Yes on 1 TV ad - "Give me a break"

[chrisgsauce]

This woman is clearly obese and in no way healthy. But don't let our kids ask about homosexuality, it's easier to just open a bag of chips and watch TV.

[KimoSully]

I have to agree with NPR on the copyright infringement here. This spot could have easily been made with some other audio track.

[FFFan3445]

Lesbians are whores, I'm against those cheating cunts ever marrying and spreading their filthy genes.

[JTHM3247]

@FFFan3445 I hope this is satire, otherwise you're a close-minded bigot.

[FFFan3445]

@JTHM3247 u mad

Dykes are evil. I am close-minded, but calling me a bigot is idiotic. You're the one who can't accept the opinions of others, look in the mirror. Cunt.

[Laughtraxx]

0:28 on the blackboard. Yep, thats all it is!

[PaulHogan27]

Wow- I thought this was a joke when I first saw it-- how could anybody be that intolerant?

[jason84109]

Gay Marriage has never passed when put to a popular vote. EVER. Do you hear me gay marriage advocates? 31 states in a row have voted No to gay marriage.

[ayeroxor]

@jason84109 Abolition of slavery failed until it passed too. Nice logic there.

[Defenestrationed]

People are idiots. You just proved this.

It's not a question of if, it's a question of when.

[tchrastka]

Good old tolerant puritan New England.

[Alchemicalunicorn]

Oh noes, kids asking more questions!!!! WHATEVER WILL PARENTS DO!

[mrklp]

Pedophiles don't "choose" to be sexually attracted to children.

Psychopaths don't choose to be gratified by the suffering of others.

The fact that pedophiles and psychopaths didn't choose their predicaments doesn't make their actions any more normal.

Sorry, but that's the cold, hard truth.

[CyrisAeon]

And heterosexuals don't choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. This whole line of reasoning is kind of a wash.

[greenday13145]

are you really comparing pedophiles and psychopaths to gay people?

[TheQClife]

Bigots in 1968: "Protect the sanctity of marriage, no interracial marriage." Bigots in 2009: "Protect the sanctity of marriage, no gay marriage." Choose love over hate.

[lisztnut]

I have proof that sexual orientation is not a choice, and is biologically or genetically produced:

Youtube video: Gay education

[jms4979]

Oh yeah, and as far as whether it's a choice or not, that's an interesting question for developmental biologists and sociologists, but in terms of human rights it is IRRELEVANT. Who cares if it's a choice or not? Allowing gay marriage is the right thing to do either way, and anybody who disagrees is either misinformed or a bigot. Rarely does a political issue come along where the correct answer is so abundantly clear. Have fun being on the wrong side of history, suckers...

[Damainra]

Absolutely true. There should be no debate. The adherence to basic human rights should trump all other considerations. It is what makes our society strong.

[jms4979]

No no, this is totally true. I used to be a kindergarten teacher, and once a student asked me, "What is straight sex?" I of course told the student it was usually when a man puts his penis in a woman's vagina, but that sometimes it could involve the woman putting her mouth on the man's penis and other things. And because straight marriage was legal, the schoolboard backed me up on it! I had to!!!

Oh wait, that's absolutely insane. Go, Liars for Jesus, Go!

[divad838]

FAT BITCH

[DoubleEyeDominance]

choosing your sexual orientation is like choosing your biological parents.

NOT POSSIBLE

[lisztnut]

Good one, I'll have to remember that. Choosing your sexual orientation I also like choosing your eye color. You can mask yourself as blue eyed, even though you were born brown eyed, but the reality will NEVER change that you are brown eyed. To the religious nuts, sexual orientation is "behavior" not "identity." In reality it is every bit as part of us as gender and race.

[Damainra]

Who is the religious nut here??? I think you are under some understanding that I am SOME religious nut. lol I understand why you seem so intent on railing against the truth (Scientific not Religious) It is true that some misguided religious crackpots use this position for their cause, claiming that gays can be cured or SAVED. Unfortunately I have also heard similar nut cases go around saying that we should kill them all because it is genetic.

[lisztnut]

I think some people get confused because they know of people who don't come out of the closet till later in life. Therefore, they presume (wrongly) that these people are "choosing" to be gay. The reality is that most of these people knew all their lives that they were gay but couldn't act on it, because of societal/family or religious pressures. I personally know someone who is wrestling with his homosexuality at the age of 50. He's known it his whole life, but is only now dealing with it.

[razholio]

I don't see how the nature of ones sexual orientation matters. Choice or not, it's my own damn right. I'm straight now, but if I choose to be gay tomorrow, that's *my* right and it infringes on no others'.

[Huxkoala]

Wow, 30 seconds of complete BS. Even the Secretary of Education in Maine has said it's not going to be taught in schools.

[FreakyDDR]

NOT QUESTIONS!!!! OMG NO!!!!

[lisztnut]

California voters who voted Yes on Prop 8 learned their lesson on intolerance the hard way. Teaching about same sex couples and their families had never been in public school systems until Prop 8 passed. It was then decided that kids needed to learn about same sex couples (it's actually their parents that need to learn this first). So, several school systems have since passed "sensitivity" training to kids regarding homosexual couples and their families. You reap what you sew.

[eatbetter]

:20 "no... nooooo!!! the world is coming to an end!"

if it doesnt involve you directly, why care? and this is one in what... 10,000 teachers?

[Yewro2000]

I'm calling shenanigans on this

work teaches sex ed in Kindergarden

[c1arknova]

If they wanted me to support the heterosexual cause they could have picked someone who wasn't a fat fucking whale.

You know, remind me that I'm not gay. Maybe then I'd give a shit.

[lisztnut]

Is it just me, or are most heterosexual Americans clueless? I've yet to meet a heterosexual that could tell me "when" they chose their sexual orientation, and yet they claim gay people "learn" and "chose" it. Did you choose to be male, female, caucasian or asian? Of course not, and neither did ANY human being "choose" their sexual orientation. Got it? I see there's a lot of learning that needs to be done, and it's not the kids...

[Damainra]

Sorry to burst your bubble but ..... sexual orientation is learned. What conclusions you and Society in general draw from this statement dictate the acceptance/lack of acceptance of a particular orientation (of which there are more then one - heterosexual/homosexual are the 2 major ones often mentioned). Don't flame me for pointing out the truth. No one is born with a particular orientation - we all adopt one based on life experiences and the Societal influences driven by biological needs.

[lisztnut]

Rubish. Sexual orientation is fully formed by the age of two, this has been proven. There is NO choice involved. Did you choose to be female, male, caucasian, left handed, or blond haired? Of course not, and nobody would claim such a thing. If you chose YOUR sexuality, can you tell me at what age you were when you decided to be straight? And, why did you choose heterosexuality? Gay children grow up with NO, ZERO, NADA images of gay sex. How did we learn to choose this? RUBISH!

[Damainra]

Again you are wrong. Sexual orientation is an evolving state. Hate to say this but it seems you are too passionate in your position to even understand what you are saying. Think before you respond.

[lisztnut]

So, I guess we choose our gender and etnic background too? It makes as much sense as choosing our sexual orientation. I grew up in a 100 percent straight environment. I thought I was the ONLY person attracted to someone of the same sex. So, where did I get a role model to "choose" to be attracted to those of my own sex? Where? How was a presented with this "choice?" Your logic fails on its own merits. You "learned" this approach in your religious brainwashing, no doubt.

[Damainra]

Do not confuse gender with sexual orientation. As for ethnicity, it has little to do with this conversation.

[lisztnut]

Good point about confusing gender with sexual orientation. We can change our gender through surgery, whereas sexual orientation is unchangeable. We can 'mask' ourselves as heterosexual but will always remain homosexual. It's what's in your heart and soul that counts, and nobody can change that... VOTE NO ON ONE!

[lisztnut]

If ethnicity has little to do with this conversation, then why do we see this statement over and over on job applications:

"We do not discriminate based on race, gender or sexual orientation..."

This is acknowledgement that sexual orientation is a fundamental part of our personal make-up and is not a "chosen lifestyle."

[lisztnut]

Sorry to burst YOUR bubble, but I bet you didn't know that the earth is not 6000 years old, as your bible tells you, but is, in fact, millions of years old! Oops! Since you're in such dire need of being educated about sexual orientation, here is scientific PROOF that sexual orientation is not chosen:

Youtube video: Gay education

It speaks in everyday language, so that even you can understand it... Yes, even YOU!

[Damainra]

Wow. Do you even understand the argument. Who said anything about choice. As for your previous statement of that Sexual orientation is fully formed by the age of two again says nothing about the nature vs nurture aspect of sexual orientation, even at age 2. And then to assume that because I have stated the truth or fact, you throw some what appears to be religious nonsense to cloud the argument. I am still not sure why. What is your position?

[lisztnut]

My point is that people go around saying (not necessarily you) that gay people "choose" their orientation. That's as nonsensical as saying we "choose" to be left or right handed. I frankly don't know how sexual orientation is formed, but I DO KNOW with 100 percent certainty that it's NOT a choice nor a lifestyle. And I know it is formed BEFORE we attend school. Sexual orientation is a part of your very make-up as a human being and is on equal status as race and gender.

[lisztnut]

Oh, I'd like to ask all your heterosexuals out there. Do you remember when you were "taught" to be straight? Is that what made you attracted to people of the opposite sex? You act as if someone taught you how to love. And, it's astounding that you actually think that sexual orientation can be taught. Are you really THAT clueless? Sexual orientation is formed well before anyone attends school.  It is fully formed by the age of two. School has NOTHING to do with it...

[vamwolf]

wow... got the love those nuts.......

[lisztnut]

It's simply mindboggling that people would connect two adults getting married with what is being taught in schools regarding sex education. Since when is there a connection? This whole cannard was started by a black man who attended a meeting against gay marriage in California. I repeat: gay marriage and schools are UNRELATED. Can someone name ONE instance of a gay person asking that gay marriage be taught in schools? This was made up by the Prop 8 people to scare the religious folks.

[lisztnut]

The funny part about this is that gay marriage is a WORLDWIDE trend that is impossible to stop at this point.  People are getting desparate now, and making up BS like gay sex will be taught in schools. LOL. That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard... I had sex education in school, and all I learned about was straight sex. Did it turn me straight? NO! Did it turn ANY gay kid straight to learn about straight sex? NO. You need to find a better excuse to deny gays the right to marry....

[TheHeavyhanded]

I read just fine, however it doesn't appear that you do. You said I should check medical facts. I already know what medical doctors, not psychiatrists, say. Anal sex=bad. I don't care what you do personally, but when you try to pass it on to the next generation, it's just perverse. You seem to think I hate you because I said it's a sickness. No I don't hate sick people. I have my own problems, but I don't try to pass them on. That's where it crosses the line.

[Michael63Maine]

This Ad is being run and is breaking copyright laws they are quoting "NPR" and using tapes that are copyrighted by "NPR" and have been told by "NPR" to stop using their copyrighted metarial but thy continue to use it. Shame on the Yes on 1 campaign for steeling copyrighted metarel.

[KevinMossVT]

Right: "Teacher" at a private Christian school, and the same one another Yes on 1 talking head teaches at.

And look at the comments: who is it provoking talk and questions about gay sex? Not the gay folks!

"They," the gay folks, don't talk about sex at all in those books for children that are shown as if they're so scary. They're about different kinds of families. Those families exist. Children should not be bullied because of their families.

The so-called Christians promote bullying.

[utubecenseorstruth]

fight the good fight up there. Marriage is between one man and one woman. We have obama in office so trust me more and more liberal policies will try to take place. Good christian people will prevail though.

[logofreetv]

Well, children, you see, a man has an erection and sticks his penis another man's anus, which is completely unhealthy, inherently infertile and transmits AIDS substantially more readily, but we can't tell you that because somehow mentioning biological facts makes this message wrong.

Good on the Yes crowd for making this ad and exposing the hatred and intolerance hypocrisy that coms from the homosex mob. Guess those facts are a little too inconvenient, huh?

[wangtangchangbang]

@logofreetv

Eh, I've met numerous rednecks who love to talk about putting it in their wife's ass. In fact I think every person, gay or straight, has made a personal decision about sexual positions, and what they're willing/unwilling to do.

[kiyoshi147]

@logofreetv Let's just ignore the facts that homosexuality occurs in nature and that there are biological differences between homosexual and heterosexual people. Look, I can parrot facts too! Is that a bit too inconvenient?

[logofreetv]

@kiyoshi147

LOL - "occurs in nature"?!? How quaint an idea. Last I heard you had activists crowing about 1300 species supposedly, trouble is, that is likely less than 0.05% of the animal kingdom - and then only SOME within that population, and they include behaviour such as a dog rubbing on a person's leg. Not exactly persuasive. As for biological differences - poppycock! None of any consequence have been found, but I know of a fairly major difference - male or female and how THAT is used.

[kiyoshi147]

@logofreetv And yet there are still many species that have not been adequately studied. "1300" is not a definite final number. It clearly already exists, so in this regard, I am correct that it occurs in nature. Also there are differences in brain structure and the way that the brain responds to certain hormones - not "poppycock", but rather significant, actually.

[logofreetv]

@kiyoshi147

Unintelligent reply. Adequately studied or not, you missed the points - A. the number is too small to be significant. B. Such behaviour is only performed by SOME of that population. C. My dog rubbing example proves it can just be primal instinct misplaced and certainly not 'love'. D. Since homosexuality is infertile and animals cannot 'love', it holds no advantage and must therefore be an abberration. Besides all this, will you also say cannibalism is OK because some animals do it?

[logofreetv]

@kiyoshi147

As to you 'brain structure' obfuscation, the fact is that no biological cause for homosexual behaviour has been scientifically proven, no matter what the biased reports written by activists you refer to say. Or, to put it more succinctly, you believe a pack of lies.

Anybody with there head screwed on right can see that male and female are two halves of the one function and homosexuality is a distortion of sexuality. But common sense is obviously too much for you.

[kiyoshi147]

@logofreetv First of all, don't insult my replies as "unintelligent". Insulting me doesn't prove your point and instead makes you look rather foolish. I disagree that the number is not significant; it still exists in nature, even if it is not PRESENTLY documented in others. Your dog rubbing is irrelevant to intraspecies homosexuality and the issue at hand, as that is a different behavior. There's also been a study that shows that homosexuality is advantageous for mating in birds.

[logofreetv]

@kiyoshi147

The fact you can't differentiate between my assessment of your reply NOT you as unintelligent tells me how much emotion is wrapped up in your opinion and how little logic is. The fact is that male and female being two halves of the one function is as obvious as it gets and your attempts to build a smokescreen around this are as worthless as they are despicable and evil. I consider my opinion to score over 6 billion on this and you zero. And that's just humans.

[kiyoshi147]

@logofreetv You are correct that no cause has been proven, but again, this is only as presently stands. What will you do when one is found? The fact is that you too are something of an activist, and so you have your biases as well. The fact of the matter is that scientific evidence carries no moral weight with it; it is our interpretation that brings the morality into it.

Anybody with their head screwed on right can see that this discussion is pointless and going no where, so I'll stop trying.

[logofreetv]

@kiyoshi147

Here's the funny thing - even if a scientific cause were proven, it actually changes NOTHING since ultimately one can make that argument about any behaviour we already undertake, good or bad, so I'm considerably underwhelmed by the diversion, since we already know its conclusion regardless of the details. And of course I have my biases, but at least mine don't diminish lifespans by decades or encourage the spread of HIV. EVIDENCE is what counts, and who has more of that? Not you.

[kiyoshi147]

@logofreetv HAHAHAHA that is funny, because it's so ridiculous. Straight sex spreads HIV just as readily and there is no scientific evidence that homosexuality diminishes lifespans. That last one is utter hogwash. You are a master of confirmation bias, I must say. I fail to see how this is a "diversion". As I've stated before, this is honestly isn't worth my time. I could drop studies at your feet all day, but I'll spare you the effort of ignoring them. End of conversation, kthx.

[logofreetv]

@kiyoshi147

Really? That's why blood donations by MSM aren't allowed I guess... But I'm sure the US Dept of Health & Human services needs to hear from an expert like you because they've never looked at any one of your bogus 'studies'...

ROFL

"Men who have had sex with men since 1977 have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first time blood donors and 8000 times higher than repeat blood donors."

sorry kiyoshi, FAIL.

[kiyoshi147]

@logofreetv What about one of your 'studies'? I'm sure they're done by people without agendas. You know, like Focus on the Family. No agenda there.

Also, prevalence in the population is not the same as saying being gay spreads HIV more readily. There's a little rule called "correlation does not imply causation", but then again any study you use has probably never heard of that rule.

I haven't failed at all. You, on the other hand, are using more ridiculous arguments each time I reply. Nice. <3

[logofreetv]

@kiyoshi147

riiigggghhht. So the US Dept of Health and Human Services will never have heard of "correlation does not imply causation" would they? LOL!

So what's YOUR authority?

Honest, the only thing ridiculous here is your complete failure to offer up anything. Male to male sex is dangerous, the human body suffers under it, and it's sad if you believe otherwise. Apparently your best comeback is speculation about FOTF.

Whatever.

[kiyoshi147]

@logofreetv Please, do show me the study by the US Dept of Health and Human Services that says that being gay is a cause of getting AIDS. Please, do show me this mythical study.

My authority? How about the AMA? The APA?

I've offered up plenty of evidence. A significant portion of your arguments have been previously disproven or otherwise were logically incorrect.

You amuse me. This conversation amuses me because it's everything homophobes say rehashed.

As you say, "LOL!"

[logofreetv]

@kiyoshi147

AMA & APA - have both been subjected to political badgering so their opinions on this issue are now worthless. And you cannot BE gay, only do, for example, male to male sex, which increases risk of AIDS, as demonstrated by the rejection of people who engage in such behavior as blood donors.

You haven't explained to me why they should be excluded if the risk is not greater.

[logofreetv]

@kiyoshi147 Also, this: Compare the rectum with the vagina in respect of potential AIDS transmission: V: Elastic fibres present R: NO elastic fibres V: 25-40 cells thick wall R: 1 cell V: Ph low - inactivates the virus R: Ph higher V: No M cells R: M cells present. Their function? To ATTRACT foreign particles for transmission to the immune system - the very target of HIV. The rectum is SETUP to absorb. It is part of the digestive system. Misuse the human body at your peril.

[kiyoshi147]

@logofreetv And the Dept, which is part of the US government, isn't subject to politics? Sorry, your logic works against you as well. You seem to disregard that gay people can in fact use condoms. Even IF the risk was greater, not all gay people have AIDS and not all will contract it. Test them for AIDS as a blood donor like everyone else, boom, problem solved. AIDS is not gay-specific, don't act like it is. Also, vaginal sex = most common way AIDS is spread in world. That's from the CDC =)

[logofreetv]

@kiyoshi147

Sure there's politics, only in the case of the blood donor service, there would be no hiding of the actual consequences, which is why they cannot bow to the pressure. And you need to be more informed - anal sex is significantly riskier than vaginal sex to transmit HIV for the reasons I gave - and THAT is confirmed by the CDC. LOL!!! FAIL!!!

And FYI, there is a window period where someone with HIV can't be detected, hence the questions. Only testing is not enough. This is known.

[kiyoshi147]

@logofreetv LOLOLOL god you're so funny. Yes, it is riskier. That's why people use CONDOMS. Derp. Oh, excuse me, LOL!!! FAIL!!!! As for that window? It applies for straight people too.

Your arguments are all so flimsy and you have a habit of not addressing certain ones. Gee, I wonder why. I would really be overjoyed if you could produce a study that backs up your claim that homosexuality is wrong. (Hint: because there is none)

[logofreetv]

@kiyoshi147

Further to the politics of pressure on the blood service, there HAS actually been several attempts in different countries to remove the exclusion, but each time it is rejected because the medical evidence is unequivocal. Innocent people would receive contaminated blood, and many would get sick and die. So you you obviously think people dying is less important than feelgood PC political games? How about if it was your child? You really are an evil piece of work.

[kiyoshi147]

@logofreetv You do a good job at ignoring my arguments. As I said, test every blood donor regardless of sexual orientation for AIDS. Not every gay person has AIDS or will have it; being gay does not automatically give it to you, unsafe sex does. You have failed to grasp the point I am making, so there it is again.

How dare you dangle my child in front of me! I can't even have one, I have to resort to recruiting kids into our secret gay agenda! *rolls eyes* Please. You're quickly losing.

[logofreetv]

@kiyoshi147

LOL!  I do a good job of ignoring your arguments!!!! ROFL! Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You do that yourself AND backpedal on multiple subjects, and everytime you have presented 'evidence' I have effectively rebutted it. You STILL don't get it - the reason the blood donor service ask the questions is to screen everybody - which is an additional step which is required because of the 'window'. They do that because certain behavior is riskier.

[kiyoshi147]

@logofreetv Please show me where you have rebutted my evidence, I must've missed that part. Also please show me where I backpedaled. I'd like to see if you could find those parts.

I understand certain behavior is riskier, but being gay has nothing to do with AIDS. The prevalence may be higher, but it has nothing to do. Yes, everyone should be screened. Should being gay be an automatic, no questions asked disqualifier? No. Should questions be asked of everyone? Yes.

[logofreetv]

@kiyoshi147

There is no 'being' gay. There is only unhealthy behavior that people choose or do not choose to engage in, similar to drugs and alcohol. The problem with much of your argumentation is that your basic assumption is faulty. Feelings are IRRELEVANT. All that counts is what you actually DO with your body. Hence the questions do not screen for your idea of 'being', but what people have actually done. The problem is that homosexuality by definition requires unhealthy behavior.

[logofreetv]

@kiyoshi147

And you know what they DON'T ask? Whether or not you 'are' gay. Why? Because what you FEEL or THINK is irrelevant, all that matters is what you actually DO with your body. If there ever was a concrete argument that it's not about some flimsy idea about 'sexual orientation' (a nonsensical concept beyond male and female) but about behavior then that is it. My facts about the physical risks concerning vaginal vs anal sex as concerning the transmission of HIV still stand, kyoshi.

[kiyoshi147]

@logofreetv Do explain how sexual orientation is a nonsensical concept, I'm interested in hearing your side of it.

Yes, you are right that anal sex is riskier, I admit that and I've known it since the beginning - for both straight and gay people. There's the catch. That's not me "backpedaling" as you think I've been doing. I know what's risky and what's not. However, my facts about HIV having nothing to do with homosexuality directly still stand. So there.

[logofreetv]

@kiyoshi147

Simple, male and female. End of story. Strangely enough verified by the way our bodies respond to the way we use them sexually. ie. Heterosexual (vaginal) sex - possibility of new life. , homosexual sex - possibility of earlier death.

The problem is that you think 'gay' and straight' are valid concepts as an identity. They aren't. All that matters is what you DO with your male or femaleness. I rate the evidence for what I think at over 6 billion and yours at zero.

[kiyoshi147]

@logofreetv @logofreetv @logofreetv So you would say, even if there was (hypothetically speaking, just for you), evidence that homosexuality was at least partially attributed to factors of biology out of our control, that homosexuality was a choice?

That's fine if the questions are meant to screen what people have done, but I still feel that being gay should not be an absolute automatic disqualifier. Not all gay men are infected. False positives can still occur with straight people.

[kiyoshi147]

@logofreetv As far as unhealthy behavior required? Some people do abstain. Not all gay men are promiscuous. Don't apply blanket statements to communities.

Sexual activity is not always used for reproduction; it is often also used in recreational and social aspects. I feel your definition is not wide enough.

Also, I don't think 'gay' and 'straight' are identities; I think this stuff occurs on a continuum.

I facepalmed at that last sentence there. That is, as you would say, "fail".

[logofreetv]

@kiyoshi147

I am only concerned with what people actually DO, not what they FEEL or even say they think. Men and women exist, to be sure, and some have wayward desires that push them to behavior their bodies will eventually suffer from, be it drugs, alcohol or homosexual sex. So if someone gets those desires but resists them (any one of the 3 I mentioned) good for them. They will be better for it in the long run.

And yes, I count the score 6,000,000,000+ to zero. Seems pretty clear to me.

[kiyoshi147]

@logofreetv Just curious - what's your obsession with 6 billion? It's silly to rate your own opinion as it's biased in your own direction and you're not using a scale. Silly you. But seriously, do clue me in.

So you're concerned with something that's not really your business. Plenty of gay people never suffer from homosexual sex. This fact you cannot refute, no matter how hard you try. There are people who are happy with being gay.

My score is infinity by the way.

[logofreetv]

@kiyoshi147

I want to ask you how it feels to rail against things that are as obvious as the sky being blue on a clear day, water being wet, and air being required to breathe. Our sexual organs are very clearly meant for one another, male and female together, and declaring that distorted thinking in the minds of some individuals changes what sexuality is meant for is just plain unintelligent. Also, that a few male-female couples misuse their bodies with anal sex is neither here nor there.

[kiyoshi147]

@logofreetv You could ask yourself the same question. To answer, it feels quite fine, because the "obvious" isn't always correct, even in science. I don't quite understand what you mean by "here nor there" in the last sentence, sorry. If you reword it I'll be glad to respond to that.

As I posted earlier, sex is not only related to procreation now. For many species, it has meanings that lie elsewhere.

[logofreetv]

@kiyoshi147

'neither here nor there' is another way of saying irrelevant.

Regardless of whether or not sex always results in procreation, that is clearly why it exists primarily. To use your body in an unintended way that can easily be shown to be harmful is simply a bad thing. As for what other species do, not relevant, and frankly, clutching at straws. Other animals kill each other, or even eat their young. You can't look to the animal kingdom on moral issues.

[kiyoshi147]

@logofreetv Thanks for explaining. As far as AIDS goes, it is relevant; as for being gay, sure, irrelevant.

What other species do is relevant because we are animals. We operate based on similar instincts. While it is true that we can't look to the animal kingdom for morals, it is also true that we cannot look to science on moral issues. And yet here we are, both applying morals to scientific facts. Once again, your logic works against you.

That's 6 billion points for me and none for you.

[kiyoshi147]

@logofreetv If you honestly want to continue this silly discussion, then I suggest we take it to private messages, rather than flood this video with more comments as we've already excelled at.

[ayoungbuck]

The gays don't want others to be tolerant of their perversion. No... They demand that we APPROVE of it. They're just trying to get their sickness into the school system, so they can pervert the children young.

[Michael63Maine]

Careful remember the person you hate maybe someone you love.

It is the hetrosexuals that are having the gay babies

[ayoungbuck]

I don't hate anyone. I hate the sickness that's being spread as a civil cause.

[Michael63Maine]

You Don't? Hum sounds it to me. You think gay is a sickness. I think you should check your medical facts. You will see that it's not a sickness or a disorder.

Why do you get special rights to marry and I don't? Wake up it's your haterid of gay people that all. If your son or doughter came home to you and said they were gay and wanted to marry what would be your thinking then? Are you going to disown your own flesh and blood?

[TheHeavyhanded]

So, if anyone doesn't support homosexuality, they hate you? Well first of all, I agree with nature, not the gay propaganda. Nature says opposites attract. We're all born with things in our lives that are unhealthy, but to tell everybody, "you must approve of my problem", is just stupid. And yes, the gay lifestyle IS a problem, especially for men. Anal sex, according to medical doctors, is unhealthy, and harmful. Saying we hate you is just a fascist way of muting critics of your sexual practices.

[Michael63Maine]

No that is not what I am saying you should re-read what I have said. I don't have a problem being Gay infact I am very proud of it. I simply was saying that when you generlize and put people in a group you are assuming that the intire group is a certian way. You assume that because someone is Gay then they are second class. I notice that no one here has the balls to answer my origional question.

[lisztnut]

I guess you're ignorant of the FACT that over 450 species of animals mate with same sex partners for LIFE?  Gay sex, not natural huh? I beg to differ... Instead of spouting off, maybe you should do some research. Homosexuality is a natural as the sky...

[TheHeavyhanded]

Actually, I knew that. You know what else I know? Those animals don't have sex, they're mates only as in partners, not sexual. I also know that it's natural for animals to hump practically anything that presents in front of them. A dog will mate with a cat, cow, fire hydrant, or your leg. Does that make it natural as the sky? Many animals will also have sex with their own relatives. Basically, your lowering human beings to sub-human beasts. That's cool,just don't teach it to other people's kids

[lisztnut]

WRONG! Animals DO particpate in gay sex AND mate for life. In fact, there is a species of male sheep that throw any member out of the group that does not participate in anal intercourse to ejaculation. Nobody's teaching ANYTHING to kids. That's a STUPID thing to say. If you were a gay child, you would want to know that it's OK to love who you want. Unfortunately, most of us were taught we were perverts. Guess what? We didn't buy it, and it's idiots like YOU that continue this nonsense.

[TheHeavyhanded]

Ok, first, yes, gay sex teaching is coming to classrooms. If you want to teach gayness to your own kid, that's your business... Oh, that's right you can't have kids by stickin' your little pud in your buddy's poopy bum. You depend on us breeders to make 'em, you know, naturally. Like I said, animals will screw anything, including other species, and their relatives, and since that is totally unacceptable in humans,using animal sex for comparison is ignorant,irrelevant, and degrading to yourself.

[lisztnut]

When will straight people get it? Sexual orientation is neither learned nor contagious. The gay population has remained relatively the same statistically throughout history. Sexual orientation is the same as race and gender. It is unchangeable and not taught. Do people "learn" to be asian, or female? NO, of course not, it's stupid.  So, you religious homophobes need to give up on this idea that kids will "learn" to be gay. It will never happen.

[TheHeavyhanded]

I'd love to keep going back and forth with you(not really), but you're boring. My life doesn't revolve around your deviant obsession, no matter how much you want it to. What you do is insignificant to me. Good day

[lisztnut]

Good, so let's agree that you will let gay people get married. That's all we're asking for at this point. You mind your boring life, and I'll mind my exciting life. Good, it's settled. heavyhanded will vote to stay out of the lives of gay people and allow us to marry.... GREAT!

[lisztnut]

Despite your best attempts, you didn't "teach" me to be straight. The only images I had of sexuality growing up were straight images. I didn't see two guys kiss until I did it myself in college. You breeders love to "flaunt" your hetero lifestyle, don't you?  You can't turn on the TV or walk down the street without being bombarded by heterosexuals flaunting your lifestyle. Disgusting.... Keep your sexuality to yourselves, and stop trying to brainwash gay kids....

[lisztnut]

Some societies that are stuck in the dark ages, like the Middle East, have attempted to "wipe" out homosexuality by imposing torture or even death. Has it worked? NO, NO, NO! The homosexual populations in those societies are stills statistically the same. Still think homosexuality is learned or a choice? If so, you're more of an idiot than I thought. Did you choose to be male, female, or caucasian?

[lisztnut]

People like theheavyhanded should not be parents. If it were up for a vote, I would vote against your right to marry and have children. Know why? There's a five to twenty percent chance that you'd have a gay child. Anyone that cannot accept homosexuality does not deserve to be a parent, in my humble opinion. In order to be a good parent you MUST have the ability to accept your children for who they are....

[TheHeavyhanded]

Yawn

[lisztnut]

It always interests me why my marriage is of any concern to you. What's it to you? Do you think I give a damn about your boring life? Then, stay out of my life and let me live with my husband in peace. All you folks do is make up stupid reasons to disallow gays to marry. It has NOTHING to do with schools, nothing to do with adoption, nothing to do with your life AT ALL. It's about gay bashing, pure and simple, the Supreme Court will eventually agree and throw out these piece of hate laws.

[lisztnut]

TheHeavyhanded, you should see what people are saying about you in your profile. Ouch!

[lisztnut]

See this youtube video from National Geographic:

 Homosexuality in Animals

[lisztnut]

Yes, thanks for clearing that up. Homophobia IS an illness.  Those of you who would like to force gay people to live a lie as a straight person need the therapy, not the other way around. Grow up, and learn that being gay is the same as being black, asian, female or male. Sexual orientation is a trait that is with us at birth, and this will be proven, and you bible beaters will be proven wrong someday.

[ayoungbuck]

You're a funny guy. You think I actually care what you do? Be here, and be queer. Who cares? And here it is, born gay. That's right. You know what else people are born? Manic depressives, addictive personalities, bipolar,  schizo... Like me to go on? That doesn't mean we teach that those things are should be taught as great things to kids. Anal sex is UNHEALTHY. Period! You gay crusaders have already been proven wrong.

[lisztnut]

Great, glad you have the attitude that it's Ok to be gay, now how about staying OUT OF OUR LIVES, and let us marry who we want. I could care less who you marry, why should you give a damn about my life? Stay out of my life. Same sex marriage affects ME, not YOU! I could care less if you are in a boring hetero marriage. Why should I care? Stay out of my bedroom, and away from my marriage (I'm LEGALLY married to my same sex partner in California), and I'll stay away from YOUR marriage. DEAL?

[ayoungbuck]

I don't care about your life! Blow goats if you want.

Marry a fuckin' goat if you want. Just don't try to teach it to kids in school. Deal?

[lisztnut]

Ayoungbuck, I'd like to point out that it is the anti-gay marriage folks that are suggesting that gay marriage will be taught in schools, NOT gay people. This was all made up by an anti-gay marriage black guy during the Prop 8 campaign. They didn't even think to use this in their commercials until he mentioned it. It's stupid, because who cares about what kids are taught regarding marriage? Gay people don't care. We just want to be able to marry the CONSENTING adult we love...

[lisztnut]

Why don't you go after straights who particpate in anal intercourse? Guess you never watch straight porn, either, because anal intercourse is rampant among breeders. There's a lot you need to learn, isn't there youngbuck (fuck)?

[ayoungbuck]

You didn't tell me anything I need to learn. You are quite possibly the most nonsensical, stupid debater I've ever encountered. What the hell does "breeder" porn have to do with this. Anal sex is unhealthy there too. No one goes after them because they're not trying to teach their shit in schools. Unhealthy anal sex is how you consummate your non-marriage.

[HammerofHeretics]

Why are leftists so intent on sexualizing children? It's perverse.

[utubecenseorstruth]

not al gays are pedophiles but there are a large amount of pedophiles that are homosexuals. I find that statistic very alarming about teaching kids about homosexuality

[HammerofHeretics]

I think just the fact that they want to teach small children about sexual matters is perverse. Why should a kindergarten know about sex? They aren't prepared to understand it at that age and it serves no good purpose.

[redc1c4]

another comment that, once again, demonstrates your preconceived notions, willingness to stereotype, and a need to demonize those who are different from you, all of which are classic signs of bigotry. with the proper help, along with some honest introspection and effort on your part, you can get past all this anger and uncontrolled hate inside of you and get on with a normal, productive life.

[Kaythin]

Vote no or join the millions of bigots in this country.

[redc1c4]

only a bigot would make such a blanket statement.

[Kaythin]

I'm sorry, your right, Vote No on 1 or join the arngry mob of homophobic, redneck bigots that will likely vote yes to this disgusting messure.