UNTstormchaser

I'd like to add that I'm retiring from this thread as of this post, for a number of reasons. I feel I've said everything I had to say on the subject, and then some. I also don't see any point in continuing an argument where both sides have stated their points, lots of back and forth occurred, and no movement was made on either's position. We're all hard headed here in Mean Green nation it seems I've also got some major stresses going on in my personal life, and outside added stress from an online debate doesn't help that. If I legitimately offended any one of you with anything I said, I apologize. I'd also like to encourage you to PM me, and show me what exactly I said that was offensive to you. I'll explain where I was coming from, possibly rephrase to a less offensive manner, and personally apologize if I have legitimately crossed a line. Hopefully in the process we can get to know each other a bit better, and understand where we are both coming from. I certainly didn't set out to offend, and I don't think anyone gave enough of a damn about what I said to be offended, but things happen, and it wouldn't surprise me. Opinions are opinions, and everyone is entitled to their own, and I'd like to point out that I don't think any less of any one of you for anything you guys posted, and I hope no one thinks less of me for anything I said. We are one. Cheers everyone, happy almost August! One more month! GMG.

I really want you to do some hard thinking about that statement. Do you really think people get married and, especially this, have kids for a tax break? You're out of your mind if you think that. You're also out of your mind if you think that either legalizing or outlawing gay marriage is going to change the number of straight marriages or gay relationships. I don't know what kind of world you think we live in, but it isn't all about the money (though it may seem that way a lot of the time). If tax breaks are given to straight couples, they should be given to gay couples. Or, they should be given to neither. People are going to get married, bone, and have kids regardless of tax breaks. And yes, the hospital visiting rights, and the right to having authority over what happens to your partner when he/she is ill and incapable of deciding for themselves, are something that should be edited. But, if done so without changing the marriage laws, how does one know if the person claiming to be that person's partner is being truthful? And, do we change the laws for straights as well, so that a heterosexual couple who has been together for a very long time but is not legally married, has the same rights in that situation? Where do we put the cut-off for how long one has to be dating someone before they have that authority? You know what prevents these issues? A marriage license.

Got a speeding ticket for going 96 MPH in a 70 MPH zone, and had weed and a gun in the car. And who knows what else...there was another car that got pulled over with him, maybe they were racing on top of everything else. It wouldn't surprise me if he was an arrogant snot at practice...clearly the kid lacks the ability to use his brain, and add lack of brain use to immense talent at a low level school, and you get arrogant snot. If that's the case I doubt the coaches were about to give him any slack, especially given his track record.

Well, new I may be, and optimistic I may also be, so you got me there fellas. I still don't see how the can deny Pegram, even if the UT receiver was a longshot. I hate to speculate, but I've heard his mother is very ill...I just don't see the NCAA denying him the ability to play in front of his mother who may or may not be dying (again, I hate to speculate and I do not want to spread false rumors, but I have heard some pretty negative things from that situation, but nothing concrete). A guy like Dyer had no chance of his waiver being granted, I would at least like to think that the NCAA isn't so heartless as to deny Pegram under the circumstances. I am new and naive though, so we'll see

Agreed. It would be very surprising if he wasn't picked up by another team if he was cut loose by Dallas.

1. The amount of points given up by a 2-3 zone is like the placement of helmet stickers and the price of gas: too damn high! (That is the best shot I could give at that) 2. The cute girl who sat behind me at the WKU game last year. 3. Orange. Thanks for the Mean Green history lesson my friend! Cool stuff. Never doubt the almighty Thor. He was all-state in the hammer throw in high school.

That's awesome. I'm looking forward to living in Mozart this year, just to see him frequently. This this this this this. +100 if I could. Unfortunately what it takes for people to stop disrespecting UNT is something we have struggled to attain over recent years: wins in football. Basketball is well and good, and I do love it, but until this team wins a couple bowl games in a row no one is going to take notice. Very few schools can be very popular locally and nationally without being good in football...the only ones that come to mind are the schools in the middle of nowhere where professional teams do not exist (Kansas and Kentucky come to mind, though they're also in power conferences). That isn't the case for UNT...we have professional sports galore right down 35, and a slew of good football schools in the state. After all, this IS Texas, where religion comes first and football is a religion. If we want fan support from students and locals alike, the answer is clear. If football wins, the fans will come. Luckily, I think we all agree that this is on the horizon.

1. I'm not 100% sure, but wasn't it that Mean Green was the nickname for our stout defense back in the day (60s? 70s?), and it just kind of caught on and was applied to the whole team? 2. Off the top of my head, I do not know. Please enlighten me good sir. I'm still learning the Mean Green history haha, as I said before I'm not from the area so I knew next to nothing about the school's sports before coming here. GMG Haha, severe weather is my expertise, but becoming a research meteorologist of some kind (a storm chaser would be perfect...imagine getting paid to do that!) is my ultimate career goal. I show up really early and am first in line at the gate usually haha. If anyone tries to tell me to move I summon Thor to strike them down.

I haven't heard anything solid, but I think both will be granted, especially Pegram. Pegram transferred because his mother is sick, not because he wanted to change programs, so I doubt he gets denied. The UT receiver whose name escapes me has a sick grandmother, but I'd say his is more up in the air than Pegram's. My guess is both get granted, but I see no way that Pegram gets denied.

My apologies, I actually missed the prison part. I'm really not feeling well today but I'm sorry for missing a part of your all important post. My response to that is that psychology is a changeable thing. Just like when you read the books of "reformed gays", they find a way to convince themselves to be attracted to something else, although the other attractions do not go away. It was ignorant of me to actually exclude the possibility that your friends were so fed up with the opposite sex, and it was such an intense psychological reaction, that they were able to convince themselves that they were attracted to the same sex. It can happen. Although, bisexuality is another option, especially considering psychologists agree that sexuality isn't accurately described by the 3 titles, but on a 6 point scale. 0 being completely straight, 6 being completely gay, 3 being perfectly bisexual and indifferent between the two sexes. Most people fall between 1 and 5. So applying that to the prison part, it isn't a stretch to believe that prisoners could be so psychologically strained by the fact that they're not going to see another person of the opposite sex for years, or even forever, that they might convince themselves to be attracted to the same sex, especially if they were not a 0 on the scale. I think this can be summed of very generally and crudely by this sentence: A hole is a hole, and better than no hole at all.

This is actually a great post. While I disagree with some of it, you actually made fair and intelligent arguments using reason and logic. For that, I say: THANK YOU. I'm going to respond to your three points. 1. While you are correct that it does not say anywhere in the Constitution that marriage is a right, that isn't an argument against gay marriage. If you use that argument towards gay marriage, you must make it so marriage of any kind holds no legal standing. In fact, that's probably the way it should be anyways. Why should the government give a crap if I am married and to who it is? That's my business. But, since it isn't that way, and straight marriage holds legal benefits that cannot be extended to homosexual couples, that's an unfair and does not demonstrate equality. 2. I completely agree, and any gay marriage activist that doesn't agree needs their mental health checked. I have no problem with a church denying a gay couple, or a straight couple for that matter if there were to be a Church of Gay, the right to be married in that church. Personally, I don't understand why a gay couple would want to get married in an anti-gay church anyways, but if one did, and the church denies them, that's fine. And yes, I am aware that many gay couples consider themselves married. Straight ones do that to before they are married. A good friend of mine considers his girlfriend of 5 years his wife, even though they are not legally married. That's all well and good....but considering yourselves married doesn't give you the same rights as being legally married, obviously. That's where the issue arises. What about the situation where a dying gay man's partner is not allowed to visit him on his deathbed, or have any authority on how he is treated or whether or not he is taken off life support, among other things? It's kind of unfair where that happens, and in the same situation in a heterosexual married couple, the healthy partner has the right to visit, and has all the authority on what happens. Not to mention tax breaks that legally married couples get, whereas a gay couple that views themselves as married does not get any tax break. It's unfair and not equal. 3. That's a great way of twisting words to make it seem like there is equality. But, there's another way (a fairer way) to look at that statement. Every heterosexual person in the country has the right to marry the person they love and are attracted to, while every homosexual person in the country does not have the right to marry the person they love and are attracted to. That doesn't sound very equal to me. If expanding the legal definition of marriage is what achieves the equality (which it is), then so be it. That's the way it should be. Again, great post. I'm glad that someone posted using logic and reason rather than posting out of ignorance and bias. As for your last statement about CFA, I agree 100%. I support his right to say whatever he wants as long as he continues to treat people fairly. And I'm also equally confused at how most people didn't know about CFA's views, but in their defense, CFA is a typically southern thing and a lot of the country had no idea what CFA even was before this. I also get where the mayors of cities are coming from, as illegal as it may be. They have external motivation for doing this: it's election year. If a mayor in a prominent gay community (Boston, San Francisco, etc.) speaks out against CFA, guess who the gays are going to vote for? Besides, they can't actually block CFA anyways, so no harm no foul. They have a right to spew blabber as well.

I find your lack of understanding on what actually happened with your friends laughable. One cannot choose to start being attracted to something they aren't. I hate to break it to you...but you're friends are either bisexual or were closet gays. It's pretty simple.

I'm going to attempt to respond as kindly as possible, but I may come off as rude in some instances. This is not on purpose, I'm just in a very blunt mood today, and I'm probably going to put things bluntly. If I offend you with the way I say something, then I am sorry. End disclaimer Thank you for the basic high school anatomy brush up. You're science is somewhat sound, I will give you that. And I am glad someone has actually tried to use logic and science in an argument against this, this is actually the first time I have actually seen that anywhere. But there are fundamental flaws with using this argument in general, and your astounding level of ignorance tacks on many more. I could be wrong, but to me your post wreaks of Christian bias. The first flaw is bringing up the matter of anal sex altogether. Before your post, not a single person explicitly mentioned that; the forum was about gay marriage, not gay sex. While the two may go hand in hand with gay male marriage oftentimes, it is a blanket statement to assume this is always the case. And it is never the case with female gay marriage, you know, since they lack....an appendage to use. Regardless of the science behind the dangers of anal sex, which are very true and it is sound science, that has nothing to do with the legality of gay marriage, for a couple of reasons. For one, it has nothing to do with actual marriage and relationship, since a gay male couple may exclusively perform oral sex on each other, and a gay female couple is not going to do it at all. Regardless, you can't legislate what happens in the bedroom, since it's just flat out wrong to do, and there is no way of actually enforcing that. Secondly, allowing a gay male couple to marry isn't going to make them more or less likely to have anal sex anyways. If they are a couple, and they'd get married if it were legal, then they're going to do it anyways. So, this point is completely invalid towards the argument of the legality of gay marriage. A second fundamental flaw is that you bring up the point of nature, and how a male and female are needed to have a baby. This was probably the most laughable part of the argument. First off, no sh!t. I don't think any gay couple has sex in any capacity thinking they're going to get pregnant. That isn't the point of sex for them, and it isn't the point of sex for a large amount of heterosexual couples either. They have sex because it's the most stimulating and amazing way to show your partner how you feel about them. The majority of mainstream America does not view sex as just a way to make children. It's a beautiful and incredibly diverse part of life that people embrace regardless of their sexuality. This is again, an irrelevant argument. Another part of that argument's laughability is how other mammals engage in homosexual activities. If it was just a conscious and irresponsible choice by the species of higher intelligence, this would not be the case. Conveniently, someone posted a list of all mammals that have exhibited homosexual behavior in some way, shape, or form (listed with legitimate sources, and the page has been up for quite some time; if it was incorrect the wikipedia mods would have edited it by now...I've experienced firsthand how quick they are). I'll link it below this paragraph. We aren't talking about a list of 3 or 4 mammals. There are well over one hundred listed mammals that have been documented to act in homosexual ways. So, clearly it is a natural phenomenon that wasn't invented by humans, considering there are countless examples of it happening in nature. Again, I sense a very strong Christian bias. Science gotten from a Christian Apologetic website is not actual science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_displaying_homosexual_behavior Now to go back a bit, to the subject of how anal sex is unnatural and the point of the anus is not to be penetrated, but to expose of waste. Fantastic, I'm glad you cleared that up for me. I was also convinced that my nose's secondary function was to be penetrated as well, but your point got me doing some research...never mind. Look, obviously the biological function of the ass is not a sexual function. Neither is the mouth, but I don't see anyone trying to outlaw oral sex. So why anal sex? I mean, haven't you ever heard of a man and a woman having anal sex? It really isn't that uncommon. The fact that you imply that gay couples are the only couples to do some sexual exploration is both baffling and another strong indicator of your strong Christian bias. Now, onto your point about AIDS. I really can't believe that you think that AIDS is still exclusively in the gay community. That's honestly baffling. How sheltered are you? Have you ever watched the world news and seen that AIDS is a major issue in some of the poorer parts of Africa? AIDS has nothing to do with the gay community; it is where it first appeared in the US, but AIDS and gay are not something that goes hand in hand. Due to the fact that no one knew about it when it was first surfacing, blood transfusions were one of the biggest spreaders of the disease, and it is in the general population. Magic Johnson has AIDS, and he is not gay. Obviously that is just one example, but you get my point. Being sexually "responsible" does not reduce your chance of AIDS. Your partner could have been born with the disease due to his mother unknowingly having it, and he could be a virgin when you guys first have sex, and there you go, now you have AIDS. Now yes, admittedly, there are more gay people than straight people with AIDS, especially in the United States. But that is merely due to the fact that it was introduced in the gay population for whatever reason. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are gay, and worldwide this is not the case. Being gay does not cause AIDS, as you insinuate. Your point is both ignorant and bigoted. Please point me in the direction of a non Christian scientist who is against gay marriage. Please do. I am calling your bluff here. I have never heard a non Christian scientist come out against gay marriage. But, if you can give me a link, a name, something, to point me in that direction, I'll accept your point. Regardless, even if they are any, they aren't the majority. Not even close. They are random statistical outliers, who in the scheme of things, are meaningless. But that is even if you can point me in the direction of just one, which I doubt you can. That being said, there literally is no reason other than religion to outlaw gay marriage. Not one. Science is not a reason, as everything you pointed out is easily shown to be flawed as an argument against gay marriage, namely because marriage or no marriage, gays are going to have sex. So if science is ruled out, what else is there? Any other argument has to do with religion. If religion is taken out of the argument, there is literally no reason to tell gays they cannot get married. I agree with you that anal sex is not a safe thing. I disagree with you that that is a good reason to outlaw gay marriage. To go with my reasoning from earlier, gays are going to do it anyways, it doesn't apply to all of them, and you cannot enforce a law against anal sex anyways...let alone that legislating the bedroom is just disgustingly immoral. But, to take that a step further, if you're going to use the argument that allowing gays to have anal sex should be against the law because it costs us unnecessary money in health costs, then fine. As you put it: "...as well as costing the health care system billions and causing R&D in the pharmaceutical industry to divert time and money away from tragic diseases that do not arise from behavioral choices." Okay. Then, in order to be fair, we need to outlaw every other activity that will divert time and money from tragic diseases that do not arise from behavioral choices. It is now illegal drive a car, ride a bike, go outside for long enough to get a sunburn without globbing on tons of sunscreen, play sports, run, go swimming, go on a plane, go on a train, drink alcohol, work any kind of blue collar job like construction, etc. The government now needs to enact legislation to prevent the companies that process food using chemicals that have been known and documented to cause cancer. Coal mines need to stop, because they're too dirty and cause too much bodily harm to the workers. Minor injuries, such as broken bones, concussions, fairly bad cuts, muscle pulls and tears, need to go untreated because we need to focus all our attention on people that have fallen victim to a tragic disease, so in order to maintain the safety of society without basic medical care, the government has put many bans into effect to prevent them from hurting themselves, including but not limited to everything listed. Basically, the only thing that is allowed is to grow food that isn't too dangerous to maintain, on your property, without using pesticides or other potentially harmful chemicals, using and drinking water that comes from your faucet that uses a government mandated water purification system, and then sleeping. Have fun with that life. While you try to legislate what others do in the bedroom, think of the potential consequences of ensuring that this group of people does not get equal rights. That opens a pandora's box, your group may be next.

I agree that we cannot change each other's minds, but it just saddens me that you can't properly read what I type. I know I'm long winded, but c'mon man, I'm not difficult to understand. I have said explicitly, multiple times in fact, that being gay may not be genetic. No one knows whether it is genetic, whether it is caused from occurrences in early childhood when the brain is still developing, whether it's some form of birth defect that effects brain chemistry and hormones, or by something else entirely. The point is though, it is not a conscious decision. I understand what you're argument was, but unfortunately your examples were so ignorant and poor that it didn't prove a single thing that you were trying to say. Like I said, research first, then argue. To reiterate, no one consciously makes a decision thinking that it will make their life more difficult. In the heat of the moment, a decision may be made to do something stupid. But, being gay isn't a single decision. It is a part of someone, and thinking that they can turn gay on and off is just absurd. You don't choose to be straight, you just are. Try getting aroused by gay pornography, if it doesn't work, you're straight. If it does, you're probably bisexual. It really is that simple. Besides, if being gay was a choice, don't you think that at least ONE out of the closet homosexual would say that he chooses to be that way? Don't you think that at least one of them would have let the cat out of the bag at this point? Doing some simple math, there are roughly 15 million gay men in the United States. Every gay person that has ever talked about being gay, says it is not a choice. Look at the entire world, in which there is a population of 7 billion now. Cut that in half to divide between men and women, and divide by 10 to get the rough amount of gay men. That is 350 million gay men. Do you really think that every single one of them is choosing to be gay, and every single one of them is denying that they are choosing that? Yeah, I don't think so.

I'm glad someone else sees that this isn't a political issue.

Yesssssssssss. The football garage sale was awesome, I bought so much random stuff. I think my favorite purchase might have been a 2004 sun belt champions shirt, even over the older jersey that I'm too fat to fit into (you know it's time for a diet when you're too fat to fit into a #63 jersey haha)

Yeah I just saw it a second ago, looks really cool for an outer shell. I look forward to seeing how it looks when it's 100% done. GMG

Gotta agree with you guys here, whoever it is that is in charge of this has really dropped the ball so far. They should be doing everything possible to capitalize on this rare opportunity, and they've really done next to nothing at all. The only TM related material I've ever seen was the white North Texas T-shirt that had #13 on the back. But, even that's pretty vague.

I don't recall calling anyone an idiot or unintelligent. I may have called an argument or a particular facet of an argument unintelligent or idiotic, but never the person. Smart people can make dumb arguments, it happens. And yes, I'm a bit long winded. I'll gladly admit to that.

I don't believe I put it so bluntly, nor even attempted to imply that, but if that's what you took anything I said as, then fair enough, and I apologize. I had about 500 words typed out just about the drug addiction part and then lost everything I wrote. I am pretty peeved about that, but I'll start over again. I'm going to go one by one to break this down for you, as I cannot believe you are really making those comparisons. I don't mean to offend you, but those are possibly some of the most unintelligent and ignorant comparisons I've ever come across. But, I digress. Here we go. 1. Drug addiction: I'm pretty pissed that I lost everything I wrote about this, as it took me about 25 minutes to type out, but here we go again. Let's start with the personality of a person, before they are addicted. Most psychologists believe that one of the most important parts of personality development is in early childhood, although the rest of childhood, the puberty stage, etc., have a lot to do with it as well. So, if you take your average 25 year old, he has about as much control over his personality as he does the color of his skin and eyes. The things that made him who he is personality-wise, all happened before he was consciously independent enough to do anything about it. And aside from that, a lot of very interesting research is being done with identical twins that were separated at birth, which shows that a lot of personality and interests may in fact be genetic. So, adding that thought in, it just reiterates the fact that one's personality is not really one's choice. Now, the reason I bring all this up about personality is because personality has a lot to do with addiction. Some people have very strong personalities, and do not stray from their views and no one can convince them to do anything. Others have weaker personalities, and are easily influenced by others. Most people are somewhere in the middle with that. Another interesting facet of personality is how some people seem to have addictive personalities, and others do not. Some people latch onto things and do not let go, they become obsessed with the things they like, and others do not do this at all. So, personality does have an effect on addiction, and that part is out of a person's control. Moving onto the first time someone uses drugs, personality plays a big role. People with weaker personalities may falter due to peer pressure (ex. high school or college party), others may be experiencing a tough time in their life and resort to drugs to escape (usually this is someone who has used before in some capacity, be it alcohol, or a small time drug like marijuana, and this is their first time either drinking to excess to reduce stress or resorting to a stronger drug such as cocaine or heroine), others might do it because they think it's cool (ex. a couple of dumb teenagers stealing their parents medication or alcohol), or the person has grown bored with smaller time drugs that he has been using for recreational purposes (marijuana or alcohol) and is seeking a greater high. Depending on the drug, the person may be addicted from the first use or first few uses (heroine, meth, crack), it may take a decent amount of uses or more to get addicted (alcohol, caffeine [yes caffeine is a drug, and people actually die from it, although it is in a special "safer" category], cocaine, opiates/painkillers), the person may never become physically addicted because the drug does not cause physical addictions, but the drug becomes a psychological crutch for the person (marijuana, LSD/acid), or the person may die/completely lose their mind and eat people's faces (synthetic drugs such as bath salts, poorly made LSD, or an OD of almost any drug other than marijuana). There is a special case where the addiction is not the fault of the addict, or at least not the direct result of the person choosing to take drugs. This situation is actually what happened to my father. Over a period of 3 years, he had 4 major surgeries on his stomach area (he had a foot of his colon removed due to a precancerous tumor, 2 different hernias, had scar tissue block his bowels, lots of fun stuff), plus chronic back issues (herniated disks) and chronic knee issues (he actually needs a knee replacement now). Because of all of these problems, he was put on painkillers while he was in the hospital, and for while he was at home. Unfortunately, by the time he had healed enough to the point where he did not need them, he had developed an addiction. This is actually a very common situation that can happen to absolutely anyone, which is pretty terrible. Luckily, he's clean now, but it wasn't an easy road. Once the person becomes an addict, the tables shift a bit. Personality does play a role, but not nearly as much of one. As much as people don't like to admit it, a drug addiction is an illness. But, it's a curable one, although it is very difficult to overcome. Addiction really is the perfect storm of two things. It would be hard enough to overcome the body and mind yearning for the drug, but throw in withdrawal symptoms and it becomes very easy to just continue the cycle. The mind of an addict is altered; often the person is not able to think as clearly as is necessary to realize they have a problem, but even if they do, it's so much easier to just continue using to prevent withdrawal symptoms. At this point, it's hardly a conscious decision to continue the path they're on. I've seen firsthand the mindset of someone struggling with addiction, and even with the people you love trying to get you help it isn't an easy thing to do. But, like I said, it is curable. People do get help, they get their addictions treated, and they are free from it. Many people stay clean forever after that, many do not for a plethora of reasons (usually they continue to surround themselves with the same people and get themselves into the same situations as before), but until they fall into using again, they are not addicted (there is an exception: alcoholism; I'm getting to that later). This is probably the biggest point I can make about why comparing drug addiction to homosexuality is both unintelligent and incredibly ignorant: people can overcome addiction, and it is a conscious choice to use drugs originally. While factors outside of a person's control may effect their likelihood to falling into a drug addiction, it is still a conscious choice to use, whereas being gay is not a conscious choice (whether or not it's genetic, a birth defect in brain chemistry and hormone production, or happens during early development, is unknown and irrelevant). So, ignorant comparison number one shot down. Let's move on. I'm going to ignore the fact that you're making an blanket statement by implying that all drug addicts (and homosexuals for that matter) are the same. 2. Being a criminal: Again, this is another ignorant blanket statement. All criminals are not the same; they commit different crimes for different reasons. The fact that you're also choosing to use criminals to compare to homosexuals also astounds me. Outside of the social stigma part (which is a stretch anyways), there is absolutely no relevancy whatsoever, but I'll humor you and respond. I assume you're referring to people that are career criminals, and/or people that commit heinous crimes. As the person above me pointed out, depending on brain chemistry (which is what causes personality essentially), a person may be more likely to exhibit sociopathic behavior. As I stated in the first part, personality has a lot to do with genetics and early childhood development and experiences. So, let's take your run-of-the-mill criminal, say he is a serial bank robber who also uses marijuana recreationally. Odds are, this person feels a major void in their life and mind. Robbing banks not only provides them with money, but with an intense thrill and adrenaline rush. This person has a weak personality most likely, and they could suffer from a number of mental illnesses (depression being the most obvious choice). Again, this is caused by genetics and his psychological development. Maybe this person feels this void in their life because they had an abusive father who walked out on the family at age 5, or something along those lines. He also could be a user of marijuana because it relaxes him after committing a robbery. Who knows? But, the point I am making here is that there could be any number of reasons why a person acts the way he does. That doesn't make this a relevant comparison however. If you polled 5,000 current criminals (let's say thieves of any kind, rapists, dealers and users of hardcore drugs like heroine and meth, serial killers, and even some blue collar criminals that are committing crimes that have to do with money, like extortion), and you asked them if they gave a damn about the social stigma surrounding them, and if that was a deterrent at all, what do you think they would say? Sure there definitely is a social stigma surrounding people who break the law, but do you really think people that knowingly break laws that could send them to prison for years, really give a damn about the social stigma part of it? I'm not going to be that guy that throws out a percentage on a poll that doesn't exist, but just think about it. Their friends (if they have any) are criminals. They probably have cut themselves off from their family, or their family has no idea about their criminal behavior. If you actually think that the social stigma surrounding breaking the law is a deterrent for these types of people, when the actual law itself and the consequences are not a deterrent, then you might be certifiably insane. I doubt that you actually think that they care though, you just resorted to throwing out a random life-raft to try to save your argument. I understand. Now, there are a couple other major flaws in comparing homosexuality to being a criminal. For one, most criminals negatively effect other people. This is why they are in trouble with the law, and are being punished for what they have done. Killing someone, raping someone, robbing someone, using a hardcore drug, etc., all do or have the potential to harm other people in some way. Two men or two women getting married do not do this. The other fundamental flaw in your argument is that, sometimes, criminals can be reformed. The United States Penal system is not built to reform, as they would like to tell us it is; it is built to punish, and protect mainstream society from psychopaths. But, there are examples of people having such a terrible experience in prison that they completely change their lives on the outside. Others find God while in prison, and dedicate their lives to being a wholesome religious person after they get out. But, this all depends on personality, and one's experience in prison. A lot of people that get thrown in prison for small time crimes (marijuana possession for example) end up a lot worse off after their sentence, and continue committing crimes and spend their lives going in and out of prison. Others are borderline mentally retarded, grew up in the hood, and despite attempts at reform from a young age, end up spending the majority of their lives playing the prison game. It really does vary and depend on a lot of factors, but occasionally people's lives are changed for the better. This usually happens at a younger age (below 18-21, depending on when the crime was committed and state laws) when punishment is based a lot more on reform than making people pay from their crimes. And sometimes, people serve one prison sentence and then change their lives, as I said above. People can be reformed from their criminal ways, whereas gays, again, cannot be turned straight. 3. Drunk driving: This is probably the one I am most astounded you put. This isn't even remotely close to being a lifestyle, a way one lives, the type of person one is, etc. This is an action, a stupid one indeed, but it is an action. Now, some people that drive drunk legitimately have an alcohol issue, and they end up with multiple DUI's. There was actually a person near where I currently live who just got busted for his 5th DUI. How a person is not in prison before this point is beyond me. But, despite the fact that he had 4 previous DUI's and a suspended license, he got behind the wheel of a car while ridiculously intoxicated and got busted. He is now in prison, thankfully. Clearly, he is someone who has serious alcohol issues and needs major help. A lot of good, intelligent people get DUI's, or drive drunk without getting caught, and it is just a really stupid mistake. At 19 years old, I can say that I drove under the influence one time (I wasn't ridiculously drunk or anything, but above the legal limit for 21 year olds most likely, definitely above the legal limit in RI for people under 21, which I believe is like .015 or something, in case of something like alcohol based mouthwash showing up on a reading as a minuscule amount), and it was a major mistake. Luckily, I was 3 minutes from home, but it was still a risk I don't ever want to take again. In your 46 years, if you can honestly say that you have never driven drunk, then that is remarkable and I commend you. But, this isn't even remotely close to being something one can compare to being to being gay. This is beyond apples to oranges, this is like comparing snow to elephants. 4. Alcoholism: I am responding to this separately from drug addiction because there are a couple of subtle differences. One, alcoholism is a recognized disease and is a very well known disease in the mainstream world, whereas addiction to heroine is really not as much of a widespread issue. Secondly, although someone can be clean from alcohol, it is recognized as fact that this is an addiction that never completely dies, similar to the way cigarette addiction works. This is probably the best comparison out of the four that you made, but I'm going to be honest, it's still pretty terrible. They still have very little in common other than a negative social stigma and the fact that one does not choose whether or not they are susceptible to becoming an alcoholic. If necessary, for a reference re-read everything I said about personality in the first part, because I am not about to type it out again, and it absolutely still applies here. Now, alcoholism is interesting, because alcohol is legal, and very easily attained. This makes being addicted much more convenient, as you don't have to illegally buy drugs or find a doctor to prescribe pills for you that you do not need, so keep in mind the ease of attainment and near guarantee of supply. Now, one's personality and genetics are very much a part of how susceptible they are to becoming an alcoholic. There is strong evidence to suggest that alcoholism can run in families, so family history is a strong indicator of how one may react to alcohol. And personality can play a crucial role in whether or not one drinks alcohol at all, how early in life they do it, and how they react to it. Someone with a weak personality and low self esteem may start drinking at an early age due to peer pressure. An addictive personality may cause someone to want to drink a lot, before they are actually addicted. A lot of alcoholics started drinking at a young age (college, high school, or even earlier sometimes, I remember watching a show documenting how some 12 year olds were drinking, and their parents reaction to it...pretty interesting), when alcohol is more sport than it is a beverage. Things like binge drinking often cause addictions that last a life time, not to mention how incredibly dangerous drinking to ridiculous excess can be. Due to it's illegality to minors, they view it as a mystery and curiosity, and it makes them want to try it. If you have kids, I'm sure you understand that when you tell a kid that they can't do something, or have something, it makes them want it more. It's human nature, but it is very easy to spot this characteristic when people are young. This is why kids are a lot more responsible with alcohol in European nations, as it isn't illegal, and a lot of them grew up drinking wine with dinner. But, alcohol plays a very important role in teenage and college-age subculture in America, because of the view that people place on it. It's fun, it makes you social, it makes you more attractive, blah blah blah, etc., etc. Because of this, many younger people drink before the legal age, and drink to excess, when their brains are not developed enough to handle it. There is evidence to suggest that this is why people that drink at a young age are more susceptible to becoming an alcoholic. But, enough about the beginning of an alcoholic, why people begin drinking, why kids drink, etc. As I said, alcoholism is a disease. There are many factors that play into whether or not someone is more or less likely to get addicted and become an alcoholic. So, in a way, your comparison is at least somewhat valid. Homosexuality isn't a choice, and whether or not someone is more or less likely to become an alcoholic isn't a choice. But, there's a key difference. Homosexuality isn't a disease, and gay feelings are not a drug. Alcoholism is a disease, and alcohol is a drug. That's just simple fact. Another point of difference is how drinking alcohol may cause alcoholism. To put this same logic towards homosexuality doesn't make sense, as gay feelings do not cause homosexuality, rather, if anything, it's the opposite, but it cannot be a valid comparison as alcoholism and homosexuality are the things we are comparing, not alcoholism and gay feelings. I'm trying not to get too off topic here, so I'm going back to alcoholism being a disease. Once a person is an alcoholic, regardless of how it started, regardless of when it started, regardless of the type of alcoholic they are, they are an alcoholic. That is all it is, and it needs to be addressed as nothing more than that. I don't know the medical definition of alcoholism off of the top of my head, but let's just say generally that alcoholism is a physical and mental addiction to alcohol, where if the person were to stop drinking completely for a period of time, they would suffer withdrawal symptoms, and not be able to function properly. In this respect, alcoholism is like every other drug addiction. Treatment is necessary to break the addiction. I went through this with my father as well, a couple of years ago. Again, it's very difficult to break, just like the other addictions. But the big difference is here that one cannot be cured of alcoholism. You may break the addiction, but drinking again in the future is dangerous. It's very easy to fall down the same path again. Some can avoid it despite the temptations, others cannot. Again, that has to do with personality and genetics, something out of a person's control. As for the social stigma part, most alcoholics do not realize that they are, until it is too late to change anything on their own. By this point, even if they do give a damn about the social stigma (which most don't, trust me), it isn't going to deter them from drinking. So, poor comparison yet again. I think in conclusion of all of this, you made a poor argument for why you think my reasoning is poor. If being gay was a choice, a simple choice that they could then reverse, they would do so. I think that's all the evidence necessary for me, and I don't understand why that isn't enough for others. Out of the four things you mentioned that people choose to be (one of them isn't even a thing someone chooses to be, it's an action), none of them even remotely compare to the point you're trying to make. I get what you're trying to say, that other people choose to make their life difficult too. But, no one sets out every morning trying to make their life suck. No one has an ambition as a child to be a career criminal, to be a druggy or an alcoholic, just the same as no child has the ambition of growing up to becoming something where they have their rights infringed upon and have people tell them that their lifestyle is not okay, among worse insults. It just simply does not make any sense to believe that someone would consciously choose a path in which they cannot have children, where they are discriminated against, where they don't get respect, where they may lose relationships with friends and families over it, etc. Therefore, it must not be a choice. If a much smaller amount of the population was gay, say something like .3%, then maybe that argument would hold less weight because some people inexplicably choose really stupid things. But 10% is far too high of a population for that counterargument to be valid. I appreciate you trying to come up with something, but please do some research on something before you blindly throw ignorant blanket statements out to form an argument. I get that you're 46, so you probably have a job, have kids, and have real responsibilities, so I understand that sitting down and researching homosexuality, alcoholism, psychology of criminals, etc., is probably not very high on your list of things to do. But, if you don't have the time to research to make an intelligent counterargument, then please don't make a counterargument at all. All of the blanket statements you made resulted in you implying fallacies. You implied that people consciously choose to become drug addicts and alcoholics, which is just plain false, as I have shown. Same thing for criminals, although we can blame them a lot more for their choices than we can addicts. I am absolutely not condoning any of the behaviors of hardcore drug addicts and criminals, but implying that everything that they do and everything about them is their choice and their fault is just not true. You'd be amazed at how many future criminals and addicts are helped out in childhood when their mental illnesses are diagnosed and treated. This has taken me over 2 hours to completely type out, and I now am about to have to leave, so I will end here. As I have said, I don't mean to offend with my opinions. I am trying to discuss this issue fairly, and honestly. Cheers everyone, GMG. PS: I will get to the other post that was directed at me later on, I have run out of time for now.

If we do this for basketball I'd love to help out, providing it isn't on a weekend before a major exam or something. I can hit up the Flower Mound/Lewisville area.

Good luck to your team as well, although I do not know who that is! haha.

That's good news, I'd hate to go 6-6 or better and get left out. I felt bad for WKU last year. Does anyone know what would happen in a scenario where there aren't enough bowl eligible teams? It really doesn't seem like it is too unlikely based on the above numbers, although there are 4 more FBS teams this year. It'll be interesting to see what happens. I've been saying all along this is our year for a bowl.

If anyone has pics of the completed span of the bridge that would be really cool.