Same-sex 'explosion' in Colorado
By Fernando Quintero, Rocky Mountain News
Published December 7, 2007 at 12:30 a.m.
Photo by Photos By Barry Gutierrez / The Rocky
Partners and fathers Ricky Ramos, left, and Kenny Cain have dinner with their adopted sons, Daniel Cain Ramos and Jareb Cain Ramos.
Partners Nita Mosby Henry, left, and Carla Harvard sort through decorations for their Christmas tree. "People told me about Colorado, but I minimized it," Henry said.
Kenny Cain and his partner were unaware of Colorado's one-time reputation as the "Hate State" - a moniker stemming from a 1992 constitutional amendment that banned gay rights protections - when they moved with their two sons from New Jersey to Denver five months ago.
They also didn't know voters in Colorado last year rejected a measure that would have established civil unions among same-sex partners and approved a separate amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman.
"Our main concern was our children," said Cain, 36, about the decision by him and his partner, Ricky Ramos, 38, to move to Denver. "I looked on the Internet to see how accepting the state was of gay couples with children. I can deal with fighting for my rights, but not for my kids."
A study released last month says that Cain and Ramos are part of a "demographic explosion" of same-sex couples in states like Colorado that are considered socially conservative when it comes to gay issues.
Their growing visibility may have an impact on the political debate over same-sex marriage and other gay rights issues.
Political implications
The report by the Williams Institute at UCLA's School of Law found that the number of same- sex couples nationwide quadrupled to nearly 780,000 between 1990 and 2006, with the biggest increases seen in the Rocky Mountain and Southern states. Colorado ranked ninth among states with the highest concentration of same-sex couples.
The report drew criticism from religious and conservative groups that say the study is biased in favor of gays and lesbians. Colorado's state demographer said the report may overestimate the increases.
The study suggests a variety of reasons for the growth in the number of people identifying themselves as part of a gay couple, including increased social acceptance prompting more gays to come out. Another possible explanation, especially in conservative parts of the country, is that more couples are coming out and being counted as a political statement in response to anti-gay political sentiment.
There is also the possibility that gays and lesbians are simply following general demographic trends.
In Colorado, their growing numbers could have political implications for religious conservatives, who have benefited from opposition to same-sex marriage as a way to get voters to the polls.
But Carrie Gordon Earll, spokeswoman for the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, questioned both the political impact of the growth of same-sex couples and the study's findings.
"Any study from the Williams Institute should be carefully scrutinized, as this is a group that openly advocates for homosexuality," she said.
Although polls show attitudes about gays are changing in Colorado and throughout the country, political analysts think it will be some time before legal recognition of same-sex couples happens in Colorado.
"We have known for at least a decade that people who know someone who is gay are more likely to vote in favor of legislation that supports the GLBT (gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) population," Colorado pollster Lori Weigel said.
"Obviously, if there are more gay people in Colorado, they're going to influence other people."
She said recent polling shows that support for gay rights in Colorado is divided generationally, with younger people being far more supportive.
"It's simply a matter of time before same-sex marriage amendments gain more acceptance," she said. "What we tend to see is that with the word marriage, it's still an emotional term. It's still sacrosanct. That's why civil union and ending discrimination in the workplace gain much more popular support."
Coming out of the closet
State demographer Elizabeth Garner expressed concern over the study's findings because the Census Bureau changed its method of counting same-sex couples from 1990 to 2000, making it difficult to compare.
To conduct the study, the Williams Institute's Gary Gates took the once-a-decade Census data and figures from the Census Bureau's annual American Community Survey, which uses a representative sample of the population.
"I think it's like comparing apples and oranges," Garner said about the 1990 and 2000 Census data. "I think they should have used the 2000 Census and subsequent surveys, which still show a definite trend."
Gates stands by his work.
"I don't think that because of the differences we should discount the data we have from the 2000 Census," he said. "It's still of great value when you're looking at these long-term trends."
Debra Pollock, spokeswoman for the GLBT Center of Colorado, said the study's findings can be seen in the exponential growth of Pridefest, an annual celebration for the GLBT community.
She said the event has grown by about 10,000 attendees each year over the past five years.
The fact that more conservative states show the biggest increases indicates that the increase results from more couples coming out of the closet, Gates thinks.
Pollock said she sees a definite cause and effect.
"People are sick and tired of being picked on. People are starting to stand up and be counted," she said. "In fact, we raise more money when folks like Focus on the Family pick on us."
'Gayborhoods'
Nita Mosby Henry and her partner, Carla Havard, both moved to Denver from the South. Henry, 45, hails from Atlanta. Havard, 38, was born and raised in the Mississippi delta. They met through mutual acquaintances seven years ago.
"We had a conversation. From then on I was hooked," said Havard, a Denver police officer.
Unlike Cain and Ramos, Henry and Havard knew all about Colorado and the struggle by gays and lesbians for equal rights and acceptance.
"People told me about Colorado, but I minimized it," said Henry, a diversity consultant who has an 18-year-old daughter from a previous marriage. "I thought nothing here could be worse than what I experienced in the South. I'm old enough to remember drinking from the 'colored' water fountain," she said.
After they got to Denver, Henry and Havard got involved in the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest GLBT advocacy organization.
"We saw how those issues related to us as black women," Henry added. "I realized the parallels between being a person of color and a lesbian."
After they became a couple, Havard moved into Henry's expansive home in a gated community near Aurora.
"Moving to a gated community was a decision based on my lifestyle in the South," she said. "It was more of a suburban community, and I wanted to replicate that when I came here."
A key finding in the report is the increasing number of same-sex couples who appear to be moving to the suburbs and away from "gayborhoods" like Capitol Hill in Denver, where gay residents and businesses are concentrated.
Zac Ryon, 41, and his partner, Mike Abel, 39, decided to buy their first house together in Stapleton five years ago. Ryon owned a home in Boulder. Abel was living in City Park.
"At first I thought, 'No way. It's suburbia, and we're not going to live out there,' " said Ryon, who along with his partner runs a home-based IT consulting business.
"But we moved in and no one even batted an eye. It's been a totally cool, positive experience living out here."
In fact, word spread quickly among gays and lesbians about the new housing development. It soon acquired the nickname "Gaypleton."
Ryon even created a Web site with a social calendar and other information for neighborhood gay and lesbian residents. He designed a logo based on the original Stapleton logo, with the tagline: "It's better out here."
Greg Montoya, editor of the gay weekly Out Front Colorado, said he, too, has seen an exodus of gays and lesbians to surrounding communities.
"Look at the older neighborhoods in any major metropolitan city. Look at Baker, Cap Hill, the Highlands. We're the ones who have gone in and fixed those homes up. We're the original urban pioneers," he said. "I guess now we're ready to move on and move out."
Numbers growing
10th Denver's rank in 2000 among the nation's large cities with the highest number of same-sex couples. In 2006, the city dropped to 12th place.
Same-sex couple populations by year
In Colorado In the United States
* 1990 2,070 145,130
* 2000 10,045 594,391
* 2006 13,413 779,867
Featured
-
DNC in Denver
Complete coverage of the 2008 Democratic National Convention.
-
The Crevasse
A five-part series that examines one tragic day on Mount Rainier.
-
Deadly denial
Sick nuclear workers applied for government compensation but most haven't seen a dime.
-
Final Salute
The Rocky followed Maj. Steve Beck as he took on the most difficult duty of his career.
-
'Colorado's burning'
Coverage of the state's worst wildfires.
-
Columbine shootings
Coverage of the April 20, 1999, shootings at Littleton's Columbine High School.
-
The Crossing
Colorado's deadliest traffic accident killed 20 children on Dec. 14, 1961.
-
Osveli's journey
Osveli Sales left Guatemala for a better life. Two months later, he came home in a box.
-
Wake for an Indian warrior
Oglala Sioux bestow a tribute to the first tribal fatality in Iraq.
December 7, 2007
6:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
nicolec writes:
Focus on the Family is scared that if the rest of us meet some of "them" and find out that gay and lesbian people are largely just like the rest of us, that suddenly their hate mongering will be recognized as such. Using a god to justify hate is the worst kind of sin there is. Who on this planet truly has the right to speak for "god"? Why anyone is freaked out about two consenting adults being in a loving relationship I'll never know. Personally I find many other events going on in the world far more troubling and further have only ever had my life enriched by gay and lesbian people (who, incidentally, are far more than just their sexual orientation).
December 7, 2007
8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
mtsilence writes:
After reading this article and the back and forth arguments contained within, as to rather or not the information from the poll is or is not correct. I can only say that I am deeply disturbed that our society has become so concerned with issues that should not be a concern. This same sex issue is a non-issue as far as I can see. It (the same sex issue) does not affect the environment. It DOES NOT DECLARE WAR, and it does not attack individual rights to worship or congregate, it is not a TERRORIST ACTIVITY (in fact the ‘terrorist’ nations hunt out homosexuals and execute them), it is not the front wave of the pedophilia or sexual predation of children (for all the extreme right wing would like you to believe.)
Same sex love does not prevent voters from voting, it does not close up schools, shut down hospitals, cause gas prices to jump cause people to starve, nor is it the hot bed of disease that people want to paint it.
So WHY, WHY are we spending so much time on non-issues?
Do we have nothing better to focus our intelligence on, nothing better to attempt to find a solution for?
Personally, having met and known more then a handful of homosexuals (male and female) I can assure you, they cry as we cry, they laugh as we laugh, and they worry over the same real issues we worry about. Additionally they worry about their safety and well being because people still thing they are ‘evil’ and should be hunted out and killed or ‘destroyed before they spread their sickness.’ As if homosexuality is catchy, which it is not nor can it be taught or learned.
I have talked to young teenagers who asked me, how would I tell my parents the truth about their personal feelings. I listened heart broken as some of them told me they knew their parents would disown them even hate them.
Why were they talking to me? Because my eldest daughter, suggested I would listen, hear them, and not judge. I tried hard to live up to my daughter’s highest opinion of me. However, I did judge not them but their parents. When this becomes more important because of the ‘social’ implications rather then looking at YOUR CHILD, loving them, and accepting THEM the way they are, then the whole of society is broken beyond repair. WHEN YOU VALUE WHAT OTHERS WILL THINK,SAY OR FEEL over your own thoughts and feelings, you have failed yourself and society, because you are not acting on your own understanding and experience but on what others have TOLD you is right or wrong.
Bah!
I find this just another symptom of social failure, where we are being miss-directed away from true issues, true things to be concerned about to keep us off balance and unfocused from the things we should have our attention on.
Of course, that is just my opinion, and nothing more.
December 7, 2007
12:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
kevinjjones writes:
"Kenny Cain and his partner were unaware of Colorado's one-time reputation as the "Hate State""
Reputation among whom? Self-righteous journalists and activists who know the oh-so-difficult art of rhyme? Quit slandering our state, RMN.
December 9, 2007
12:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
midwicket writes:
I am straight, married, have children and consider myself well educated. I am happy to see this demographic rebalancing of our population here in Colorado. As a Republican, I encourage and invite good parents to move to Colorado. I don't care if they are GLBT or straight, as long as they are responsible citizens, obey laws, pay their taxes and contribute to society in a positive manner.
I'd like to think we are able to good choices based on "the content of their character" and not anything else.
For those on the "further-right", if you don't like it, leave. I assure, you will not be missed!
December 9, 2007
9:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
MikeWoot writes:
I could care less that people are gay or straight. But what I am about sick to death of is how gay people sometime seem to be trying to sell the mainstream population on how great and ok it is to be gay. Be gay, but be quiet.
December 9, 2007
9:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
jamesdenver writes:
Midwicket good comment. Your logic is appreciated, and I'm sure your kids will benefit from your common sense outlook in life.
MikeWoot teenagers and young adults who are questioning their sexuality see nothing by hetero life shoved at them, especially in high school. While many gay pride parades and events are way over the top, this article is an excellent example about how great - ok how NORMAL, it is to be in a same sex relationship.
james http://www.futuregringo.com
December 10, 2007
11:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
yasmeena writes:
I am a conservative Christian, and I will not speak for Christians as a whole, I'll speak only for myself. The Bible teaches us to love all people, no matter who they are, where they are from, what they're going through, etc... I love all people. I still say that same-sex relationships are wrong though. They(the relationships) go against everything that God ordained to be. I grieve for the state of sin we find our country in, but I still love the people and so does God. We are all sinners in one way or another and God's Son gave His life for all of us to be forgiven. Hate the sin, not the sinner.
December 10, 2007
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ramm writes:
I have a difficult time with the gay life style and the gay partner's adoption of children. While I might assume that the many gay people
are decent people, I am concerned about the long lasting influence of the gay life style and the general acceptance of it. I feel that someone can be gay or feel that they are gay. Thats fine. It is the practice it that I cannot accept. I feel that also those who participate in gay sex etc. are wrong and even dare I say sinful. It is not PC to say that now but for me and many others who think that they have to be quiet about this issue because of comparing it to the civil rights issue concerning black's or even women's is not the same. I believe that same gender sex is wrong. Do I know G & L people? Of course I do. Do I treat them harshly? No. Do I want G & L people to act as this is OK or make a spectable of themselves as they promote this lifestyle? No. Is this a sin? Yes I believe so. Can G & L be redeemed? Of course.
My sword of truth, the Holy Bible, says that we cannot judge, lest we be judged. It also states that same sex activity is wrong according from my studies and understanding.
December 10, 2007
12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
Logan5 writes:
Let me preface my comments by stating that I am a Christian, and I truly believe that each individual on this Earth, regardless of sexuality, is of equal worth in God’s eyes to me or to anyone else. I love my friends who are homosexual as much as I love anyone else in my life, and want only the best for them.
That said, I must disagree with those above who seem to believe that homosexuality is “no big deal”. A premise can be tested by extending it to its logical conclusion. In this case, if homosexuality is morally no different from heterosexuality, then it stands to reason that if a greater percentage of the population were homosexual, that would be a good (or at least neutral) thing, right? Heck, since we’re busy making sure everyone sees how “non-judgmental” we are, what would we care if EVERY person on Earth were homosexual? Oops, small problem. If that occurred, obviously it would mean the EXTINCTION OF MANKIND. Hmm… seems to me that perhaps there IS something wrong with homosexuality after all.
The bottom line is that homosexuality, through a variety of means including outright extinction if taken to the extreme, is a practice which leads to death. Heterosexuality, by it’s very definition, leads instead to life. Sure, sure, I hear the leftist critics right now snidely asserting that not all heterosexuals decide to, or are even able to have children, so what’s the difference? I could go into great detail explaining the faulty logic applied by these critics, but it would be a waste of time as the conclusions to be drawn are so readily apparent to anyone whose mind has not been clouded by today’s “culture”.
I would also be willing to bet that the majority of those who scoff at Biblical reasons for condemning homosexuality also include in their world view the belief that humans arose as a result of evolution. Major problem here. If you believe the theory of natural selection, then please explain to me why it shouldn’t be perfectly natural for homosexuals to die out over time, since they don’t reproduce and therefore can’t pass on their genes. In fact, this is an obvious fatal flaw in the theory that homosexuals are “born that way”. If people are born homosexual, due to a “homosexual” gene, how did they inherit this trait?
Finally, the newest perversion dreamt up by homosexuals is this idea that they are “families” because they have a child or two. This is disgusting as to my knowledge no homosexual couple has yet produced their own children. Instead, they adopt children who have been produced naturally by the union of a man and a woman. What hypocrites! Their own adopted children put the lie to their claims of normality!
December 10, 2007
1:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
jamesdenver writes:
Logan5 your comments COULD have carried some weight and courteous dissent had you not butchered it by showing your bigotry in the last paragraph.
But since you're bringing religion into the mix: Keep this in mind. Some of us believe in science, logic, and reason. Not all of us suscribe to arcane principles and have our lives governed by theology. The more educated of us have learned from history and knows what the of various "Gods" on their teachings have brought onto the world.
I for one am happy living in a "secular enlightened world" - which I realize others may consider "immoral and godless" Study up on psycology Logan.
james http://www.futuregringo.com
December 10, 2007
1:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Logan5 writes:
To jamesdenver:
I don’t understand your point. You begin by seemingly acknowledging certain points I made, but then dismiss them without a rebuttal because you perceive “bigotry” in the last paragraph. While I admit I used more subjective language in the final paragraph, my tone is irrelevant to whether my logic in the previous paragraphs is valid or not.
This is something I have noticed in debating issues with those on the left; when confronted with objective, fact or logic based arguments, they resort to name calling (racist, homophobe, bigot, etc.) in an attempt to shut down debate. Rather than responding rationally, they instead react emotionally.
So, how about taking another crack at the arguments I made? Just for fun I’ll throw another one at you: Assuming for the sake of argument that homosexuals are genetically predisposed at birth to be homosexual, and assuming that you believe that women should be able to abort their “fetus” if they so choose (I know I have no idea if you do believe this, but most on the left do), if in the future we develop a pre-natal test to detect the “gay gene”, would it be OK for women to have abortions to avoid giving birth to homosexuals? (because as liberals constantly remind us, no one would want to be homosexual if they had a choice). Extra points if you can respond without using the words “homophobe”, “bigot”, or “intolerant”.
By the way, as to the “Study up on psycology <sic>…” comment, I would suggest a more in-depth exploration of the field of spelling.
December 10, 2007
2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
jamesdenver writes:
quote "You begin by seemingly acknowledging certain points I made, but then dismiss them without a rebuttal because you perceive "bigoty" in the last paragraph."
Um - yes. That's exactly what I said.
And name calling? Why yes. You eluded to my existence, relationship, and home life being perverse and disgusting. I think we'd all agree I'm allowed to throw in a "bigot" or two for that.
Abortion? Huh? Why on earth would I care to discuss abortion and women's rights? Unlike Brian Rohrbough I don't believe that every issue is intrinsically wound together in a hedonistic orgy rolling towards the rapture. I wouldn't care so much if you, fundies, and the Ted Haggards of the world kept your ignorance to yourselves and stayed at home hunkering over the bible with a lantern. However there are still people (like Logan) and a generation of fundie parents who will TOTALLY screw up their kids lives should they elude to being gay or questioning. Fundamentalist parents send their kids to ex-gay camps, or “therapists” who work out of the church. The ones than accept that “not pure in Christ” Dr Dobson BS end up 20 years later married and having unprotected sex with truckers (or whores) every week and returning to their wives.
THAT's why is ok to state "It's ok to be gay:" To let gay people live their lives, and not a lie where they'll screw over YOUR daughter in 20 years. You should WANT that. And you should WANT teenage kids to refrain from suicidal thoughts, and have outlets where they are known as "normal." AND - this article is such an outlet and help to them.
All the best - james..
p.s. yes I spelled Psychology wrong. I'm not going to waste a post correcting myself. And apologies in advance to William Strunk on this post.
All the best- james...
December 10, 2007
3:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
Logan5 writes:
jamesdenver:
Congratulations, you just succeeded in proving my point. (probably not to you, but most certainly to many others reading this)
Once again, you did not include one word of rational response or rebuttal in your post. Just more of what I predicted, name-calling and off-topic rambling.
You also misunderstood my use of the word "perverse". My point was that homosexuals who now try to equate their 'same-sex couple with adopted children' "families" with real families ARE perverting the concept of family. A true family is a household that consists of a mother and father and at least one child. The real family is also the foundation upon which civilization is built. If you know of some alternate model within which same-sex couples adopting heterosexuals' children can somehow become the basis for some "new society", please do tell.
Likewise, those who insanely try to shove so-called "gay marriage" down everyones' throats are most certainly perverting the very concept of marriage. The fact that we even have to debate this issue is a clear indicator of the moral bankruptcy of the current culture.
December 10, 2007
3:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
junglegymco writes:
What IS it about religious zealots like Logan5 who have no CLUE as to the bible's origin? Unbelievable. Ah - Logan5, you DID know that the bible is a collection of works written by MEN (notice, not a SINGLE woman author is in the books of the bible)? And God did not descend from the heavens and dictate it. In addition, it also contains an inherent CUTLURAL bias, reflecting the time - hundreds of years ago - that is was written. And one final point - it has been TRANSLATED into English - or perhaps you believed that Matthew wrote in English? And just so ya know . . . it was not translated directly from the original text.
I don't even know where to BEGIN on the specious logic about homosexuality not continuing since "homosexuals don't pro-create." Um - yeah, they do. Not to mention that probably more than one of them had siblings who had kids that were gay. Gee, could something genetic be passed on by someone who doesn't have the trait, but is a carrier of it? Geee . . .
Logan5 - try COLLEGE. It's a great way to open your mind outside of the rhetoric from right-wing chat rooms.
December 10, 2007
3:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
jamesdenver writes:
Logan "perverse" (we both know how you meant it) and "disgusting" fall under the same name-calling category as "bigot" or "ignorant fundamentalist." Generalizations don't mitigate or negate the points. Yours or mine.
And I didn't rebutt your pontifications on abortion because it's completely asinine.
Your concept of a "true family household" is not only insulting to gay parents, but also single moms, single dads, adopted kids, kids raised by foster parents, kids raised by aunts/uncles and grandparents, kids of lesbian moon dwellers 100 years from now, and/or any other scenario that doesn't fall into your 1950's "Leave it to Beaver" wet dream.
That - and you also didn't return comments on my concerns regarding gay kids raised by YOUR kind - which is far more destructive to them then kids raised in alternative households. Trust me. Visit a gay youth shelter in Hollywood and you'll see exactly why you make a (possibly gay) teenager's life better with a couple PFlag pamphlets and support than you do with Shaw Moore style bullying from the pulpit.
Thus - this article highlighting the decency and normalcy of such househoulds is not "shoving any lifestyle down your throat" It's examining a certain demographic.
All the best - james...
December 10, 2007
3:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Logan5 writes:
Hey junglegymco,
Wow! Another lefty drops in as if determined to prove my contention that liberals never debate the facts, they just go off on random, off-topic tirades. If you and jamesdenver don't stop this, people are going to think that I'm posting under your names and setting this whole thing up.
So where in any of my posts have I used the Bible to argue my points? I anticipate that instead of a simple, direct response I will instead get something resembling the aftermath of an explosion in the Michael Moore section of the local bookstore, but there's always hope.
December 10, 2007
3:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
BJG writes:
There is no same sex explosion in Colorado. People with good healthy self esteem are finally not hiding from the likes of Logan5, James Dobson, and most homophobes.
Logan is no real friend to the gays.
It's comments about homosexuality ultimately leading to death:
Let me clue u in pal, life leads to death.
Please don't move to my neighborhood.
December 10, 2007
4:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Logan5 writes:
James -
First of all, I posed the abortion-related question for a very logical reason: If homosexuality is not a choice, but is rather genetically determined, it raises some obvious questions. Since we are rapidly increasing our knowledge of human genetics through such research as the Human Genome Project, there will come a time where the genetically-determined claim will collide head-on with gene technology.
Think about it; I constantly hear leftists arguing that 1) homosexuality is not a choice, but is genetically determined, 2) being gay is hell and no one would choose it, and 3) women have a "right to choose". Well then, if 1 & 2 are true why wouldn't we expect that a woman, knowing from genetic testing that she was carrying a "gay" baby, might want to exercise item 3 and abort that baby to prevent it from living the alleged hellish life of a homosexual? I'm just trying to test your assumptions, and trying to point out some of the unintended consequences of your beliefs.
Similarly, if the genetic theory is true, what would you say if someone develops a gene therapy to repair the gay gene? Would it be forbidden because it is too politically incorrect? But why would it?... I thought no one would ever choose to be gay? Presumably this means that homosexuals would jump at the chance to reverse their "gayness". Can you see that your rhetoric forces you into logical corners like this?
December 10, 2007
4:12 p.m.
Suggest removal
Logan5 writes:
BJG -
Yet again someone proves my point (this is amazing). Not a shred of logical response (but as I predicted, plenty of name-calling) in your screed.
Try again.
December 10, 2007
4:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
junglegymco writes:
Hey Logan5 -
Wow! Another right-wing nut ignores the actual logical pieces of my writing! Surprise!
To respond:
You YOURSELF stated that you are a "Christian." This implicitly implies the use of the bible, and specifically the new testament. The reactionary tone of your writings are NOT of an educated, studied person with in-depth historical knowledge of the bible, but rather of someone who has listened to the dogma of other's interpretation of the bible. It is not necessary to use quotations from whatever English version of the bible you have in order for this to be clear. Did I say you quoted the bible? I did not.
You've shown how poor your logic is by ignoring my response to your highly inaccurate assertion about how gays and lesbians should die off since they didn't pro-create and therefore it couldn't be genetic. 'Cause, once again, they couldn't possible have had children. Or had siblings that had gay kids. Cause genes can't possible skip a generation, or other siblings. . .
Your argument about aborted gay fetuses, that you attribute to "leftists" is again, poorly constructed. It's kind of like saying: "Tomatoes cause death." This can be proven by the fact that 97% of all people who die in car accidents have eaten a tomato at some point in their life. 92% of all cancer deaths involve people who have eaten a tomato. If you put your head in a vat of tomatoes for 10 minutes, you will die. Tomatoes cause death.
Being gay is almost certainly genetic. But the reason it's hell is because of people like you. So your argument that a woman should therefore be able to abort a gay baby is like saying that a woman should've aborted a black baby 150 years ago. Your "logic" misses the point entirely.
Please, please, please - go to college, travel somewhere outside of the United States, and at the very least, TRY to be able to understand some of the "Whys" of the world!!!!
December 10, 2007
5:19 p.m.
Suggest removal
Logan5 writes:
junglegymco -
I do appreciate someone finally at least attempting to address specific debating points, rather than just slinging names. However, your arguments are still disjointed and in some cases non-responsive to the points I made. You seem to be setting up "straw-men" (arguments I didn't make) and then beating those straw men with all of your might!
First, your fight with the Bible still has nothing to do with me. You're still not making sense on that one. Your statement that my identifying myself as a Christian "...implicitly implies the use of the bible..." makes no sense. Why don't you instead read the actual words I used to make my arguments, rather than inventing imaginary arguments you wish I had made. They were crystal clear.
You may have a point on the issue of passing on genetic traits, but my primary argument was that if you believe in evolution you know that evolution through natural selection DEPENDS ON certain groups passing on traits that are advantageous to survival by procreating more than other groups, eventually displacing them. I can think of no interpretation of evolutionary theory that could argue that a trait (homosexuality) that by definition precludes procreation could possibly confer a survival advantage and thereby be passed on to subsequent generations.
The abortion hypothetical was pretty clear, I thought. Your response, however, is not. I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say. Also, where did I say that "a woman should therefore be able to abort a gay baby"? (be specific) I said nothing of the kind. I was trying to point out how the conflict between liberal assertions and coming technology will force liberals to face the inconsistency of their arguments. Again, pretty clear.
December 10, 2007
5:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
Logan5 writes:
(To anyone lurking and reading all of this):
Please examine the last several posts for a clear illustration of the difference in debating techniques employed by liberals versus those used by conservatives. To be sure, there are some very articulate and thoughtful liberals, and certainly some lame-brained conservatives, but it has been my experience that the above interaction is pretty typical of liberal/conservative debate.
December 10, 2007
5:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
jamesdenver writes:
And Logan has ignored my VERY important points about being supportive and providing adequate resources to any young person questioning their sexuality. That doesn't mean marching them down to a gay pride parade, but it also doesn't mean plunking them in front of a church "therapist" to be cured. A person such as Logan5 is far more destructive than the "gay lifestyle" itself. The gay community isn't all rainbows and happiness - and banishing a young person to a gay ghetto without family support or acceptance is as bad as sending them to an ex-gay camp.
No one is going to change the opinion of anyone else, (eventually those ancient minds will die off as did extreme groups of years past,) and here it only breaks down into dumb analogies that are repeated endlessly.
But to me sending a message for young people that there IS a population of normal frumpy gay couples and families who aren't club goers, fashion experts, or interior design gurus, is what I take from this article. And the whole of that message is worth much more than these individual posts.
ok one more gripe: Just because I'm told "answer a question without using a certain term" doesn't mean I have to do it, and it doesn't cancel out my message. That only gives YOU a key, no a crutch, to say, "You're wrong because you didn't follow my rules."
Nobody has to respond under "certain terms" just because Logan states "don't use this in your response or you're disqualified or don't get points." (Whatever that means.)
And guess what. Nobody likes being labeled a homophobe or a bigot - hence the reason they justify not being one before all else. But just because someone SAYS they're not homophobic or a bigot doesn't mean they aren't. If it quacks...
'nite.
December 10, 2007
7:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
Logan5 writes:
Well James, to finish off the night you have apparently decided to illustrate two more liberal debating tricks, constantly changing the subject and answering a question with a question. I posted first and you responded, but you have yet to offer any coherent on-point rebuttal to my arguments.
Let me help you out. When I presented the hypothetical situation of a woman choosing to abort her “gay” baby, and the rhetorical if not actual conflict this might pose, you could have responded by saying that you did not see a conflict, because although you would abhor the idea of disposing of a child merely because it was genetically predisposed to be gay, ultimately it would be the personal decision of the woman. This would at least provide a rational starting point for further discussion. Instead, you responded with a rambling dissertation on Brian Rohrbough, hedonistic orgies, the rapture, Ted Haggard, the Bible, and lanterns. Huh?
Amazing as that was, you were actually closer to being on-point than junglegymco was. His response waxed eloquent on tomatoes causing death. And they say liberals make no sense…. how ridiculous.
December 12, 2007
11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
co_daz writes:
wow, can't believe how so many of the arguments were more-or less personal attacks (on both sides). from my own conclusions i think that both sides are not actually arguing the same thing. similar items yes, but different nonetheless (ie. homosexuality is wrong, kids should be shown not every homosexual is the stereotype).
here's my own personal statement in regard to the latter. to me it shouldn't matter if a childs parents are male/female or same-sex. the only thing that should matter is if the child is cared for and loved. children who grew up in all sorts of families, whether it's been a grandmonther raising them, a single parent, foster parents, etc., have done some pretty amazing things (sorry i can't come up w/ any specific examples, my bad).
glad i'm from a generation that is a bit more accepting of peoples differences, and that the 'trend' seems to be that younger generations are more accepting.
if someone wants to respond to my statements then do so. however, don't try to tell me my thoughts are wrong, because they are mine. i am not going to try to change yours, so i hope that you won't try to change mine.
laters,
a college student
December 12, 2007
1:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
co_daz writes:
so i shoulda reviewed what i wrote a bit, but was in a rush to head to class, so sorry.
for the 2nd example i put of what was being argued i was meaning that not every homosexual is the stereotypical one and can have a "family". i put family in quotes 'cause well my definition of family will more likely than not won't be the same as everyone else (mainly that a family being of a mother, a father, and children). family in my opinion is just any group of people that care about each other's wellbeing.
now for my opinion on homosexuality being wrong, which is probably obvious i don't believe it is. i don't think showing affection towards someone of the same sex that a person cares about is wrong. my mind just can't see the logic in it. i can't see how it can be alright to show affection for the opposite sex, but not for the same sex.
at that, i believe i've given my 2 cents worth