39% favor same sex marriage, acording to a right-wing poll????

The real polls in California and Maine
(were 40 million people live)
48% and 47% were in favor of Gay marriage, and Monique knows, that IF young people voted in the same percentage as Senior Citizens, Gay Marriage would have won in both states.

A question for the Gay Guy in RI:

This all may seem a bit clinical but bear with me if you are able.

The two options are: homosexuality is either a choice of an individual’s will and personal preference or a naturally occurring (yet non-reproducible) mutation. I call it a mutation by definition since homosexuals cannot reproduce with their own kind of the same sex. I would also grant that the word mutation has some negative connotations but I am not using it in a necessarily negative way.

Though it is true that homosexual men and homosexual women can procreate like heterosexuals, their strongest and preferred passions are focused toward members of their own sex. Obviously these sexual desires, when acted upon, can never result in procreation.

It would then follow that if the latter were true then homosexuality is an evolutionary dead end. It happens by mutation and due to the outcome those so brought into existence are not able to procreate naturally (per their purely natural desires) and sustain their species, since the very nature of the species would not include the ability to reproduce its own kind. Granted should a homosexual male and homosexual female mate and reproduce an offspring (which I am sure has happened) there would be no necessary guarantee that the child would be homosexual. The very prospect of this happening by design sounds at best grotesque and at worst psychotic, and totally counter to the stated needs and desires of homosexuals of both sexes anyway.

Now if the former were the actual and true reason for homosexual tendencies and behavior then homosexuals would be engaged in behavior that violates the norm for such passions, since procreation could never occur. I would also grant that not all heterosexual intimacy necessarily results in procreation but that only in heterosexual sexual relations is there any chance of procreation and preservation of the species. It would then follow that only some heterosexual sexual behavior is purely gratuitous and “for pleasure only” while it would likewise be true that in every case all homosexual behavior is such since (again) procreation can never take place.

I would grant that the human body in all its complexity does have various and sundry uses for some of its parts. A hand and arm can wield a hammer to drive in a nail and they can also paint or draw a beautiful picture or enjoy a bowl of Rice Krispies. Likewise the reproductive organs can at times have different functions but their highest function is their ability to elegantly and wonderfully provide a natural path for children to be brought into existence. I would contend that this is a simple yet profound truth, and to contend otherwise is a heavy and irrational lift. The reproductive system is one of the most amazing systems we can observe and study. All the various male parts have very distinct and obvious counterparts in the female, leaving anyone with any sense at all to conclude the obvious, men and women were made for each other. Homosexuals naturally or by personal choice abandon this basic reality.

This all leads to the question: Do you believe homosexuality is a personal choice or does it occur naturally (as a non reproducible mutation)?

I am not asking you to answer the question here, but to think about it and come to your own conclusions. Your call on that.

SV

Dear Mr. Venturi,

Yours is the most thoughtful, composed, helpful, honest and beatifully written testimonial I've ever read on this, frequently all-emotional, subject.

Sincerely,
George

lest there be any attempt to distort or misconstrue...beatifully is a typo. I meant "beautifully written"

Mr/Ms Venturi
Thanks, you are 100% correct.I chouse to be a homosexual August 10, 1967.

Then I lied to the folks at the Army
draft office a few months later (my mistake)

What does that have to do with my comment that,If young people voted in the same percentage as senior citizens
gay marriage would be the Law of the
Land, in California and Maine ??

I've noticed a trend - duplicate/multiple posts of liberal comments.

Could it be the limp wrist?

Let's get back to the thrust of the post; Sheldon's disconnectedness with his constituents. He has proudly voted as far to the left on every bill presented in the Senate as is humanly possible. When aked if his constituency opposed a significant bill (such as healthcare reform), he has steadfatly maintained that he would still vote yes.

Why? Presumably because he is far more informed than the unwashed masses whom he purports to represent. It seems he fancies himself the new "Liberal Lion" of the Senate now that the seat has been vacated by Teddy's demise.

Ah, but Sheldon, ye are an easy target come 2012. We will eat you for lunch and spit out yer bones with much merriment.

No, Ronald, comments on A.R. take a little time to appear. So sometimes people hit the "Post" button a second time, which causes the same comment to be posted twice.

Er, Gay Guy, it's news that CNN (the source of the poll you reference) is "right wing". They sure cover it up well.

Further, you may be correct in what you say as to the outcome of referenda differing with who turns out to vote (and assuming a large number of regular voters stay home). But the point is not the number of voters, it's "connectedness" - i.e., with everybody in the US, not just certain voting blocks.

As to choice versus "made that way", my own view is that it is the latter. Gay people put up with a lot of baloney (though less so in recent years); you can't convince me that anyone would volunteer for that.

MadMom, thank you for bringing us back to the topic of our esteemable solon. While this state is quite leftie, I wonder how many Rhode Islanders would concur with his stances on health care reform and cap-and-trade if they knew what and how much it was going to cost them down the road (and not too far down the road, actually).

MadMom, I wish I could be so optimistic about 2012.

You see, among the many measures by which Rhode Island tends to appear at the extreme negative end of every list, we are first in electing and returning irrational and functionally retarded people to office. RI voters have a huge tolerance for electing people who say and do really stupid things.

Indeed, George. But all it takes is to identify the right candidate. Times, they are a changin', and it is time for the leaders of our community to step up to the plate and become Statesmen. Even if it takes whips.