only monks vow to refrain from sex, and just like so many Christian pastors and priests, we all know how often those vows don’t pan out. But I guess my point is why should Christian views prevail when I have the same guarantee of religious freedom as a buddhist?

Maybe we should just abolish the civil institution of marriage altogether. Half of American marriages end in divorce anyway. What’s the point of adhering to a failed institution? Religious marriage could still take place, but without civil legal ramifications.

Does an orgasm really require laws?

As a last comment: when is the last time any of you have gone through the top privately owned companies in the US and looked at their expenditures(I know I never have)? Can anyone tell me how Privately owned companies (larger than chick-fil-a) such as Publix, Toys R Us and SC Johnson and Son spend their money? What associations are they supporting? Are these private companies supporting associations with bad track records? Are they supporting associations with terrible Environmental standards? How should I know?

All I’m saying is that if your going to open a can of worms on what privately owned companies REALLY spend their money on, then you have to look at the whole can. NOT just take out the little worm that spent money on programs that just happen to be “anti-gay”